Re: Fine Art Reproductions

On 4/21/99, Amalyah Keshet <akeshet[_at_]imj.org.il> wrote:
>
> On 1999-04-18, Robert Panzer <bigbusie[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Amalyah Keshet <akeshet[_at_]imj.org.il> wrote:
> > >
> > > Any museum that can raise the money opens public-access study
> > > rooms so that works in reserve can be seen and studied by
> > > interested individuals. We have three.
> >
> > I was writing about public access for the purpose of reproduction.
> > Seen and studied, yes, but would the museum allow interested
> > individuals to produce high quality photographs for reproduction?
> > Most museums in the U.S. would not. Public domain means the right
> > to reproduce the work, not to look at it.
>
> What about public domain works in private collections? Would you have
> the same expectations and make the same demands for access? How?

Actually, I WOULD require that owners of original PD works make them available to the public for reproduction. It's a socialist notion that's not likely to ever be adopted in the U.S., but I'm not trying to hold museums to a higher standard. And I acknowledge that the "how" of public access is a tough question.

> Museums are mandated to collect, preserve, research, interpret, and
> exhibit works of art and cultural artifacts (in Israel, this is even
> expressed in the Museums Law), as I am often reminded, for the public
> good, not for private benefit. That is, while obviously we try to
> provide resources and access for viewing, learning, and just enjoying,
> there is no requirement to let private individuals use the collections
> for private gain, especially if there is any risk to the art works,
> or financial loss to the museum.

Well, the public is made up of private individuals. The public good is really nothing more than an aggregation of private interests. So that's a difficult line to draw. But I fully agree that risk to the art works justifies limiting access.

I also recognize that museums need to be able to at least break even. The question is, what's the best way of achieving that? Museums have a high fixed cost, but a low marginal cost of reproduction. Economic theory would price access fees at or near the marginal cost, but you need to charge enough to cover your fixed costs. I'd like to see those fixed costs underwritten entirely by the government, but that's not realistic. Absent that, higher access and reproduction fees may be the next best solution. But then the question becomes, what is the effect of Corel-like competition on your fee structure and on your economic ability to survive? That's the empirical question that I think needs to be answered. I'm not yet convinced that Bridgeman v. Corel will result in financial ruin for museums.

Tyler T. Ochoa
Associate Professor
Whittier Law School
<tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> Received on Thu Apr 22 1999 - 22:44:26 GMT