Re: Restrictions on publishing images of old paintings?

> The museums hold the rights to the work in their
> collections.

What I am trying to determine is the nature and legal underpinnings of the "rights" the museums generally assert. Clearly, if the copyright on the painting has expired, then where do these "rights" come from?

> Last year I assisted a colleague in obtaining permission
> from MOMA to use a slide of a Rousseau in its collection.
> We most certainly had to obtain clearance. MOMA further
> insisted that we purchase a slide from MOMA's own
> collection. MOMA seeks to avoid inferior reproductions of
> its paintings.

I suspect you are talking about Henri Julien Felix Rousseau (1844-1910), and not Pierre Etienne Rouseau (1812-1867) as the former has several paintings at MOMA, including:

	The sleeping Gypsy (1897);
	Jungle with a Lion (1904);
	The Dream (1910).

As you can see from the dates, none of these paintings should have any copyright protection today. So, I repeat, what is the basis of the museum's assertion of "rights" (other than to the physical copy they own)?

Why did you feel you needed permission (other than being polite)? My own knee jerk reaction to the matter, without having done any research, is that the museums only "right" is to deny access to the physical painting under their control in order to prevent some form of reproduction of their original. But what right do they have to prevent publication of an image already made and under the control of others?

> For more information, see, e.g., Marie C. Malaro, "A Legal
> Primer on Managing Museum Collections" (Smithsonian
> Institution Press 1985), p. 121, "Request for Permission to
> Reproduce Museum Holdings".

I do not have ready access to this title, so I have not yet seen what it has to say on this matter.

Sincerely
Henry Manaster Received on Tue Jan 25 1994 - 06:47:29 GMT