On Fri, 22 Mar 1996 09:26:59 -0500  Melanie Solomon wrote:
>This is an update on the "situation" where an artist scheduled for a
>temporary exhibit had created a painting by virtually copying a
photograph >taken from a magazine, and on the responses I received
from museum-L and >others re. this situation. >

>It turns out that the artist spent the last few years working from
magazine >images.  In the beginning, she did ask a few people WHO WORK


IN rights and>permissions departments about copyright, but was told
that it was no problem >and to go ahead with her plans! > >The
publication of the brochure was halted just before printing.

 Whew!  I >then read up on  copyright law.  Artists' rights regarding
the original image >may not  apply when that artist/photographer is a
work-for-hire employee, or >where the image has been mass-produced for


widespread distribution.   It's all >very complicated, so I called on
Volunteer Lawyers for the  Arts (tel. >212-319-2787) for some advice.


They were clear in that  the magazine owned >the rights to the image,
and that it was not too  late to seek permission to >use it in a
painting (and thus to display  the painting in an exhibition, >etc.) >

>So, I tracked down the image and called the magazine, only to
discover that >they allow NO derivative works from their photos.  As
far as I'm concerned, >that puts an end to any question of displaying
the works.  Museum-l'ers >seemed fairly consistent in their stance
about not displaying such a >painting.  I was more surprised to hear
from others off-line who said that I >shouldn't worry about it--that
the magazine wouldn't and probably couldn't
>pursue a copyright infringement case.
>
>I have conflicting feelings about the whole thing.  Firstly, as
museum >professionals, we are responsible for protecting our
institutions (and >ourselves!!) from potential lawsuits.  This is not
about the right to display >controversial objects (which I support),
but about taking a chance that you >won't be sued for knowingly
breaking the law (which I clearly don't support). >
>
>My conflicts relate more to artistic expression.  It seems to me that

>
>copyright law is clear on the rights re. making money off of work,
>but still >does not adequately address the boundaries of what an
>artist--or a >corporation, or anyone--has a right to claim as solely

>theirs.  Is it >legitimate for someone to claim that no derivative
>artworks are permitted?  I >would hate to see artistic freedom
>stamped  out because the artist needs legal >permissions to interpret
>what  he/she sees. >

______________________________________________________________
Artistic freedom is hardly being stamped out. Artists do not need
legal permissions to interpret what they see.  They need legal
permission to COPY another artist's work.
-------------------------------------
Name: amalyah keshet
Director, Visual Resources, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem
E-mail: akeshet@imj.org..il
Date: 03/22/96

-------------------------------------