>In talking with a designer about our problems getting good quality
>photographs of museum artifacts to use in our publications (we don't have
>a photographer on staff), the designer said she probably could get
>professional photographers to donate some time to take photos.   However,
>she continued, with the new copyright laws on photography, they will own
>the photograph and will want to sell them to catalogs.
>
>Has anyone run into this problem?  I realized that photography is covered
>under the copyright law, but I didn't realize that there is a market for
>photographs of individual artifacts.

I don't know the new copyright laws on photographs but any distinctive
image or object that is photographed is owned by the owner of the object,
not the photographer unless specific permission is given.  This is why
a lot of famous people do not allow photographs to be taken of them when
they can control it like in speaking engagements and appearances.  Out in
public you are fare game for having your image being used for news purposes
but not comercially.

I would think that would apply to your artifacts unless that is what has
changed which I don't think is what you are talking about.

What your friend might be saying is changed is that that anyone who takes
photographs owns the negatives but cannot use them without the
museum's permission.  This is opposed to rules that state
any images taken of museum property become museum property.  If you are in a
public museum, funded by public money, that might be different.

You can always get the photographer to sign over rights of the pictures to
the museums which is what they do all the time anyway.  THen the negatives
become yours and you can do anything you want with them.

In any case, I'd be interested in hearing what the new laws are.

Deb