I find it hard to believe that any copyright exists on an 18th century lantern, a patent (expired) perhaps,
but copyright... no. Copyrights on not issued for things such as lanterns. Images of a lantern drawn or
photographed, yes, a copyright may exist. It is highly unlikely that an image of it made prior to 1900
maintains a copyright. Copyrights do expire! Anyway, take you own photograph. Nonetheless, be assured that to
use someone else's image to create your reproduction is in no way an infringement of a copyright. You are not
reproducing the image, you are reproducing the lantern. The actual circumstances of your case is unclear to
me, but I share your outrage if the circumstances are as you describe. It is a spurious claim to deny you
access to study a lantern on an excuse of copyright. I would guess one of three things are going on here. 1)
The museum party you are involved with is ignorant of copyright law, 2) the party is threatened that you will
make a profit using its' asset, or 3) for some reason, the party is denying you access for personal reasons.
Education (or illumination:-) is the appropriate course for the first instance, negotiation for the second and
good luck for the third. As others have stated, a reasonable fee for access is appropriate depending on your
intention.
You do bring up an interesting moral issue. Museums do 'own' marketable assets. Few museums are in a position
to market those assets beyond there academic mission. Thus, when an interested party comes along who wants to
'profit' from the non-profit, what's to be done. There is no question that museums need new sources of income
and should capitalize on opportunities. In general, museums grant free access for scholarly research and
subsequent publications. Museums do charge for the use of images either made from their collections or
reproducing images that are part of their collections for 'profit' based publications. In the case of 'profit'
based reproductions, a license agreement is appropriate. I can see a lucrative agreement for 'one-of-a-kind'
things (i.e. Tuts death mask), but for common appliances (i.e. 18th century lanterns) it would be difficult
for a museum to dictate a high licensing fee.
It is a matter of negotiation at this point. What are your intentions. Are you going to market reproduction
lanterns based on the museums example? Are you going to market a lantern based on several lanterns that you
have studied from several museums? Are you making one lantern as an artistic exercise? In the case of the
first question, you will probably use the authenticity of the original as a marketing advantage, perhaps even
citing the museum. In such a case, in my opinion, the museum deserves credit and remuneration. In the second
and third case the museum may deserve limited recognition, but no remuneration.
If greed is the issue, take care not to throw stones to hastily. Both parties have a right to look out for
their respective interests. Museums have an obligation to provide access to their collections, but also to
protect their collections and their interests. If you are seeking to make a profit by exploiting your local
museum and not offering them the respect and credit they deserve, take care lest greed possess you.
Terry Vidal
T W Moran wrote:
>
> "But I get very tired of hearing arrogant museum people sniffing that
> great art or important historic artifacts rightfully "belong" in
> museums.
> My apologies to the list but here in lies one of the great plagues of
> my life.
> I am a working metal smith, reproducing 18th century and earlier items.
> I have long contended that as we are a human collective, that which is
> our collective heritage belongs to all.
> Art or artifacts held privately or in museums should not be the sole
> property of any one or any organization.
> I find the ownership of intellectual rights by any one other than the
> person who created the work to be an offense.
> That I may be sued by a museum for reproducing a lantern common to the
> 18th century, just because they have one in there collection is to me
> ludicrous.
> That I am denied access to collections because I am not a serious
> student ( I only have 50+ hours of studio art over a Bachelors in
> Business administration { RIT-1970 } and have been making museum
> reproductions for only 20 years.)
> Art and history have to be shared will every one, with out some one
> else deciding whether they have the right to it.
> I will probably get blasted for this post, but having been an
> educator/renactor I just get frustrated beyond belief at not having
> access to information, or not being allowed to make things that were in
> common use because of threatened law suites.
> Tw
>
> =========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
>
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
>
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TAG - YOU'RE 'IT'
Terry Vidal
Collections Manager
University Museum
University Of Northern Iowa
[log in to unmask]
http://www.uni.edu/museum
If you can read this YOU'RE close enough.
_______________________________________________________________________
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
