2016年11月2日,星期三

博物馆应该在他们的画作照片上拥有版权吗?

博物馆拥有自己的画作,但显然,它们对这些画作的拍摄或画的海报等衍生作品并不拥有版权。至少,这是Alain Marciano和Nathalie Moureau在他们的文章中强烈提出的观点,艺术品博物馆,物业和照片:为什么通过照片复制应该是免费的,刊登在最新一期的《科学》杂志上版权问题经济学研究述评(2016,13:1,pp.1-28)。以下是他们的论点(省曲和引用省略):
“他法律通常是明确的:必须与本艺术品的形象区分开物理艺术品,这意味着拥有艺术品并不意味着拥有艺术品形象的再现。...属性就是正确的必须与知识产权有关的艺术作品。物业右在对象本身上持有,而是占主导地位 - 大部分时间 - 当冲突发生冲突时,大部分时间都是受到知识产权的。事实上,有一个财产权就艺术作品有权本身并不意味着在艺术品上有知识产权。......
"Actually, the intellectual property stays with the artist whilst he or she is alive and moves to his or her heirs for the next 70 years after the artist’s death. From the moment the work of art has been produced right up to 70 years after the death of the artist, the intellectual property right and the right of copy and reproduction belong to the artist or his or her heirs and not to the owner of the work. Indeed, the latter does not have the right to reproduce, sell or, even simply distribute copies, unless the artist him- or herself decides to transfer the copyright to the owner through a contract. After the 70-year period, the work of art falls into the public domain, which means, as it is well known, that its reproduction is free and that every individual has or should have the right to photograph, reproduce, copy and distribute the copies of the work of art. Furthermore, because first-generation copies of works of art are not considered as works of art, they cannot, therefore, be protected by a copyright. Thus, as the owner of a work of art, museums fall into one of the two categories: either they own a painting protected by an intellectual property right or the painting is in the public domain, and in both cases, museums do not have the right to prevent individuals from photographing the work. These are the only possibilities.
“然而,博物馆并不总是遵循这些要求......事实上,这一开始发生在20世纪90年代,博物馆现在不仅几乎系统地阻止了访客拍照和使用它们,还要求拍摄专业图片的费用。They systematically oblige photographers who want to take a picture to fill out forms and to follow long and complicated procedures before granting the authorisation to photograph the works of art that are in their collections. This means that museums transpose their property right into an intellectual property right and a right of reproduction that they do not own and cannot have. ... In addition, museums also place a copyright on the first generation copies of the works of art they own. More broadly, museums also market derivative products under a copyright label, even if these products involve old master reproductions whose legal protection ended many years previously. As mentioned above, this is also illegal — a copy made of an image cannot be restricted in any way by the owner of the artwork."
这个问题已经突出,因为许多现金围攻博物馆都依靠衍生产品的销售,作为年度收入流量的一部分。事实上,这不是法律,但是一个人可以讨论博物馆应该拥有他们的艺术品的图像版权,甚至是在公共领域的艺术品,因为这是社会可以帮助艺术爱好者补贴博物馆的方式。Marciano和Moreau认为,由于几个原因,将博物馆赋予博物馆的版权的版权所有(除非与艺术家明确谈判)不合适。

他们认为,在计入制作和销售复制品的成本后,博物馆从复制品销售中获得的净收入并不是很大。他们指出,对于博物馆更广泛的使命来说,存在一种取舍:许多博物馆以促进公众对艺术的欣赏为名,限制了绘画图像的可用性。有人可能想要禁止用闪光灯拍照,尽管作者认为用闪光灯拍摄艺术作品的危险往往被过分夸大了,但这样的规定与禁止所有摄影是完全不同的。当然,一些糟糕的照片可能会被制作出来,甚至被卖掉,但版权法并不能保证高质量的复制。的确,人们可以争辩说,如果绘画摄影的市场竞争更激烈,那么博物馆就会利用它们与艺术的距离来拍摄高质量的照片,从而提高动机。

在这一争论中,任何东西都不能限制艺术家继续拥有与其作品相关的知识产权,无论这些作品是否在博物馆中,就像艺术家在现行法律下所做的那样。