Laitman, Elizabeth X. wrote:

>      I wonder what other museum folk think about the status of living
>      photographers (in the prime of their career, no less) selling their
>      "copyright/ rights."


Cindy Sherman just sold the remaining set of her "Untitled Movie Stills"
series to the Museum of Modern Art in New York. When I read about it I
didn't think to wonder what it was she sold the museum. A set of prints
or the negatives and the rights to print from them? If the museum wants
to use the images in a catalogue or on a postcard do they copy the print
or go to the negative? If the negatives still exist Sherman or the
museum could theoretically create another set of prints though they seem
to consider the series as a limited edition.

Corbis might be an example of a kind of "for profit museum". They seem
to be conducting themselves like a museum: collecting, preserving and
exhibiting. They also have the means to hire well-qualified
professionals to at least act as consultants to projects. Looks like, at
least in the area of photography, the difference may hinge on copyright.
The Library of Congress handles public domain, companies such as Corbis
handle protected material as well as commercial archives.

BTW: The Senate is deciding whether to move the copyright office from
the LOC to the executive branch. I haven't heard if anything has come of
this but the wind seems to be blowing in that direction even if it may
not come about this time around. I'm sure the major controllers of
rights will base campaign contributions on that expectation.


--
ROBBIN MURPHY, creative director, artnetweb
[log in to unmask]  -- http://artnetweb.com
426 Broome Street, NYC 10013  212 925-1885
WORK: http://artnetweb.com/murph/work/