Re: Bye Bye First-Sale Doctrine (WIPO bill)

[Clarification of my last note regarding Section 417 of H.R. 2281]

I wrote:
>
> On a trip to Paris, a Californian art collector purchases a
> legally made copy of a 1980 painting by a New York artist. With
> Section 417, wouldn't the collector have to seek out and get the
> permission of the U.S. copyright holder in order to legally bring
> the painting home?

The act of importing should not in itself expose the collector to liability but once she wants to re-sell the work in the U.S., liability would trigger, right?

I also wrote:
>
> Is the answer the same if the collector purchased the original
> painting in Paris? If so, won't this be a huge headache for the
> exchange of special museum exhibits or do such exchanges already
> involve communication with copyright holders?

I would expect that museum exhibits would not be a problem unless the works were actually sold, leased or donated while in the U.S. (e.g. possession changed hands). But exchanges between U.S. museums would be trickly if any of the works exchanged had been originally distributed by the U.S. copyright holder overseas... Is anyone else confused by this?

Laurel

     Laurel Jamtgaard
     Policy Analyst to:
     Association of Research Libraries 
     Special Libraries Association
       202.296.2296  FAX:202.872.0884   laurelj[_at_]arl.org