Art Work Photos on the Library Homepage
Victoria Tsai
Please excuse me if this has been discussed before--I'm new.
Our Library is considering taking digital photographs of the art
works on campus (these are mostly student art works the College has
purchased.) The authors of some of these art works are no longer
known to us due to incomplete records. We do not think the artists
signed any release form at the time of the transactions.
Questions:
1. If we put these photos on our web page, does it
violate copyright law?
2. Would a disclaimer and a copyright warning on
the web page be sufficient?
Victoria Tsai
<vicky...@cpcc.cc.nc.us>
BBI...@aol.com
On 98-06-01, Victoria Tsai <vicky...@cpcc.cc.nc.us> asks:
>
> Our Library is considering taking digital photographs of the art
> works on campus (these are mostly student art works the College has
> purchased.) The authors of some of these art works are no longer
> known to us due to incomplete records. We do not think the artists
> signed any release form at the time of the transactions.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. If we put these photos on our web page, does it
> violate copyright law?
>
> 2. Would a disclaimer and a copyright warning on
> the web page be sufficient?
The answer to question # 1 is YES: reproduction of the work via
photos (adaptation) without authorization infringes the student
artist(s)' copyright in the work(s).
Re question #2, there is nothing legally relevant to "disclaim."
Nor do I believe that this would qualify as any sort of fair or
educational use which would constitute a defense.
I hope this is helpful. However, it is not under any circumstances
to be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion; nor does the
above give rise to any attorney-client relationship.
Barbara Brudno, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BARBARA BRUDNO
Los Angeles, CA 90069
(310) 550-8034 (telephone)
E-mail: BBI...@aol.com
On-line listing/resume: www.wld.com/lawyer/barbara.brudno
Bob Stock
On 5/29/98, Victoria Tsai <vicky...@cpcc.cc.nc.us> wrote:
>
> Our Library is considering taking digital photographs of the art
> works on campus (these are mostly student art works the College has
> purchased.) The authors of some of these art works are no longer
> known to us due to incomplete records. We do not think the artists
> signed any release form at the time of the transactions.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. If we put these photos on our web page, does it
> violate copyright law?
I'm going to assume that someone other than the university has a valid
copyright in the art work. I will also assume that US law governs.
You don't ask, but a preliminary question is whether your photograph
infringes on the copyright owner's rights, and I think that it would.
Assuming the work doesn't belong to the library, but to the university,
I'm not aware of any exemption that permits you to take a picture of it.
In fact, even if it were part of the library collection, your rights in
section 110 would be very narrow.
The display of the picture on the web site only adds to the problem as
that display would also be an infringement. I don't see anything that
permits you to violate the copyright holder's display right. You also
now are sending copies of the picture potentially to the world, easily
permitting anyone to make copies of the picture for himself.
The only possible defense I see is that of fair use, and even if one
could make an argument for fair use -- and one can often make such an
argument -- I'm not sure that you (the university) would be comfortable
hanging your hat on fair use.
> 2. Would a disclaimer and a copyright warning on the web page
> be sufficient?
What would you be disclaiming? And what would you be noticing? You
don't own the copyright in the art work. I understand you're trying to
mitigate the potential harm, and you're perhaps trying to explain your
motives, which, no doubt, are laudable, but other than possibly helping
in your fair use argument, I'm not sure what else it does for you
legally.
All that having been said, I'm not sure that any of the student artists
would take you to court. In fact, especially if your incomplete records
permit attribution, many, if not all, of the artists might be pleased to
see their works so displayed. But, again, I'm not sure if that's of
sufficient comfort to go ahead with the project.
My own disclaimer: none of what I say should prevent you from seeking
legal counsel on the issue.
-------------------------------------
Bob Stock <bst...@ucla.edu>
UCLA School of Law '98
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1206/
-------------------------------------
Paul Jones
On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Barbara Brudno <bbi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> On 98-06-01, Victoria Tsai <vicky...@cpcc.cc.nc.us> asks:
> >
> > Our Library is considering taking digital photographs of the art
> > works on campus (these are mostly student art works the College has
> > purchased.) The authors of some of these art works are no longer
^^^^^^^^^
> > known to us due to incomplete records. We do not think the artists
> > signed any release form at the time of the transactions.
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1. If we put these photos on our web page, does it
> > violate copyright law?
> >
> > 2. Would a disclaimer and a copyright warning on
> > the web page be sufficient?
>
> The answer to question # 1 is YES: reproduction of the work via
> photos (adaptation) without authorization infringes the student
> artist(s)' copyright in the work(s).
Since the college is now owner of the work, the rights of the original
artists are nearly non-existant. the purchased work--and copyright--are
now the property of the college. the keyword here is "purchased" with
no contract, the artists might only exert "moral rights" to the work,
which in the US are extremely weak.
==========================================================================
Paul Jones
Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
http://sunsite.unc.edu/pjones/ The Unix Web Server Book (Ventana 1997)
pjo...@sunsite.unc.edu voice: (919) 962-7600 fax: (919) 962-8071
===========================================================================
Terry Carroll
On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Bob Stock <bst...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> On 5/29/98, Victoria Tsai <vicky...@cpcc.cc.nc.us> wrote:
> >
> > Our Library is considering taking digital photographs of the art
> > works on campus (these are mostly student art works the College has
> > purchased.) The authors of some of these art works are no longer
> > known to us due to incomplete records. We do not think the artists
> > signed any release form at the time of the transactions.
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1. If we put these photos on our web page, does it
> > violate copyright law?
>
> You don't ask, but a preliminary question is whether your photograph
> infringes on the copyright owner's rights, and I think that it would.
> Assuming the work doesn't belong to the library, but to the university,
> I'm not aware of any exemption that permits you to take a picture of it.
> In fact, even if it were part of the library collection, your rights in
> section 110 would be very narrow.
I note that Victoria's email address is cpcc.cc.nc.us, which is assigned
to Central Piedmont Community College, in North Carolina. If this
college is a state (including state subdivisions such as counties and
cities) government institution, as I assume it is, it's quite likely
that it has Eleventh Amendment immunity under the Seminole case and the
recent cases we've seen decided under it.
--
Terry Carroll | "Dreamwerks clearly caters to the
Santa Clara, CA | pocket-protector niche..."
car...@tjc.com | - Dreamwerks Production Group v. SKG Studio,
Modell delendus est | case no. 96-55595 (9th Cir. Apr. 21 1998)
Terry Carroll
On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Paul Jones <pjo...@sunsite.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> Since the college is now owner of the work, the rights of the original
> artists are nearly non-existant. the purchased work--and copyright--are
> now the property of the college. the keyword here is "purchased" with
> no contract, the artists might only exert "moral rights" to the work,
> which in the US are extremely weak.
Am I the first one to jump on this? This is completely, 180-degrees,
incorrect.
A copy of the work (the material object in which the work is fixed) and
the copyright in the work (the statutory rights to reproduce, etc.) are
two different things. Transfer of a copy (even the only copy) of a work
does not transfer the copyright.
Prior to the 1976 Act, there were several judicial holdings that transfer
of the only existing copy of the work did transfer the copyright as well,
but those cases have clearly been superseded by the 1976 Act. See, in
particular, 17 U.S.C. 202.