Re: Fine Art Reproductions

On Fri, 09 Apr 1999, Robert Baron <rabaron[_at_]pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/8/99, John Noble <jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > Does this mean that my own badly framed, badly lit, poorly focused
> > Kodak instamatic shot of the Mona Lisa is not protectible only
> > because I _wanted_ a faithful reproduction?
>
> ...
> As for John Noble's desired faithful reproduction of the Mona Lisa --
> sometimes (quite frequently, actually) one does not achieve one's
> stated goals -- and everyone (with the possible exception of the
> copyist) knows it. It is not the statement of intent that determines
> the degree or lack of originality, but the results achieved.
> Therefore, I would argue that despite protestations to the contrary
> our hypothetical "badly framed, badly lit, poorly focused Kodak
> instamatic shot of the Mona Lisa would, indeed, be protectable --
> arguments from its author notwithstanding.

I've been mulling this one over. It seems that what Robert Baron is saying is that if museums and photo libraries like Bridgeman want to have copyright in their photographs of two-dimensional works of art, they would be wise to produce badly framed, badly lit, poorly focused instamatic shots of them. Well, that would certainly save us a lot of time, effort, and money.

Ironic, isn't it, that in this instance the law seems to reward lousy creative efforts while denying protection to good ones? Even if John Noble had inadvertently pressed the shutter while standing in the crowd around the Mona Lisa, creating a fascinating shot of a floor full of tourists' feet, that shot would be protected by copyright. Well, quality isn't the point, but originality.

Seriously, in other discussions of the Bridgeman vs. Corel decision, the idea has come up that museums should find a way to photograph two-dimensional works of PD art so that a modicum of originality, i.e. difference from the original work of art, exists. For example, there's a trick we've used for ages when doing preliminary research shots of a print or drawing. We put a coin on the print or drawing, thereby "spoiling" the shot, and identifying the photo as 1) ours, and 2) a preliminary and not satisfactory, publishable photograph. I assume all would agree that this photo would be protected; we've added something original, and our intention was not to faithfully and exactly reproduce the work of art.

Now, we could always photograph a painting leaving off, let's say, one or two inches all around. (We would define this as a cropped or "detail" shot.) Or we could photograph it at a slight angle to the lens, distorting its proportions. Or we could place in the shot one of the white cotton gloves we wear when handling art works. The possibilities are endless. What about a small museum logo obscuring the lower right-hand corner of the painting? Would these pass the Bridgeman vs. Corel test? Apparently so.

Even better, we could leave the frame on, thereby photographing a three-dimensional object: a framed painting, shadows and all.

Come to think of it, this is already the case. If you were to look at one of our color transparencies, you'd notice that it includes the edge of the painting's canvas, threads sticking out and all, the easel is visible above and below, as is the wall behind, and a Kodak color scale is taped to the easel, and often also a slip of paper on which is written the painting's inventory number. A three-dimensional composition, in other words. This stuff is cropped out by the graphic designer & printer in the process of creating the color separations and plates from which illustrations, postcards, or posters are printed, which is why you aren't aware of it. But in our photograph, they're there.

Protected?

amalyah keshet
head of visual resources, the israel museum, jerusalem board of directors, the museum computer network chair, the mcn intellectual property special interest group akeshet[_at_]imj.org.il
<http://www.imj.org.il/> Received on Sun Apr 18 1999 - 17:21:48 GMT