Perian: 1. Museums and other institutions or businesses do face a risk of "contributory infringement" when they allow third parties to copy protected works of art. That is, the museum doesn't own the copyright in the works of art, the artists/heirs do, and without specific permission from the artists/heirs, the museum has no right to let a third party reproduce the works in any medium.
This obviously doesn't apply to works of art in the public domain -- but in a museum setting, when the two types of works, protected and not protected, are hung side by side, the prudent thing legally and the only practical solution, is not to allow photography. The tour guide meant that the TJ Foundation doesn't own copyright in all of the art works on display --by contemporary artists, presumably. 2. The Declaration of Independence is a literary work, not a work of art, and it's authors died long enough ago that it should indeed be well in the public domain. Furthermore, since it was arguably a work of the US government (okay, I'm stretching it here, for fun) it would not have been protected by copyright in the first place. One would have to check the pre-1906 copyright legislation to be sure about this, but if one takes into consideration that in those days copyright protection extended for something like 14 years renewable to 28, then the thing should be firmly in the public domain. 3. I don't think that if it was a copy it would make any difference at all. It's still not a work of art protected by copyright. 4. The world is full of misguided tour guides; what else is new? Amalyah Keshet Head of Image Resources & Copyright Management The Israel Museum, Jerusalem akeshet at imj.org.il Chair, MCN IP SIG www.mcn.edu Blog www.musematic.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Perian Sully" <[email protected]> To: <mcn-l at mcn.edu> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 3:31 AM Subject: [MCN-L] When copyright confusion attacks! > Hi list: > > This little bit cropped up on the ever-wonderful BoingBoing today. I > always tend to look closely at blog posts/complaints about museums being a > little, um, overbearing. Sometimes the author is, IMO, wrong (as in the > case of a photographer lambasting SFMOMA for not being allowed to > photograph in their galleries: > http://thomashawk.com/2004/08/editorial-on-camera-policies-in.html ), and > sometimes I think they're correct, as in this post: > > http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/27/thomas_jeffersons_ar.html > > "Thomas Jefferson's art collection copyrighted? > My pal and Institute for the Future colleagues Mike Love writes: > > After Thanksgiving my family visited Monticello, the home of Thomas > Jefferson in Charlottesville, Virginia. Before entering, the tour guide > told us that we couldn't take any photos inside because they "don't own > the copyright for some of the works of art." This peeved me in light of > the copyright-restricted space post I had read recently about misusing the > language of copyright to intimidate people. > > In protest I tried to take a no-flash picture of Jefferson's engraved copy > of the Declaration of Independence, but was politely told to stop - and > reminded that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation doesn't own the copyright to > some of his works of art. If they don't own the copyright to his nearly > 200 year-old art then who does!?" > > The only thing I can think of is that if some pieces are recent copies, > owned by a third party, then the derivatives would be copyrighted, right? > > ~Perian Sully > Judah L. Magnes Museum > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer > Network (http://www.mcn.edu) > > To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu > > To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: > http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l >
