Stolen art and copyright
Richard Gerrard
Some weeks ago Robert A. Baron wrote:
> Here is a hypothetical question regarding stolen art and copyright:
>
> A work of art, under copyright, is stolen from a museum which owns the
> object, but not the rights of reproduction. Might the copyright holder
> successfully claim infringement if the object owner places reproductions of
> the stolen work on the various databases and lists maintained to help
> identify and find stolen works?
>
> I see nothing in the "fair use" provisions of the U.S. copyright law which
> might apply here. Normally copies of such works are allowed for "internal"
> object management and insurance; but public databases of stolen art,
> especially if placed on the Web, may be thrown into the same basket of
> infringing usages as public dababases of artworks that are not stolen.
I think I can provide a partial answer. Under the new revisions to
Canadian Copyright law (1997) there are specific exemptions to
infringement of copyright for museums, libraries and archives which do
not require the changes to the fair dealing provisions of the Act, and
which permit publication to support a plice investigation, plus a host
of other collection management related activities. The proviso being
(and there always is one) that the object be in the institutions
permanent collection. The section of the act is quoted below can be
found at,
http://www.parl.gc.ca/bills/government/C-32/C-32_4/12472b-4E.html#23
"30.1 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a library, archive
or museum or a person acting under the authority of a library, archive
or museum to make, in accordance with the regulations made under
subsection (4), for the maintenance or management of its permanent
collection or the permanent collection of another library, archive or
museum, a copy of a work or other subject-matter, whether published or
unpublished, in its permanent collection
(a) if the original is rare or unpublished and is
(i) deteriorating, damaged or lost, or
(ii) at risk of deterioration or becoming damaged or lost;
(b) for the purposes of on-site consultation if the original cannot be
viewed, handled or listened to because of its condition or because of
the atmospheric conditions in which it must be kept;
(c) in an alternative format if the original is currently in an
obsolete format or the technology required to use the original is
unavailable;
(d) for the purposes of internal record-keeping and cataloguing;
(e) for insurance purposes or police investigations; or
(f) if necessary for restoration."
These are not the only changes and I recommend anyone interested refer
to the Department of Canadian Heritage's web site for further review.
Richard Gerrard
Robert A. Baron
At 09:46 AM 9/8/97 -0400, Richard Gerrard wrote:
>
>I think I can provide a partial answer. Under the new revisions to
>Canadian Copyright law (1997) there are specific exemptions to
>infringement of copyright for museums, libraries and archives which do
>not require the changes to the fair dealing provisions of the Act, and
>which permit publication to support a plice investigation, plus a host
>of other collection management related activities. The proviso being
>(and there always is one) that the object be in the institutions
>permanent collection. The section of the act is quoted below can be
>found at,
>http://www.parl.gc.ca/bills/government/C-32/C-32_4/12472b-4E.html#23
>
Bravo for Canada -- at last.
After re-reading the US copyright fair use code, I am inclined to believe
that the duplication of copyrighted works in a database of stolen art may
well be regarded as a fair use: The code says copying "such as" for
education, is a fair use. I think the "such as" may be broad enough to
encompass the stolen work problem. Thanks all for your ideas and conjectures.
Robert
rab...@pipeline.com