Creative Interpretation of the Cosmos by E.A. Magnitskaya (review)

Leonardo Reviews 331 Along the way, there is little entertainment apart from an occasional interlude such as the discussion of “droit de suite” (pages 148, 160 and 161). This is apparently an extant law in France in which one has “the right to share in the profits of future sales of a work when a work is sold by one collector to another.” There must be interesting examples of this, but Strong elects not to explore them. The book includes five appendices, including reproductions of some standard forms, which are followed by 26 pages of notes. The index leaves something to be desired—because many of the items that struck me as starting points were fobbed off under other cryptic headings. The reproduction of artworks is a troublesome thing with regard to copyright law and practical application, as illustrated by the following “constructed ” observations that I have devised . Case 1: A public museum acquires a Claude Monet painting, seeks media publicity, and urges young and old to visit. Among the throng of visitors , one elderly gentleman seems particularly excited. His little camera rests on his chest, bandoleer style, but as he fumbles with the clasp on the leather case he feels the stare of a museum guard. “No flash device allowed.” The meter demands a lengthy exposure with the diaphragm wide open, so our photographer returns to his car for the tripod. Upon re-entry he finds that such devices are also forbidden. He is directed to the museum gift store and, what great luck, they happen to have a 35mm slide of the new Monet. But printed on the back of the frame is that little “©” symbol, and words to the effect that the photograph has been copyrighted by the museum and is not to be reproduced without permission. The next day, our amateur photographer remounts the transparency in a fresh frame, takes it to the photo store, asks for the Christmas special, and has three dozen, “personal,” “Monet” greeting cards. To this day he lives with his sin! Case 2: Two years later an ophthalmologist hurries into the same museum with fast film in his camera. He assumes a stable position in front of the Monet painting, takes a deep breath, expels half, holds it, and gently squeezes the shutter. He takes a few more, in bracketing the exposure. It turns out that our doctor is interested in the nature of Monet’s cataracts. He wants to punch-up a manuscript for a regional medical journal by adding an example of the artist’s work. The editor loves the piece but worries about using the picture. The author says he took it himself and that he owns the photograph. The editor, fearful of copyright infringement, calls the museum and ends up paying a $200 fee for a one-time use of the museum’s master transparency. The public museum owns the painting , albeit on behalf of the people. Does it own the image? By making it difficult for the visitor or serious scholar to get a serviceable photograph , the curators force the issue by making us use their copyrighted materials . I have always assumed that the museum does not and ought not own the image, anymore than the owners of a Frank Lloyd Wright building would own images of the building (in any event, the latter are not in the habit of chasing photographers out of the street.). With respect to the above mentioned cases, it is my guess that the man with the Monet Christmas cards has broken a copyright law. In the second case, I suppose that the ophthalmologist is correct and that his editor is too timid. The amazing thing is that many publishers will not only pay the fee but also state in the caption that the image was reproduced “with permission of the museum.” Readers of Leonardo may well be more interested in issues of these types and they will be disappointed in not finding answers in Strong’s book. CREATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE COSMOS by E.A. Magnitskaya. Rossiskaya academya muzyki, Moscow, 1996. 196 pp. ISBN: 57196-0341-7. Reviewed by Bulat M. Galeyev, Institute “Prometei,” K. Marx Str. 10, 420111, Kazan...