Hi, I'll jump in here since I'm from the MFAH and my office acts as the clearance office for copyrights for museum objects. The MFAH distributes the films of Robert Frank, but we do not represent him in regards to copyright. Mr. Frank is very protective of his copyright and we were asked by his representatives to make sure that unauthorized web use of the films was stopped. We sent C&D letters to those people who were posting the films at the request of Mr. Frank. It seems that someone had posted Mr. Frank's films on YouTube without our knowledge or permission, thereby denying Mr. Frank revenue that is his due from the performance of his films. Even though many of us consider these films works of art, they are still governed by the same laws that relate to mass-produced motion pictures and we did what any other film distributer is compelled to do in order to maintain the trust of their client. We asked for the infringed material to be removed.
In order to avoid any kind of confusion, we do not post any part of Mr. Frank's films on our website. At the present time, we only have two still photos on our site that describes our distribution service for the films. As a rights administrator, I have to say that some of the postings in this discussion have been a little troubling to me. I know we want to give the public as much information as we are able to about our collections - it's the reason we became museum professionals. I think that trying to "get around" copyright, however, is the last thing we should do. We're protectors of the objects and artifacts in our collection. Doesn't that also mean that we should be considerate of the rights of those artists from whom we hold their works in trust for future visitors? If an artist doesn't want his/her work on the Internet, he/she has the right to that by the laws of our countries. I think that we should abide by their wishes. Chuck, if your friend is still interested in posting part of one of the films, I would suggest that he contact Mr. Frank's gallery, Pace/MacGill (http://www.pacemacgill.com/contact_staff.html) and request permission. He might find that the gallery is willing to work with him to provide authorized footage for his blog. Marty Marcia (Marty) Stein Photographic & Imaging Services Manager The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston PO Box 6826 Houston, Texas 77265-6826 Telephone: (713) 639-7525 Fax: (713) 639-7557 Email: mstein at mfah.org -----Original Message----- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Perian Sully Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:00 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Use policies in museums Are we sure that MFA Houston is the bad cop? Perhaps the Robert Frank estate (or their representatives) complained to MFA Houston who then had to send a C&D to your friend. Perian Sully Collections Information Manager Web Programs Strategist The Magnes Berkeley, CA -----Original Message----- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Chuck Patch Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:09 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: [MCN-L] Use policies in museums This doesn't relate to anything specific, but as a long-time observer without deep legal knowledge or economic understanding of the licensing / copyright disputes among content creators, museums, publishers etc. I'd be interested in hearing reactions to the following situation. (Blame this post on Amalyah - I sent it to her first and she suggested I post it to the list and so, with the somewhat entertaining potential of throwing more fuel on the Ken Hamma - museum copyright - paranoia fire, I will). A friend of mine who writes a photography blog was recently instructed to take down some videos from the MFA Houston that he had posted -- with credit and, I believe, links back to the museum site. I couldn't help thinking that this seems to work against the best interests of the institution. While it's true, as he admits, that he technically infringed the copyright of the museum and probably should at least have sought permission to post them on his (no doubt) money-losing blog, I'm having trouble understanding how this act did anything other than drive traffic and increase interest in the museum and the videos themselves. Would this be a situation where a CC license would have been more appropriate (and cheaper for the institution?) What do you think? Here's the post in which he presents the current situation: http://2point8.whileseated.org/2009/09/11/takedown/ Chuck Patch _______________________________________________ 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 The MCN-L archives can be found at: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.102/2377 - Release Date: 09/16/09 17:49:00 _______________________________________________ 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 The MCN-L archives can be found at: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/
