>        There are a few specific instances that the museum is
>seeking advice for dealing with copyright.  The I.U. Art Museum is interested
>in posting images of a Stuart Davis painting and a Picasso painting on its
>website (the current site URL is http://www.indiana.edu/~iuam).  I understand
>that for post- 1978 art copyright is held by the individual artist
>and not by the holding institution.

General rule of thumb: copyright is almost always held by the artist or
his/her heirs, during the artist's lifetime and up to 70 years after the
artist's death (50 in the US), and almost never by the holding institution.
 "Post 1978" is a phrase relevant only in the US. When dealing with use on
the Web, you're dealing with images internationally.


>Have you written to the artist or their estate for images which you have used
>on a museum website?

In principle, one must. Like thumbnail illustrations on a museum's monthly
calendar, thumbnail images on a website are part of the routine functioning
of a museum, but it's still reproduction and distribution.  It's best to
have artists' signed understanding to these "routine" uses.

> Have you as an institution been charged for permission to
>reproduce an image on your website?

Not yet, but it wouldn't come as a surprise, especially regarding Picasso.

>Does this fee (or lack of one) depend
>on image screen resolution?

Size and resolution, and the time it will be up (one month, one year, etc.)
are the usual pricing factors.

 >Also, do you use a standard form when purchasing modern works of art to
>purchase copyright along with it?

It's difficult to come up with a standard form for this, as each case is
different. Sometimes you don't intend to purchase the entire copyright (nor
might the artist be willing to sell it), but parts relevant to the museum.


>One final question:  when displaying an image on your website, what is
>a standard policy for identifying copyright-- placing a copyright sign
>with the artist's name, using a watermark seal over the image itself?

Depends on what the artist/copyright agency requires.  A watermark can
"spoil" the image, but it gives greater "protection" if the image is
downloaded.  Actually, a copyright notice can be part of the image file,
but not literally on the image, thereby downloading with the image. (There
are also companies developing software which prevents image files from
being downloaded from the server. I've got the literature, but haven't seen
the thing in action.)  Usually, in the case of a museum website, the
copyright notice is the relevant thing.

>            * * * * * * *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ * * * * * * *
>             *         Caroline Louise Seigel             *
>            *   School of Library & Information Science  *
>             *           Indiana University               *
>            *           [log in to unmask]              *
>            * * * * *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ * * * * *
>
amalyah keshet
head of visual resources, the israel museum, jerusalem
[log in to unmask]
fax: +972-2-670-8064
visit our web page: www.imj.org.il