Re: LONG: Intellectual Property and Classical Works (was TAN: Photos of objects in museums)

At 08:01 AM 4/28/2004 -0700, Scott Vanderbilt  wrote:
> So the issue here is whether the license under which a museum permits one
> entry and which further prohibits the taking of photographs can be enforced
> to prevent reproduction of photographs taken in violation of it. Well, as a
> threshold matter, there's little question that the license cannot affect
> the photographer's underlying ownership of the photographs. Copyright
> cannot be transferred in the absence of a written instrument. The implicit
> licenses one agrees to when one enters a museum or purchases a ticket would
> probably not qualify as a written assignment of copyright. Therefore, the
> copyright will remain with the photographer, whether permitted or not.
> However, the contract in the license is certainly valid nonetheless, and
> conceivably the breach of a contract to not reproduce photographs one has
> taken of the museums's objects may very well be enforceable, and if damages
> can be proven, the museum very likely has a potential remedy, even if it is
> not founded on the laws of copyright.
>
> Bottom line: if you are contemplating reproducing images of an object taken
> in a museum that prohibits photography, one should weigh the costs of
> consulting a competent practitioner of intellectual property law (and the
> potential expenses of defending a lawsuit) versus the costs of just
> licensing the museum's images,

Well, one can always just use photos from museums like Museo della Cività 
Romana who have exact replicas of the sculptures... :)

> which are in most cases going to be better
> than one's own photographs.

It really depends on whether one wants to take the photos for artistic or 
cataloging purposes (as well as how good the camera is and whether one has 
Photoshop or not). I find that most museum images of sculptures are frontal 
view, but most sculptures are better viewed from the diagonal.


Ling Ouyang
http://janusquirinus.org/