---------------Original Message---------------
     What are the copyright responsibilities of an
architectural firm
that publishes images of their projects that include,
prominently, pieces
of public art for which the artist retains copyright.  That
is, do they
have a legal obligation, or even a moral obligation to
mention the artist
of the prominent piece?
     Diane Brenner, Anchorage Museum


----------End of Original Message----------

Diane:
I posted your question to a copyright list.  No response. I think you've got 'em on
this one...

My inclination is to think that there is questionable legal obligation. Buildings
viewable to the public may be photographed without violating any copyright the
architect holds, and if I'm not mistaken the same
may apply to works of outdoor public sculpture in public-civic settings: I
know this has come up before, I just can't find the !@#$%^*& reference...  In the
sort of situation you describe, I think the architectural firm is certainly not
gaining anything by not mentioning the artist's name, etc.  Such mention can only
add to the status of their work... (unless everyone hates the work of art in
question...!)

In other words, if persuasion is needed, an argument might be won on "PR" rather
than legal terms.

Think of it this way: if they were specifically copying the artist's work and
selling copies of it (e.g. a poster of the work), the story would be quite
different.

(The above is an educated guess, not a legal opinion.)

-------------------------------------
amalyah keshet
head of visual resources, the israel museum, jerusalem
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
date: 02/05/97
visit our web site at http://www.imj.org.il
-------------------------------------