At 10:51 AM 2/17/97 -0500, patricia l roath <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>If a museum contracts with a designer/patternmaker to draft a pattern (in
>this case, a copy of a dress by an unknown tailor, c. 1885) and make a
>subsequent reproduction of that pattern, then the museum owns the pattern
>and the reproduction, as well as reproduction rights to images of the
>dress itself.  But do they own the copyright to the pattern that is
>drafted by the designer?  Or does the designer retain some rights?
> Secondly, what if the designer contracts with a museum to make a
>facsimile of a period garment--something used essentially as an
>interpreter's costume.  Who owns the copyright to the pattern?  Is the
>pattern considered in the same vein as a commissioned artwork?  In both
>cases, the contract simply states that the designer submit the finished
>work to the museum, and upon payment the work becomes the property of the
>museum.

The answers to these questions would depend, I would think, on how you
interpret the making of a reproductive design.  For any work to merit
copyright it must have some degree of originality; it cannot be a slavish
copy.  If the result is an exact copy of the original, then the design
should not be copyrightable, same some.  Others suggest that it is
impossible to create an exact copy and some degree of the copyist's
preferences must work their way in.  In this case the copy would be
copyrightable.

In any case, the work, commissioned by the museum, should be stipulated as
a "work for hire" so that the copyright will belong to the museum.

The above, of course, is not legal advice and should not be so construed.

================================================
Robert A. Baron (mailto:[log in to unmask])
P.O. Box 93, Larchmont, N.Y. 10538
Guest Editor, Visual Resources:
"Copyright and Fair Use: The Great Image Debate"
For table of contents see:
http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/vrcfu.htm
================================================