Can I Reproduce Images From Crystal Bridges Museum?

Dear Rich: I live near Crystal Bridges, America's newest art museum. Crystal Bridges is the brain child of Wal-Mart Heiress, Alice Walton and is a billion dollar museum. We here in Northwest Arkansas are so excited to have access, free access in fact, since the museum has been given an endowment by Wal-Mart that will allow the non profit museum to be forever free to the public, to see great American art from colonial times to the present. Many of these artworks are early works (pre 1923) and are part of the public domain. I have a new website I’m developing for public domain images. Crystal Bridges allows photographs to be taken of the art as long as a tripod or flash is not used. However, their photography policy states that photos of the art are only to be used for personal use. I take this to mean that they can not be used on my site which shares images with the whole wide web world. Am I correct in my assumption that they don’t have the right to restrict the use of my photographs of their public domain artworks? I am not trying to claim copyright of the photographs, since they will be merely reproductions of public domain works. Whether you can reproduce imagery that's in the public domain really depends on one thing: Did you enter into an agreement with the museum not to reproduce the images? You're probably thinking, "I didn't enter into any agreements with Crystal Bridges." But obtaining an admission ticket, if the ticket contains certain terms and conditions, may qualify as the type of agreement we're talking about. This may seem incredibly creepy -- to condition admission into the museum based on your promise not to reproduce public domain imagery -- but it's not uncommon in the copyright world and these so-called licenses are generally enforceable. Here's what public domain expert Steve Fishman has to say about the practice in his excellent public domain guide.

Many copyright experts believe that licensesimposing copyright-like restriction on howthe public may use public domain materialsshould be legally unenforceable. This isbecausethe federal copyright law preempts(overrides) state contract law and preventspeople from using contracts to create theirown private copyrights. Moreover, thereare sound policy reasons for holding suchlicenserestrictions unenforceable—theirwidespread use diminishes the public’saccessto the public domain.However, almost all courts have ignoredthe experts and enforced these licenses. 

What's a valid license? To have a valid license, you and the museum must assent to the terms and conditions, typically at the time when you enter. If the admission ticket contains no restrictive provisions and you never assented knowingly to such conditions, there probably is no license in place. For example, it's unlikely that an after-the-fact assertion of rights -- a sign on the way out of the museum that tells you that you cannot reproduce the imagery --  is legally enforceable as a contractual license.
What about the Crystal Bridges website? Each page of images at the Crystal Bridges website contains the statement:

Works of art in Crystal Bridges' collection are protected by copyright and may not be used without permission. For more information visit Rights and Reproductions. 

That sounds foreboding but we're not sure that statement creates a binding license. It reminds us more of a tip jar, left in view in the hopes that its presence will trigger a hoped-for result. The museum would have a much stronger argument that its terms and conditions are binding if the user had to assent to these terms and conditions -- that is, click a "Yes, I Agree" button to access the works. The fact that the site includes "copyrighted" photographs of public domain artworks also doesn't affect your ability to copy and reproduce that artwork. Courts have held that "slavish copying" of public domain works does not make the photographs protectible under copyright law. Although we're not a betting blog, if we had to bet, we'd place our money on the fact that currently public domain images at the site can be copied and reproduced without permission.
One last thing. Just because a painting was created before 1923 doesn't mean it's in the public domain. It must have been published before 1923. You may be surprised to learn that displaying a painting in a museum, for example, does not amount to publication. Publication (scroll down) refers to reproduction of the image, for example in a magazine, post card, or book.  To learn more about these tricky public domain rules, check out Fishman's tome.
One other last thing. We're not encouraging you to get chased by the museum and we appreciate the fact that great art is being made available to the masses at no charge. But is it really free? The driving force behind these efforts to restrict reproduction is a desire to jack up gift shop sales and generate licensing revenue. We hope the museum rethinks its desire to reclaim and restrict rights to artwork that our government has designated to be freely available to the public.

Wants to Use Historical Photos in Book

Dear Rich,I have photos I want to use for a book I am writing. The photos were given to me by the photographers. As far as I know these photographs were never published. They photos were taken in various years including 1914, 1924, and 1965. The photographers are all now deceased. However, the people who gave me the photos were informed that I was writing a book about local history and were going to use the photos for research. Can I use these photos in my book? Do I need to try to contact the descendants of the photographers in order to get permission or can I just credit the source of the photographs? I also want to use a photo I found in a history book. The photo is a pre 1923 portrait of a local man. The caption for the photo reads “Courtesy of William B. Secrest, Fresno, California.” Secrest is the author of the book and owns the original photograph. Do I need to track down William Secrest or can I use the photo without permission since it is pre 1923? The history book was published in 2002. I would of course appropriately cite the photograph. We think you'll be okay to use all of the photos described, but it gets a little complicated.
The 1914, 1924, and 1965 photos. If the photos were never published and the photographers died before 1941, the works are in the public domain (Here's the official explanation). Otherwise, the unpublished photos will not become public domain until the author has been dead for 70 years. (Based on this rule, the 1965 photo could not be in the public domain.) Even though your one or more of your uses is likely to be unauthorized -- and an infringement --  we think that you will have a strong fair use argument, and we also think that the likelihood that the descendants of the photographer will learn of your use (or care) is slim. A commercial publisher may require that you indemnify the publisher if there is a problem. You may want to consult an attorney at that point.
As for the pre-1923 portrait. If the pre-1923 portrait was first published with authorization before 1923 it's in the public domain and you're free to use it. If it was first published after 1922 but before 1964, the photo is in the public domain if it wasn't renewed (and most were not). If the first publication was in 2002, and the author died before 1941, it is also in the public domain. (See, we told you it was complicated). As for the prolific California historian William B. Secrest, we think -- and we could be wrong -- that he owns the photo and lent it for use in the book. The "courtesy" he has extended is that he provided access to the photographic print. Was there a copyright notice associated with the publication in the 2002 book? That could also be indicative, though not decisive as to the photo's copyright status.

Needs Help Registering Flower Greeting Cards

Dear Rich: I myself took pictures of flowers for a set of greeting cards. All photos were taken by me during last 4 months. Some of the cards were gifts to friends, 15 were sold mostly to neighbors, and some were displayed by friends and relatives. All total maybe 150 cards (from 11 different images) were given, sold or displayed. (1) Are the photographs unpublished or published? (2) May I write “approx” nearest date of publication of some photos if I not sure about exact date? (3) Do I need two separate applications to apply for copyright for published photos and for unpublished photos. Your question inspired the Dear Rich Staff to take a picture of a lovely dahlia blooming not far from Dear Rich headquarters. Now, if only we had time to stop and smell it.
Right, you had a question(s). (1) We consider all 11 of your greeting card images to be published works because you have distributed the cards to the public by sale or with the intent to transfer ownership. (If you had only displayed the cards or given them to a select group of people with restrictions, they would be considered "unpublished.") (2) You're on the right track by adding "approx" when providing date of publication. Ifyou’re not sure,state your best guess -- for example, “October 14, 2011 (approx.).” (3) No need for two registrations. As the Copyright Office explains, you should be able to manage with one registration for a group of published photos.

Registering Copyright for Quarterly Online Magazine

Dear Rich: I’m the editor of a magazine that migrated about five years ago from quarterly print publication to online. Initially, we updated the web site on a quarterly basis, but eventually increased posting frequency and now post content virtually every day. We still archive all content accumulated during a particular quarter by that quarter, however, and would like to continue doing so. I need information on filing for copyright registration for a “quarterly” online magazine that posts new content "virtually every day.” Any suggestions? Here at Dear Rich headquarters we like to provide clarity and a sense of reassurance in our answers. Unfortunately your question deals with some murky waters ... group copyright registrations and online publications. Partially, that's because there has been some uncertainty expressed in recent cases as to what group registrations actually protect -- the collection or the individual units of content. Then, there's the fact that the Copyright Office still hasn't taken a position as to whether an online work is published or unpublished (a fact that also affects your registration).
So what's the answer? First, you need to sort out who produced the content -- you, employees, or freelancers? If you or your employees created the works, then you are the copyright owner. If you own copyright in all content, you can register that content by following the guidelines in Circular 66. You should register the journal on a periodic basis -- perhaps timed to major article releases. (There's a saying among patent lawyers: register early and register often and that would apply to your quarterly magazine.) If you're revising the online work, and the revisions are published on separate days, the only for-sure guaranteed protection for the content is that each version of the online work must be registered individually, with a separate application and filing fee (unless it qualifies under one of the two registration exceptions set forth in Copyright Circular 66). That can get expensive at $35 per application  but in a CYA world, that's the only surefire guarantee of claiming statutory rights. Make sure to list the titles of all articles in the journal. If you don't claim copyright in individual articles, you may wish to claim the collection of articles -- not necessarily the content -- and you should consider serial registration as explained in Circular 62B. If freelancers created the articles, you don't own copyright in the individual articles unless there is an agreement in place. (If a freelancer owns copyright the freelancer should register his or her article using either the eCo system or Form CO.) Whew!
Just in case you weren't aware. Copyright registration is not essential for claiming copyright. You get that automatically. But if you want to claim statutory damages or you want a shot at attorney fees, registering the work prior to infringement is essential.