This is an update on the "situation" where an artist scheduled for a
temporary exhibit had created a painting by virtually copying a photograph
taken from a magazine, and on the responses I received from museum-L and
others re. this situation.

It turns out that the artist spent the last few years working from magazine
images.  In the beginning, she did ask a few people WHO WORK IN rights and
permissions departments about copyright, but was told that it was no problem
and to go ahead with her plans!

The publication of the brochure was halted just before printing.  Whew!  I
then read up on copyright law.  Artists' rights regarding the original image
may not apply when that artist/photographer is a work-for-hire employee, or
where the image has been mass-produced for widespread distribution.  It's all
very complicated, so I called on Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts (tel.
212-319-2787) for some advice.  They were clear in that the magazine owned
the rights to the image, and that it was not too late to seek permission to
use it in a painting (and thus to display the painting in an exhibition,
etc.)

So, I tracked down the image and called the magazine, only to discover that
they allow NO derivative works from their photos.  As far as I'm concerned,
that puts an end to any question of displaying the works.  Museum-l'ers
seemed fairly consistent in their stance about not displaying such a
painting.  I was more surprised to hear from others off-line who said that I
shouldn't worry about it--that the magazine wouldn't and probably couldn't
pursue a copyright infringement case.

I have conflicting feelings about the whole thing.  Firstly, as museum
professionals, we are responsible for protecting our institutions (and
ourselves!!) from potential lawsuits.  This is not about the right to display
controversial objects (which I support), but about taking a chance that you
won't be sued for knowingly breaking the law (which I clearly don't support).


My conflicts relate more to artistic expression.  It seems to me that
copyright law is clear on the rights re. making money off of work, but still
does not adequately address the boundaries of what an artist--or a
corporation, or anyone--has a right to claim as solely theirs.  Is it
legitimate for someone to claim that no derivative artworks are permitted?  I
would hate to see artistic freedom stamped out because the artist needs legal
permissions to interpret what he/she sees.