Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:09:30.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproducing Works of Art Held in Museums: Who Pays, Who Profits?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2024

Madeline H. Caviness
Madeline H. Caviness*
Affiliation:
Tufts University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Human knowledge would benefit greatly if images of all works of art in the public domain - i.e. those for which the creator's copyright has expired - were readily available on the web. Scholars pay a high price in reproduction fees to illustrate their articles, while institutions profit from the exposure their collections and archives are given in the pages of scholarly publications. Legal and commercial forces of regulation and licensing are attempting to extend their control over copyright at a time when digital technology makes the dissemination, downloading and reproducing of electronically generated and scanned images easier than it has ever been. Some collections of photographic images of works of art are charging high fees in situations where their right to claim ‘ownership’ is contentious. The author argues, with reference to the work of Robert Baron, that because digitization has made control of intellectual property a for-profit business, the net result could be an undermining of public domain. Subscription deals with non-profit institutions could be a fairer way forward, and ARTstor is cited as a positive example.

Type
Research Article
Information
Diogenes , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , August 2006 , pp. 45 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2006

References

Baron, Robert (1997) ‘Copyright and Fair Use: The Great Image Debate. Editor’s Introduction, Summary and Analysis’, Visual Resources: An International Journal of Documentation XII (3-4).Google Scholar
Bielstein, Susan M. (2006) Permissions, A Survival Guide: Blunt Talk about Art as Intellectual Property. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Brooks et al. (1999) Sensation: Young British Artists From the Saatchi Collection. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Caviness, Madeline H. (1994) ‘Learning from Forest Lawn’, Speculum 69–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caviness, Madeline H. (2001a) Visualizing Women in the Middle Ages: Sight, Spectacle, and Scopic Economy. The Middle Ages Series, ed. Karras, Ruth Mazo. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Caviness, Madeline H. (2001b) Reframing Medieval Art: Difference, Margins, Boundaries. Medford.Google Scholar
Caviness, Madeline H. (2002) ‘Iconclasme et iconophobie: quatre études de cas historiques’, Diogène 199–199 (juillet-septembre).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caviness, Madeline H. (2003) ‘Iconoclasm and Iconophobia: Four Historical Case Studies’, Diogenes 199: 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkin-Koren, Niva (2004) ‘The Internet and Copyright Policy Discourse’, in Nissenbaum, Helen and Price, Monroe E. (eds), Academy and the Internet, pp. 252–274. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar