It is not clear from your post if you are referring to public domain works, copyrighted works, or both. In light of the subject line, I proceed on the assumption that your post focuses on the public domain works.
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Martha Utterback <mutterback[_at_]drtl.org> wrote:
>
> As we keep saying, why does no one else seem concerned about safeguarding
> the integrity of the images through copyright or other controls? Why not
> care about paintings reproduced in misleading cropped formats, colorized
> versions of black and white photographs, images of specific scenes and
> places used to illustrate other scenes or places, and other instances of
> misuse of artists' and photographers' intents?
I don't see that way. It is the transformation that is operating and it seems that you are against all or most kinds of transformation. Also, you seem to forget that artists and photographers are transformers as well.
> And why isn't there some concern for the source of the image? -- the museum
> or other repository that brought in a photographer, struggled with him to
> get a good image, spent time and resources to take care of both the
> original and the photograph of it, and which handles the paperwork,
> labelling, packaging and shipping, and provides detailed and accurate
> credit lines and information to the users of the image ... all to see it
> often enough misused, misrepresented, not credited, and not paid for in any
> way?
Museums are not supposed to be houses of moneymakers. They are supposed to be stewards of arts for the public good. In your scenario, all the museum has to do is to charge the photographer a reasonable one-time fee to cover all expenses, labor, and storage.
> If images are used without concern for their relation to the original, and
> if they are used without crediting the owner and creator, no one who sees
> them is likely to be able to get a true copy -- they won't know the source
> -- or even know what the originals looked like. If images are simply
> copied and reproduced in any way a designer wishes, then re-copied and
> re-used as another designer wishes, as generations of copies eventually
> leach the reproduced image of the elements that make up the original, who
> will know, down the line, how the work of the artist or the photographer
> really looked?
Apparently, you don't appreciate the freedom of transformation in arts.
> What right have writers and publishers to use an artist's or a
> photographer's work without paying for it and without using it accurately?
It is like saying what rights people have in practicing their religions. The answer is no rights. They have the freedom to practice their religions. Likewise, the writers and publishers have the freedom to use the public domain works without paying for them.
A more appropriate question to ask is: What rights do museums have in imposing controls over the public domain works of artists and photographers?
> Artists, photographers, and repositories ought to share in the profits of
> the publication of their images. Where is the originating respository
> going to find the funds to take care of the original without collecting
> users' fees? ...
Apparently, it is okay for artists and photographers to be free of their obligation in providing their funds for storage of their public domain works in museums. There are different ways that museums can collect money such as fundraising, volunteers, grants, donations, admission fees, merchandise, etc.
Imposing perpetual copyright-like control on uses of the public domain images is morally wrong. It is utterly abhorrent to take away from people the freedom to copy, distribute, and build new works upon the public domain works.
> ... Who protects the image the artist or photographer created and
> the repository maintains? Not the writer; not the publisher; never the
> designer!
Artists and photographers are not exception.
I don't like to say this but you do sound more like a censor - deciding how, when, where, how often, for what price one can use pubic domain works - instead of curator.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>
Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 5,965
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Sun Sep 01 2002 - 23:34:39 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:46 GMT