Re: droit de suite

On 04/05/2000, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> But the owner of a painting DOES currently have the legal right
> to "forbid others to see it, [and] forbid photos being taken or
> reproduced."

In New York, the right to make reproductions rests with the artist, unless conveyed separately. A private owner shouldn't really be forced to open his home to the public or be inconvenienced simply because he owns a famous painting that people might want to see. My guess is that most collectors, however, cooperate with scholars because they perceive this to be in their own interest. In books, I often see photos of paintings labeled with the notation that the work is in a "private collection" (owner's name not provided).

Occasionally, it can be sticky. I want to send a photographer to photograph a piece of sculpture that a museum has in storage. The museum has been stalling for some time, and I think they don't want to be bothered. I have a photo of the piece, but it isn't a good enough photo. The museum hasn't asserted any wish to keep me from having the piece photographed, and I don't think they would. My guess would have been that the right lay with me, that as executor I have the right to have the piece photographed. Or, maybe a better guess, that no law really covers the situation.

Do you have any citations on the issue of whether an owner has a legal right to prevent reproduction? Say a collector acquires a well-known painting that has already been reproduced in many books. It doesn't make sense that the collector's wishes would be binding on the publishers of the books--that he could, say, demand a recall of the books.

My guess is that we're talking about a range of activities. No collector has to allow anyone with a camera to come into his home to photograph a piece of art. But that's not art law. That's just anyone's right to control who comes into his or her home. A perceived or actual "right" to prevent photographing means very little if the collector wants to buy insurance for the painting and the insurance company wants to take a photo for its files. And since the collector most likely doesn't have the reproduction rights, his perceived or actual rights may come into conflict with those of others.

My guess is that this area is ruled more by custom, with not too much attention to what the law is.

pat sloane
<patsloane[_at_]aol.com> Received on Wed Apr 05 2000 - 11:39:18 GMT