Re: Photos of National Gallery Paintings

On Thu, Dec 30, 1999, Robert A. Baron <rabaron[_at_]pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/22/99, Don Roemer <droe2[_at_]earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 18, 1999, Robert Panzer <bigbusie[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think Robert Baron is correct in his assertion that photographs
> > > of public domain art held by governmental or quasi-governmental
> > > institutions (which are staffed by government employees) are in the
> > > public domain. Further, I believe the Bridgeman case would apply
> > > even if the above would not.
> > >
> > > This copyright question is crucial because many museums are interested
> > > in perpetually controlling copyright in the pd works they own by
> > > controlling access to reproduce the works. First, they usually will
> > > not let you set up your tripod and shoot the work at the museum.
> > > Second, by claiming copyright in their photo of it, and then
> > > contractually binding the borrower of the photo (presuming their photo
> > > is the only good one on the market -- which is not uncommon), the
> > > museum controls all reproductions of a pd work. I believe this is an
> > > unethical and possibly illegal activity. The question is, which is
> > > stronger, the property right or the right of the public to assert
> > > its public domain rights?
> >
> > I'd like to hear your theory of law as to the practice being illegal.
>
> By controlling all access to the public domain elements in their works,
> museums may be guilty of monopolistic practices, restraint of trade and
> acting contrary to other fair market legislation.
>
> The only way out of this dilemma would be to grant reasonable access to
> works for private photography or to uphold the rights that the Bridgeman
> decision seems to be establishing. It is unlikely that museums will
> ever grant unfettered access to their works, from a security standpoint
> and out of their responsibility to preserve and safeguard the physical
> condition of their holdings. In that case, in my opinion, Bridgeman
> doesn't go far enough. In one form or other the public is owed the
> public domain. When a public domain work is purchased or when a
> holdings fall into the public domain, not the physical work but the
> artistic and creative essence of that work becomes public property.
> Think of the public interest in the public domain as an easement
> granted on private property.

   You certainly have a broad view of "public domain." A rather socialistic one at that. Public domain shouldn't mean that the public owns it, but rather, as the law allows, there is no longer any copyright in the work.

   In your view, if I had a newly discovered Monet hanging in my hallway that anyone and everyone should have access to it -- because it belongs to the "public." NOT!!!

   If I were to find a theory in your missive I suppose it would be "Let's kill Don and steal his s**t" Thankfully the USA was founded on [private] property rights and hopefully will stay that way for a while longer.

Don Roemer
<droe2[_at_]earthlink.net> Received on Sun Jan 02 2000 - 04:59:04 GMT