MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Jack C. Thompson" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 3 Sep 1997 01:47:08 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (58 lines)
This is an interesting argument.  To deny authorship, to lie, becomes a
Moral Right.

An artist can, then, in good faith sell a creation knowing that it will
self destruct in a reasonably short time (if we're talking centuries
entropy will take care of things and this argument has no significant
value).

The owner, corporate or individual, then owns the artifact and any rights
of reproduction, including, for instance, a series of images showing the
degradation and dissolution of the artifact.  The owner may also contract
for any level of conservation they are capable of paying for without fear
that the artist will complain (in court).  The conservator may, arguably,
claim copyright in their reconstruction of the artifact.  Morally.

The Lemon Law, as it applies to car manufacturers and such, clearly does
not apply to matters of art.  Probably.  But should it apply?

If a car manufacturer can be held liable for producing and selling
defective goods, why can't an artist be held liable for the same sort of
crime.  By extension, why can't a museum be held to account for spending
public dollars to purchase and/or house artifacts which are known to be
defective in their materials.

Interesting things, these Moral Rights.  Whose are they?

Jack

>Date:    Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:16:17 -0400
>From:    Greg Graham <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Artists disowning their work
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>The issue of Artists disowning their work has relation to the
>moral rights aspects of copyright.
>  Moral Rights confer the right to be identified as the author
>of a work, but also to deny authorship.
> As to restoration, (Canadian) copyright law is specific that an action in
>good faith to restore a work does not in and of itself constitute
>an infringement of moral rights. However good faith can be questioned
>if the artist had made it clear that a certain ageing or degradation of the
>physical artwork was intended.
>
>Greg Graham, [log in to unmask]
>Balandis Graham Consulting -- arts management
>Art Integrity -- Your Gallery on the Web    http://www.odyssee.net/~tom2/fine/
>Telephone (819) 684-3942

Jack C. Thompson
Thompson Conservation Lab
7549 N. Fenwick
Portland, OR  97217

voice/fax: 503/735-3942

www.teleport.com/~tcl/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2