The notion that photographs are sufficiently "original" to have their own
separate copyright even if they are straight on-copies, may well be true in
most of Europe.  In the US however, there was a recent ruling on just this
issue.  In Bridgeman v. Corel
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm), a US court
held that there is NOT sufficient originality in a photo of a
two-dimensional work of art for the photo to qualify for its own copyright.

The way museums can control against reproductions of their works is to limit
photography by patrons.  But if the work is in the public domain (which
means everyone can legally do whatever they want with the image), should
museums (especially those which are public funded) be in the business of
using access to create a de facto copyright for themselves?  Yes, unfettered
access means the works may be used in ways deemed inappropriate by a museum;
and credits, color, etc. may be compromised.  This however, must be balanced
by the right of the public to make derivative versions which may be of even
greater interest to the public.  I think most of us can agree that there
have been many brilliant adaptations of Shakespeare's works.  Without the
public domain, they could not legally exist.

This is one of those situations where there is clearly merit to both sides.

Sincerely,

Robert Panzer

VAGA
350 Fifth Avenue
Suite 6305
New York, NY  10118
tel. 212 736 6666
fax. 212 736 6767
E-mail. [log in to unmask]




----- Original Message -----
From: "Trevor Reynolds" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Reproduction and ownership


Candace

From what you say, the originals are out of copyright (under European
copyright law, broadly speaking things come out of copyright 70 years after
the death of the author/artist).  However it is generally accepted that
photographs (even those whose intention is merely to copy the original) are
sufficently 'original' to have their own copyright (the expiry of which
would then be 70 years after the death of the photographer).  So if a
publisher wants to use your photograph of the object they need your
permission to reproduce the photograph.

As owner of the object you have the right and ability to control access to
the object and to grant access to the object subject to certain terms and
conditions.  I assume, for example, that you don't allow visitors to come in
and photograph them themselves.  You could add to your normal access
conditions something like 'visitors must not paint or draw on the premises'.

The converse can also be true, I have at home a number of contemporary
artworks, there is no question that I own these pictures but I have no
rights to reproduce them because the copyright remains with the artist (or
course the artist can't come and photograph the originals now without my
permission).



Trevor Reynolds
Collections Registrar, English Heritage
Room G01, 23 Savile Row, London, W1S 2ET, UK
tel: +44 (0)20 7973 3482 fax: +44 (0)20 7973 3001 (GTN  3503 3482)

>>> schwenkfelder library & heritage center
<[log in to unmask]> 05/31 4:46 pm >>>
Greetings everyone:

I know this has been rehashed several times, but I'd like to throw it out
again because we have had a very specific situation arise.  Our institution
owns and will regularly exhibit (since our new facility is completed) a
magnificant collection of fraktur (PA German illuminated manuscripts).  With
the great interest in early American decorative arts and folk art right now,
many artists are looking at our images (and those that belong to other
institutions, I'm sure) and reproducing them.  Recently an artist's repro of
one of our pieces was published in a national magazine as her work.

This artist states that she and fellow artists (as she says, everyone does
it) believe these works to be in the public domain and are free game for any
one to copy.  We of course feel that we must control these very valuable and
important images.  I have a  fair acquaintance with copyright law for photos
and recent works of art, and I believe because we own these images we have
the right to say what may be done with them.  We have had small museums who
are self-publishing books for very limited distribution go through the
formal application process to use photographic images from our collection --
why is this different?  The artist claims the work is not precisely the
same.  In print, however, it looks exactly like our piece, so do her minor
alterations make it okay to reproduce without even so much as a phone call
to us?  The kicker is that she says she doesn't make much money off of the
repros, but that's always the same old story. I'd very interested in what
anybody thinks -- artists who are lurking please let me know your thoughts,
or how you have handled this situation.

Candace Perry
Schwenkfelder Library & Heritage Center

_________________________________________________________________
This e-mail is intended solely for the above-mentioned recipient
and it may contain confidential or privileged information. If you
have received it in error, please notify us immediately and delete
the e-mail. You must not copy, distribute, disclose or take any
action in reliance on it.

English Heritage
Telephone 020 7973 3000
Facsimile 020 7973 3001
_________________________________________________________________

===================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help"
(without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).