A colleague recently asked my opinion about an interesting question. Would there be any copyright interest held by a museum that was displaying a classical vase for the first time? The root of the question was the idea that if the museum was displaying an object that had recently been unearthed (quite literally), it might be said to be publishing a previously unpublished work.
My opinion was primarily based on the inapplicability of the terms published and unpublished to this situation, but the question offers a broader opportunity to review an aspect of copyright law that seems to confuse a great many people.
One of the characteristics of intellectual property rights ownership is that it is entirely independent from the ownership of a physical object that embodies intellectual property. If I purchase a painting by a contemporary artist, I do not automatically get the intellectual property rights — the right to make copies or to distribute those copies, for example — along with the ownership of the object; I must contract for the transfer of the intellectual property rights, if I can, separately from the purchase of the object.
Likewise, owning an object in the public domain, like a classical vase, does not create any intellectual property rights. Simply by owning and displaying the vase the museum does not gain a copyright interest where there was no such interest before.
Displaying the vase will not have any affect on the nonexistence of copyright and probably would not meet the (vague) definition of publication. In any case, publication no longer makes much difference under our law. By current U.S. standards, an anonymous, unpublished work is protected for 120 years from creation and an anonymous work that is considered published would be protected for 95 years from creation; in either scenario, an object from classical antiquity would be well past any possible copyright protection.
3 quick caveats to this point:
1. A photograph of the vase could well have copyright protection, if it was sufficiently original to vest copyright in the photographer. Artistic decisions about lighting, angle, exposure and such probably do invest a photograph of a 3D object with the requisite level of originality.
2. Museums often charge for images of public domain objects in their collections. Even when the images do not have sufficient, separable originality to provide copyright protection, such charges can be based on the ability of the museum to restrict access to the unique physical object. For this reason many museums prohibit photography, in order to be the sole source of images of a public domain object on display.
3. There many be restrictions on the ownership of a vase from classical antiquity based on laws in the country of origin about protecting that country’s cultural patrimony, as well as international treaty obligations to which the US is a party.
More generally, this question is a variation of one I hear quite often, about whether a republication of a public domain text or image somehow revives a copyright interest in that work. Except for a small window of unpublished works that were created before 1978 and then published during the five years between 1997 and 2003, the answer is always no, not if the regular term of copyright protection has run or the work is otherwise in the public domain.
6 thoughts on “Copyright use case on a Grecian Urn”
Unless you’re in Egypt, apparently, in which case the government claims copyright on all anquities from that country. (Or has that absurd law been thrown out, already?)
Would change the result of your analysis if the item in question were a classical painting that was completely and artfully restored?
Just a thought I had.
Sorry, I meant–
Would IT change the result…
What an interesting question! I think it would change the analysis, since any original content that was contributed by the restorer would be eligible for copyright protect. But would a restorer claim such protection, I wonder, since original contribution is the antithesis of a restorer’s goal? Presumably simply replacing/recreating the work of the original artist would not be original to the restorer (although I know of no case law), and genuinely original work, while protectable, might be considered akin to vandalism.
When the Sistine Chapel frescos were restored in the 1980s, the agency that funded it (a Japanese television company, if I remember correctly) retained exclusive rights to photograph the frescos post-restoration. I have vague recollections of visiting there in the early 90s and being told that photography was prohibited for this reason, and that one should just buy the book…
I know that the goal of the restorer should be to recreate the original work, but that sometimes creativity is necessary since pieces may be missing, etc. I would think that it might be the goal of the museum that employs the restorer, more so than the goal of the restorer herself, to retain copyright to an item if possible. I’ve never heard of something like this but will post back if anything turns up.
The Sistine Chapel situation sounds more like an agreement, rather than a legal protection issue. But I am no Vatican copyright law specialist, that’s for sure.
Comments are closed.