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