Re: Book Store Catalogues

On 6/18/98, Hilary Cantwell <hilary[_at_]deakin.edu.au> wrote:
>
> On 6/16/98, Robert Baron <rabaron[_at_]pipeline.com> wrote:
> >
> > I receive catalogues from book stores that sell both old and new
> > books. These catalogues are frequently illustrated with images
> > taken from books that are still under copyright -- without the slightest
> > reference to the owner of the copyright or to permission received. Are
> > these reproductions infringements, or is there a loophole in IP law that
> > permits the reproduction of copyrighted images when the item carrying
> > them is for sale.
>
> In Australia, fine art auction houses were challenged recently for
> printing their beautiful glossy auction catalogues without getting
> permission from the copyright owners! I haven't followed it up, but
> I'm sure the auction houses wouldn't have a leg to stand on under
> Aust. copyright law.

Sure, but I think there is an exception in the US Copryight Act [do not have it at my fingertips at this instant, but I know it is there]. But, the auction houses do more than use the catalogs to sell the paintings, they actually derive substantial income from selling the catalog, and, sometimes, continue to use the images [frequently of very very high quality] after the works are sold in a variety of auction house publications.

There are also efforts to create catalogues of works offerred and sold at auctions with thumbnail images of the works. These types of works are actually of great importance, not only to those in the art trade, but to scholars. A lot of works are sold to private owners, and "diasppear" from the public archives. Some works are not even sold. Some works are fakes as well. Thus, the image catalogues are of great scholarly import.

I personally have a hard time finding the use of thumbnails in these works or even non-authorized catalogue raisonnes, to be violative of the original basis for the copyright -- which is to provide an incentive for creativity. But, museums who are trying to extract income which in no way benefits the original creator of the art, seem to want permissions even for thumbnails, and even black and white thumbnails.

But, no one really complains about what auction houses do, since these works by definition are not in the collection of museums (unless the museum is selling the work) and museums seem to be the chief lobby group on this issue.

But, my question which Robert Baron skirted around is when the museums print their catalogs, sell images, print posters for sale, and obtain fess for reproduction, in how many instances are they passing the fees or portions thereof on to the holders of the reproduction right. From what I gather, not all, because most museums operate on the misconception that if they own the painting, they own the reproduction rights.

Alan

Alan D. Sugarman
<sugarman[_at_]hyperlaw.com> Received on Fri Jun 19 1998 - 13:10:37 GMT