RE: Artists, Museums & Copyright??

Greetings--

It seems to me that if the author _gave_ the painting to the museum, then the museum is the owner of a particular copy. Moreover, under the 1909 Act, the transfer of the physical copy may have transferred the common-law copyright as well. A lot depends on whether this work has a copyright notice, whether this work was registered (and by whom), when the work was created, whether the copyright was renewed, and whether 'display' was publication without notice under the '09 act (I don't know the answer off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are those on this list that do). Anyway, you get the idea--there are a number of questions that need to be answered that depend on the particular facts surrounding the donation.

If the heirs are, in fact, being aggressive, then I strongly urge you to contact the university's lawyer who should be able to review whatever paperwork there is, old editions of the catalog, et cetera, and advise you on what your rights are and how best to respond.

Best of luck.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org [mailto:owner-cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of Christine L. Sundt
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 12:32 PM To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Artists, Museums & Copyright??

This is a scenario that reflects some copyright concerns of a large group of
individuals and institutions that work with images of art:

In 1956 an artist gave a painting to a museum and over the years that painting has been continuously displayed and published in the museum's catalogs. The gift was not accompanied by any formal paperwork that transferred copyright, but in the spirit of the times, this was assumed. The agreement between the artist and the museum was more or less standard
practice for the time - a gentleman's handshake, a nod, or whatever, in place of a document that defined the understanding between the artist as copyright owner and the museum.

The artist died in 1985 and now his heirs manage his estate. The heirs are
aggressive about managing their father's rights as an artist and have now
started tracking down the museums that own his works.

What is the legal status of the implied consent between the artist and the
museum that occurred when the work was given to the museum? Does the repeated display and publication that occurred in the past (during the artist's lifetime) establish circumstantial evidence that there was implied
consent on the part of the artist? Could one argue the implied consent of
transfer of copyright or, short of copyright, that the artist's consent allows the museum to continue to use the work in displays and publications
without further compensation (royalties) paid to the artist's legal heirs?
Finally, does 'publication' of art depend on having an artist's formal consent to publication to be considered valid?

Would the facts produce different outcomes if the artist were foreign-born,
let's say from France, rather than from the U.S.A.?

As always, the wisdom and insights of this group are greatly appreciated.

Christine L. Sundt
Visual Resources Collection
Architecture & Allied Arts Library
Lawrence Hall, Room 300
5249 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-5249 - USA

Phone: 541-346-2209
FAX: 541-346-2205 csundt[_at_]oregon.uoregon.edu
http://libweb.uoregon.edu/aaa/vrc/VRCinfo.html Copyright & Art Issues: http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/cweb.htm Received on Mon Sep 23 2002 - 14:25:02 GMT