On 6/2/98, Patrick Begos <begos[_at_]molton.com> wrote:
>
> First, there are additional protections given to visual arts by
> the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA). It applies to works
> created after 1990 (or sold by the artist after 1990), and allows
> them to enjoin any distortion of their work that may damage their
> reputation. Some artists might consider photographs and computer
> images to be distortions.
I don't believe it matters in this instance what the artists, bless their little creative/proprietary hearts, consider. Here is the relevant language from 106A:
"[T]he author of a work of visual art--
(3) . . . shall have the right--
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation."
17 U.S.C. section 106A(a)(3)(A).
Okay, so far, so good, but here is the applicable exception in subsection (c):
"(3) [A]ny such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a)."
I would think that a digitized picture would be a reproduction of the work and could not be considered a distortion, at least not legally.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:30 GMT