Grant Wood art

On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Robert Panzer <bigbusie[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> On 9 Apr 1999, John Noble <jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sympathetic to your argument, but if I used two different color
> > copiers to reproduce a Van Gogh, I suspect I would also see a
> > difference. Why isn't that copyrightable. If the choice of Kodak vs.
> > Fuji injects sufficient originality to merit copyright protection, why
> > not the choice between Xerox and Canon. And if that's the case, is
> > it ever possible to draw a principled distinction between a "slavish
> > reproduction" and an "original rendering" of a work of art. Seems
> > to me that every reproduction departs in some particular from the
> > original -- is there a legal significance in inadvertant vs.
> > intentional originality.
>
> Until we arive at some technology that produces exact duplicates of
> paintings, there is always going to be a difference between
> reproductions. Certainly a change in media - from a painting to a
> photograph or a photograph to a photocopy - is always going to change
> the appearance of the reproduction. But what is the point here? Even
> though the law uses the word "modicum" of originality, we must find a
> reasonable definition of originality.
>
> The intent certainly can be used to come to a more "accurate" or more
> likely conclusion of whether the reproduction is slavish or not, but it
> really does not seem to be the relevant point. I think the question
> that has to be asked is, Does the photograph look just like the original
> except for the changes inherent in the change in media? The debate of
> the nuances of intent and skill are not the issue. Changing media is
> not originality. What has the photographer added to the way the
> original looks?
>
> On April 10, 1999, Amalyah Keshet <akeshet[_at_]imj.org.il>, who works
> in a museum, wrote:
> >
> > It (a photo) cannot reproduce the work of art we're photographing; it
> > can only give an idea of it, represent it. We aren't after accuracy
> > in the sense of copying, reproducing, substitution or forgery, but we
> > try to capture the elements which will successfully translate into a
> > fair representation of the work when printed, in greatly reduced size,
> > on the printed page.
>
> As has been said, copying should not have to be an exact duplication
> to be considered copying. With the exception of a digital copy of a
> digital original, there is no such thing as a true copy (duplicate).
> Keshet's statement does not ring true to me. A photographer of a work
> of art, especially one who is shooting to create a photo which shall be
> used as a "template" to make further reproductions for publication,
> (i.e., what occurs at museums) is after "accuracy in the sense of
> copying..." The photographer is not trying to "capture... elements" or
> make a "fair representation". These are the results of the limitations
> of the medium, not the goal of the photographer. If publishers could
> get a transparency that would, better than today's transparencies,
> simulate the colors, clarity, texture, etc. of the original medium,
> they would jump at it.
>
> Keshet goes on to say:
> >
> > In short, while on the surface the Bridgeman vs. Corel decision
> > sounds logical, I can't help feeling that the court did not delve
> > into nor really understand the intent and process of photographing
> > two-dimensional works of art, nor the originality of the resulting
> > photographs.
>
> I also believe this statement misses the point of Bridgeman. The
> court did not "delve into nor understand the intent and process" because
> copyright law is not concerned with either. I would think copyright
> law is interested in what the objects look like. How one gets to the
> end result, the copy, seems irrelevant. Patents are for processes,
> copyrights are for the final execution, the result.
>
> The often repeated issue of controlling access is the ultimate issue.
> We can talk about the fine points of copyright (the author's right) and
> public domain (the public's right), but it is all philosphy if the
> artist (author) and the public cannot get free (or cheap) access to the
> original to assert their rights. Obviously there are many legimate
> questions to the practicallity of providing proper access. The current
> reality however, is disturbing. Many museums will prohibit access to
> public domain works to the point where the public can in no way take
> advantage of its rights. For example, if you were to go to a well
> known musem in New York and ask for access to say, a pd painting from
> 1520, with the idea that you would reproduce the work onto 5000 posters,
> the museum would likely refuse you access to the original and even a
> transparency, regardless of any money you may offer. Why? Perhaps
> something might be said about the integrity of the art. But the
> reality, and it is not rare for the museum to even admit this, is that
> they do not want competition for their own merchandising operations,
> which are around 100 million per year. Sounds like access is being
> used to create a new and perpetual copyright. Unfair competiton is
> also a part of this scenario. Something about monopolies and antitrust
> rings familiar too.
>
> What about works that the artist still has copyright to. Museums will
> lend transparencies out to publishers, without prior approval from the
> artist. The museum's rental/rights form will usually require the
> publisher to include the museum's copyright notice (if pushed to museum
> will say it is the copyright in the transparency. Will Bridgeman change
> this practice?). Of course, in reality, photo buyers at publishing
> houses don't readilly differentiate between a copyright in a photo and
> one in the painting. The museum's practice seems to deliberately
> confuse the copyright question. The only mention of the artist's
> copyright will be in the small legal text (few read this) on the back
> of the form that informs the publisher that any claims by the artist
> or an agent for the artist are the publisher's problem. In the
> meantime, the museum charges fees, for rental and/or rights that leave
> little, if any, money left over in a budget to pay for the artists
> rights - the ones that really count. This is indeed ironic. Sounds
> again like unfair competition and monopoly. So perhaps the next move
> is for the artist to ask the museum for access to the original so
> he/she can make a good transparancy for reproduction. In the words
> of this former New Yorker, fagedaboutit! They don't do it.
>
> These institutions are often ones that get special tax treatment and
> other benefits from their cities and states. They are quasi public
> institutions. Is this a situation where property and privacy rights
> should exceed the copyrights of the very people that allow a museum
> to exist in the first place, the artists?

April 12, 1999

We have been told that when Nan Wood Graham had photographs taken of Grant Wood paintings to insure the copyright, the lawyers for a museum dealing with her estate concluded what she copyrighted were the copy photographs not the paintings.

Therefore they are legally saying she did not hold the copyrights to the paintings and they are now in public domain. The entire Grant Wood subject is full of debate as to whether there are copyrights that hold or not. We are producing a book about Grant Wood and Little Sister Nan thus our interest. I just thought I would respond to the current subject of photographs and copies. Based on what most of you are writing, the photograph can not be copyrighted since it is not the original. Seems to be legal confusion based on the lawyers advising a museum that Nan failed in copyrighting and did the photos instead. Any further opinions?

Joan Liffring-Zug Bourret
Publisher, Penfield Press
<penfield[_at_]penfield-press.com> Received on Mon Apr 12 1999 - 17:21:12 GMT