Thanks for that perspective, Wendy. I believe that this is the first time I personally have heard a representative from Bridgeman comment on that case.
Anyhow, for what it's worth, in exploring the site I did notice that in the
FAQ section Google notes that the images are protected by copyright, but that "the normal
Google Terms of Service apply to your use of the entire site." With the "I'm not a lawyer" caveat, I did not see anything in that agreement that prohibits classroom display.
And Steve's logic regarding the museums' educational and promotional intent here seems pretty sound to me.
Best wishes,
Elaine
------
Elaine Paul
Director, Visual Resources Center
Department of Art and Art History
University of Colorado at Boulder
318 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0318
phone: 303-492-6136
fax: 303-492-4886
On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:08 AM, Wendy Zieger wrote:
Steve is correct. That is what the court decided, but just to caution you, this was only in a district court in Southern New York and has not been tested in any other state and certainly does not apply in other countries. And to further qualify the case, it was not about educational use but rather Corel downloaded photographs off of our website and used them in a commercial software product and did not get permission or pay us for the use of photos that belonged to museums that we represent.
Here at Bridgeman we firmly believe that if a museum or photographer spends hundreds or thousands of dollars on photographing any subject in proper lighting, subsequently cataloging and then paying for archival storage of those photographs, that the rights to the photograph should belong to the person who photographed it. If the artist of the piece in the photo has been dead for more than 70 years then additional artist’s copyright clearance is not required, but any commercial reproduction of the photograph should be cleared with the owner of the photograph whether it is two or three dimensional. It is simply good practice and respects the rights of the photographer. The Google Project is amazing and was done with the full consent of the participating museums thus there was no infringement at all in this case. To get an idea of the amount of work involved in photographing an artpiece, just view the google video of their behind the scenes work! http://www.googleartproject.com/c/faq Respectfully,
Wendy Zieger
Wendy Zieger
Picture Researcher, Rights Executive and
Bridgeman Education Specialist
Bridgeman Art Library
65 E. 93rd Street
New York, NY 10128
Direct: 616-464-1098
T: 212.828.1238
F: 212.828.1255
From: ARLIS/NA List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Tatum
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 8:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARLIS-L] Google art project
Hi,
I am not sure how one replies on the ARLIS and keeps the reply on list. I already sent a reply to Donna that I intended for the list. The long and the short of it is that no one owns the copyright to photos of Starry Night or any other two-dimensional art work in the public domain.
For two-dimensional artworks, this issue was settled in the U.S. in Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp.
There has to be an original component to a work for copyright to apply. The court determined that there was no original content whatsoever in a photograph that reproduces two-dimensional artwork. Therefore the photograph is not covered by copyright. If the work is in the public domain, the photograph is in the public domain. The decision was based on American and British law. Although the principle has not been tested in court outside the United States, there seems a good chance that British and Canadian courts would reach the same conclusion at American courts.
Photographs of three-dimensional works are different. The photographer can be credited with the angle of view, the perspective, the lighting, the framing, the background, and so on. The minimum requirements for originality in a photograph of three-dimensional works have not been tested, but most photographs of three-dimensional situations are probably covered. (Thanks to Dwayne Buttler of Louisville for that advice.)
Showing an image live from the internet by means of a projector does not seem substantially different than viewing an image live on a monitor, so one would not be violating a museum's intent by displaying an image in a classroom. Why would museums make the images public if they didn't want them to serve an educational (and promotional) purpose? This paragraph is my own logic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mail submissions to [log in to unmask] For information about joining ARLIS/NA see: http://www.arlisna.org/join.html Send administrative matters (file requests, subscription requests, etc) to [log in to unmask] ARLIS-L Archives and subscription maintenance: http://lsv.arlisna.org Questions may be addressed to list owner (Judy Dyki) at: [log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
