Re: Art Work Photos on the Library Homepage

From: Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 13:42:54 -0700

On 6/2/98, Paul Jones <pjones[_at_]sunsite.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> On 98-06-01, Victoria Tsai <vicky_tsai[_at_]cpcc.cc.nc.us> asks:
> >
> > Our Library is considering taking digital photographs of the art
> > works on campus (these are mostly student art works the College has
> > purchased.) The authors of some of these art works are no longer
> ^^^^^^^^^
> > known to us due to incomplete records. We do not think the artists
> > signed any release form at the time of the transactions.
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1. If we put these photos on our web page, does it
> > violate copyright law?
>
> Since the college is now owner of the work, the rights of the original
> artists are nearly non-existant. the purchased work--and copyright--are
> now the property of the college. the keyword here is "purchased" with
> no contract, the artists might only exert "moral rights" to the work,
> which in the US are extremely weak.

This is incorrect. Copyright vests initially in the creator of the work and remains with the creator unless licensed or transferred. The university may purchase the tangible object in which the work is embodied, but it may only acquire copyright ownership through a transfer, and a transfer requires a signed writing. See 17 U.S.C. section 104. There is no hint of that in Vicky's question.

I might add that just because, as in this case, the work itself (as opposed to a lawful copy of the work) is purchased does not change the analysis. Note that "copy" includes both what we would consider copies *and* the original embodiment of the work. See 17 U.S.C. section 101.

---

Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
UCLA School of Law '98
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1206/

---

Received on Wed Jun 03 1998 - 20:41:40 GMT