Re: Photos of National Gallery Paintings

On Thu, 30 Dec 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.

And public domain works of art in private collections? Could a private collector be accused of monopolistic practices, restraint of trade, etc., for controlling access to these works? What about a corporate collection?

Amalyah Keshet
Head of Visual Resources
The Israel Museum, Jerusalem
<akeshet[_at_]netvision.net.il> Received on Mon Jan 03 2000 - 19:07:04 GMT