In a message dated 01-02-01 22:41:48 EST, Shirley Albright wrote:

<< Make sure you work out in advance the copyright issues related to the
print and the negative.   We had a situation once where museum objects were
photographed by a person who held the negative in perpetuity.   Everytime we
needed a print we were at the mercy of his pricing
 structure and his time line etc. >>

This is an important point.  In my opinion, it's absolutely essential when a
museum engages an outside photographer to photograph collection objects that
the museum obtain all rights and ownership of the negatives.  In other words,
it should be a work-for-hire agreement.  While I am a strong proponent of
photographers' rights and sympathize with their efforts to protect their
creative achievements, there are many situations in which it just doesn't
make sense for them to retain copyrights and ownership of negatives and
transparencies.  It's important for museums to have full control of images of
their collection objects.  An agreement in which the photographer transfers
copyright and ownership of the work to the client will usually be more
expensive, and properly so, but it's worth it, for the reason cited above and
for a number of others.

Photographers have fought hard for recognition as creative artists and for
control of their copyrights, and as a photography curator I certainly support
their efforts.  They're well advised to avoid work-for-hire agreements in
photojournalism, advertising photography, and many other fields.  But I think
it's appropriate to separate or distinguish creative work from jobs which
simply require technical skills more than artistic panache.  Most flat-copy
photography of works of art and the straight photography of "3-dimensional"
museum artifacts is sufficiently routine and formulaic--even when technical
ingenuity is required to light and photograph difficult surfaces, textures,
and shapes--that there is minimal warrant for a photograher to retain
copyright. Museums should insist on work-for-hire agreements for photographs
of their artifacts.  Nevertheless, it would not be inappropriate for the
agreement to stipulate a photographer credit whenever an image is used or
reproduced.

Museum control of the image file assumes that the museum can also house and
retrieve the negatives and transparencies, which I strongly recommend.  If
the museum somehow cannot do this and the photographer has to provide storage
and continuing service, museum ownership of the file and copyrights may be
problematic. But what am I saying?!!  If a museum can house an artifact
collection, it ought to be able to figure out how to house and access a
library of surrogate images.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
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).