Re: Fine Art Reproductions

On 4/3/99, Bernard Katz <bkatz[_at_]uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> The decision in Bridgeman vs. Corel cited by Tyler Ocha is very
> interesting tome in that I believe it would have taken considerable
> skill and technical expertise to render the copy image so close in
> colour, (hue, intensity, etc.) to the original. Isn't that an
> arguement for consideration as NOT being mere sweat of the brow?

Whereas it is possible to reproduce a "text" exactly, it is impossible to create an exact simulacrum of a visual work of art. There will always be a difference between the original and the copy. The relevant question is this: Are these differences purposeful and representative of some original view of the copyist, or are they due to inherent limitations, faults and/or imperfections in the reproductive process? If these differences are due the former, then, I'd say that the copy is copyrightable, if the latter, then there is no originality.

But the answer will always be a judgement call. When a photographer takes as his subject architecture or sculpture, it is clear that he must interpret his subject. When a photographer in a studio takes as his subject a two-dimensional image -- a painting, for example -- his opportunity to be creative is circumscribed by the conventions of the photographic studio. Yet, there are many interpretive choices to be made in such "objective" photographic sessions. These include choice of film, type and strength of lighting, position of lights, filtration and color balance, contrast, etc. Clearly, the results of one photographer will differ from the results of another -- given the same subject.

Are these differing results the consequence of different "world views," indicative of different stylistic predilections? They may be. But do we judge the imposed differences as creative additions and interpretations, or do we see the differences as a kind of technical failure?

The Bridgeman decisions, I think, assume rightly that the differences between original and photographic reproduction, are inherent to the process, and are not conscious or purposeful efforts to reinterpret and to add something new to the objects before the camera.

I think that we are correct in calling these copies "non-originals," even while we reserve the possibility at some future date to say something like: "Aha, these copies are clearly representative of post-modern reproductive styles and techniques, and are undisputable evidence of the need for the late 20th century art public to de-contextualize the work of art from its moment of creation, from its history of placement and from its tactile tangibility, yatta, yatta, yatta."

Robert Baron
rabaron[_at_]pipeline.com Received on Mon Apr 05 1999 - 14:20:49 GMT