Re: Publishing an Infringement (again)

Robert A. Baron <rabaron[_at_]pipeline.com> wrote:

>

Your scenario presumes the museum has copyright in its photographic reproduction of a work of art. An important issue here is the legitamacy of a copyright of a photograph of a work of art. Assuming the photo is of a two dimensional work of art (by far most likely), it seems spurious to believe that the photo qualifies as a derivative copyright. There is not sufficient orginality in the photo to warrant a second copyright. It is a slavish reproduction defined by the technical parameters of photographic equipment and the skill or craftsmanship of a photographer. Nothing original has been done; there is only a change in media.

If the underlying work is protected by copyright by another rights holder, they must be contacted for permission. If it turns out however, that the museum is the only holder of a good quality photo reproduction, the museum essentially holds potential licensees and even the true rights holder hostage by controlling access to the image. Can a museum do this (especially one funded, even partially, by the public)? And if the original work is in the public domain, the museum is creating a perpetual copyright for itself by controlling access. This is a big issue right now between copyright holders and museums.

Bob Panzer
Executive Director
VAGA (Visual Artists and Galleries Association) Bigbusie[_at_]aol.com Received on Fri Jul 11 1997 - 02:16:21 GMT