Just to clarify--I would never license anything without owning the copyright to it, or being reasonably sure the item is out of copyright.  The negatives of this collection were purchased for us from the photographer, and came with the photographer's copyright. 
 
Of course, we occasionally lose a sale because I am not allowed to guarantee that we own copyright on anything.  That's the purchaser's problem.  I'll help all I can to locate the owner, or establish that all copyright has terminated, but I will not "indemnify" anyone against lawsuits by copyright holders.
 
The fact that the case I cited below doesn't involve licensing means that the artist has no protection of in case one of the pictures he copies turns out to have an active copyright that I don't know about.  I suppose the licensing would provide a bit of protection for both individuals in the transaction, showing a good faith effort to determine who holds rights. 
 
Erin Foley
 
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Randy Little
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [MUSEUM-L] Copyright

use of any recognizable piece of an image is a copyright issue.  If I can tell its from my work and its in your work and you didn't get my permission there is going to be an issue.   Especially if its my loaned work from your museum.    Remember just because you have the piece even it if it Given to you the copyright has not been given to you unless in writing.  Applies only to work that would still have copyright.    I have some work in a museum in NYC.   They own the piece.   I own the copyright.   If they let someone use my work as inspiration and the person using my work copies it enough I can tell and they haven't ask permission There is going to be a head rolling somewhere. 

Randy S. Little
http://reel.rslittle.com
http://imdb.com/name/nm2325729/



On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Erin E Foley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I've been toying with the idea of a fee for people who use "parts" of something, like parts of our photographs, in an artistic work.  It's not copyright, as you note, because it's not an exact copy.  But still, the image is available for inspiration because we kept it safe and intact and made it available--that's an investment that made it possible for the item to be copied.  I believe we deserve to charge a use fee of some sort even when the image is cut up and only partly the same as the item in the collection.
 
This connects with a larger issue.  A professional painter was allowed to paint exact copies of photographs we own that were taken by a professional. These are great photographs, and show the photographer's mastery of the camera.  The painter adds color but he doesn't even crop the image in most cases, just paints an exact replica and adds color to it.  We charge licensing for the photos we sell for use in books, but the painter is not charged any sort of "use" fee, although he does donate a percentage of his profit to us for some sales.  Is anyone else doing something similar?  How do you protect your museum's investment in caring for items when they are being copied?
 
Erin Foley
 
Archivist
Circus World Museum
Baraboo, WI 
========================================================= 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).