---------------Original Message---------------

Our Curator called the offending architect and they said that
people take
pictures of their buildings all the time and never mention
them, so they
don't feel any need to mention the artist on their stuff.

There is one copyright lawyer in Anchorage - he has a 6 year
old and a 9
year old, his wife died in June, and his back just went out.
I told him
we needed to do a little business, and he asked nicely if it
could wait.
Maybe another time we'll follow this issue.

Thanks for your interest.
    Diane Brenner


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

The architect is off the mark.  The law regarding photographing & reproducing images

of buildings visible from public space differs from the law regarding the copying
and reproducing of art works.

The lawyer will soon be back in the swing, and then you can pursue it.

One other point interests me: the 1% law.  I don't know that much about it -- only
that it is a fabulous idea that should be adopted in every country (!) -- but it
might be worth the trouble to actually obtain a copy and *read* it.  It's only
logical that there would be a clause or two in it relating to the artist's
copyright... and that would be *very* relevant to your case.

-------------------------------------
amalyah keshet
head of visual resources, the israel museum, jerusalem
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
date: 02/14/97
visit our web site at http://www.imj.org.il
-------------------------------------