Re: Now for something completely different:

Derric Oliver <doliver[_at_]jazz.fantasyjazz.com> wrote:
>
> Here's my take on this topic (despite the various case citings):
>
> First of all, back to one of the questions from the original message:
>
> "Is 'Mr. Wilson' an infringer?"
>
> I'd say yes. Prior to the whether or not a copyright is abandoned, if
> 'Mr. Wilson' takes 'Aunt Matilda's' work out of the trash and represents
> it as his own, he's committing fraud/misrepresentation, false origin,
> a-la Lanham Act/Trademark Law?

Woops! Let me be a little clearer on this -- Mr. Wilson's Web site makes no claims of authorship. Mr. Wilson states that this is "found art"; i.e., he has picked painting out of the trash. He displays the originals in his Museum of Bad Art, and he has photographed the works, scanned the photos, and displays the photos on his Web site. Mr. Wilson has named the art and has "interpreted" it -- he decided what the painting was and named it based on that decision. No claim of authorship (or paintership) is made by Mr. Wilson.

> Secondly, isn't one of the 'magic rights' afforded to copyright owners
> the right to display (or as in this case, the right *not* to display)
> their copyrighted work? By throwing the work away and/or destroying it
> they've chosen not to display/publish it.

I understand that, under US law at least, the holder of a copyright in a painting has the exclusive right to control the public display of that painting. Thus, my question: If Aunt Matilda (or, more likely, her donee) threw the painting in the trash, is Mr. Wilson infringing the copyright holder's rights by scanning in a photo of the work and displaying the image on his Web site.

> As I see it, anyone other than the copyright owner who does so infringes
> on the copyright owner's exclusive rights.

That seems to follow from the act, but my question arises from the issue of having thrown the work away.

Sorry for the confusion about Mr. Wilson's claims. He makes no claims of any of the works being his own. (Nobody in his or her right mind _would_ claim these works as their own, by the way. A sub-topic is that since the works are of an unknown subject, Mr. Wilson's interpretations are more personally revealing than revealing of the artist's intent.)

Phil Stripling
philip[_at_]crl.com Received on Thu Jun 19 1997 - 16:34:38 GMT