---------------Original Message---------------
(snip)

As long as we have the concept of the public domain, I think that we
should
abide by the spirit in which it was invented and relinquish claims of
control that should not be supported.

(snip)

A little editorial comment: We all wish museums to prosper and receive
sufficient (or better) funds to use to fulfill their various mandates,
and
we all can sympathize with the need to develop whatever income they can
out
of their holdings.  But isn't it a shame that these works -- works which
are hold in trust for civilization -- works that are no longer
copyrightable -- should be held for ransom by the very institutions in
which they have been deposited to manifest this destiny.

Robert A. Baron

----------------End of Original Messgae---------------

Let's look at it this way:  a needlepoint-producer comes to the museum (any
museum) and sees the potential for creating a product which can be produced and
sold for profit.  He/she purchases a photograph from the museum, from which he/she
can work in  creating his commercial product. (No repro rights fee, because the
photo is not being reproduced.) Great.  All's fair.  Public domain,
and all that.  What's the problem?  Not copyright, not public domain --
simply put, the museum has (typically) missed an opportunity.   And the
accumulation of these missed opportunities is one of the factors which keep museums
in deficit, begging for  "hand-outs", and unable to  cope with evaporating
government and donor support.

Now, let's imagine this scenario:  the museum, instead of just selling the
needlepoint producer a photo for, say, $10,  was -- and this is an important point
-- smarter than the client.    Businesses are successful and make money by being
smarter than their clients, as  crass as that may sound: they create a market in
which the client *needs* the  supplier.  Museums are notorious for being, well, not
too smart when it comes to what anyone else wouldn't hesitate to call "business."
That's why lots of companies are making lots of money off of products which they may

have every legal right to produce -- but which museums could have been the ones to
produce, or license, and profit from -- if they'd been smart.

In the case at hand, the museum could have had in place a system (or even a sister
company) for licensing use  of its collections for commercial products.  Keep in
mind that public museums are  responsible for keeping collections "in the public
trust" and "for public  instruction," but NOT for private benefit.  Creating a
commercial product and  selling it is private benefit, not "the public good,"  and
if anyone  should be thinking about producing or licensing these products, it should
be the  museum:  in order to direct (notice I didn't say "control") what sort &
quality of  products evolve from their collections, and in order to make money which
then can be plowed back into the museum's cultural/educational activities (as
required for  non-profit status).

If the museum has a licensing office, it can provide the needlepoint producer not
only with a $10 photo, but with the right to use the museum's name in marketing the
product, historical/interpretive material to accompany the product & increase it's
value, professional (curatorial) consulting regarding authenticity, and an outlet
for sales & promotion: the museum's gift shop, newsletter,  etc.  Obviously, all
this costs the producer more than $10.  In other words, the  museum has made money,
not only the producer.   And, if the issue of "controlling access" to collections
bothers you, the licensing mechanism, which basically controls access to the
museum's name & reputation of authority, may seem more palitable.

Yes, anyone can come along, sketch the (public domain) embroidery in the gallery,
produce a  needlepoint kit inspired by or based on it, and sell it.  The museum
cannot stop  this, nor should it.  It should however encourage the production of
products which  help it, the museum, earn income and maintain its cultural
importance (in the  broadest sense: and here I include creating a market, creating a
need -- or just  recognizing that market/need when it already exists!).

Because if it doesn't, one day its collections may not be accessible at all
to sketchers and needlepoint enthusiasts...and museum consultants...and
opinionated museum types from abroad!

-------------------------------------
amalyah keshet
head of visual resources, the israel museum, jerusalem
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
date: 02/24/97
visit our web site at http://www.imj.org.il
-------------------------------------