Use of indigenous peoples images and art
 

Hi there,

As a part of a documentary we wish to use a number of stills of paintings and artworks created by various australian aborigine artists. The images are held in a private collection and some of the artists are dead. The owner of the paintings is happy for us to use them but we are concerned about the permissions to reproduce them and about copyright laws regarding this. I am completely in the dark about this and wondered if anybody had any ideas about this.

Although the film is a non-profit and will likely be non-broadcast I am eager to do this right.

James
DP
Earthmedia Imaging and Film
Mozambique

James,
Best check with an IP attorney in Australia. Copyright laws vary by country. Here in the US, for instance, you generally need the permission of the MUSEUM holding the art to reproduce it. SOME reproduction rights to art might be held by people other than the ones who own the artwork. (Strange as that sounds, I own several original pieces of Keith Parkinsons work. He's a fantasy artist who has done many book covers. The copyright for reproduction does NOT lie with me, OR Keith, but with the publishers of the book covers.)

Like I said, check with an Intellectual Property Attorney in Australia.

I agree with Richard that you should check with an Australian IP lawyer. I have no idea what copyright restrictions there may be there.

I will take issue with one thing Richard said, though. Museums rarely own copyright in the works that they hold. They do own copyright in the reproductions of the works that they create, e.g. the postcards, posters, etc. that they sell in their museum shops, at least to the extent that the reproductions constitute new original expression. That's why some museums will not allow photography (or commercial photography) -- they are trying to protect their market.

Paul, as usual has the last word. I do have a question Paul, in a related issue. I've had to approach museums that own 'historical' images. That is manuscripts, armor exhibits and illuminations and such, for permission to use the images, EVEN IF I HAVE TAKEN THE PHOTO. (Of course, this was in England.)

I guess it really is a country by country issue.

Because the museum owns the item and the premises, it can limit access to them however it chooses. When you visit a museum and it provides permission to photograph, you are the recipient of a license on the following terms:

"We the museum grant you permission to photograph X object on our property in exchange for which you promise [not to use the photograph commercially/to credit the museum if the photograph is publised/to pay a royalty/etc.]" The issue isn't one of copyright, but of contract. If you were to breach the license by, for example, commercially-exploiting your photograph in violation of a non-commercial restriction, you could be sued for breach of contract, but not for copyright infringement.