René Magritte: La Reproduction Interdite (Not to be Reproduced), 1937, oil on canvas, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen
I just had to explain to a client that I do have a photograph of the photograph they wish to reproduce, but the photograph I have is a photograph of the photograph which was lent to our 2002 exhibition but is not in our collection, and not a photograph of the photograph which is in our collection, which was printed in 2006 and which hasn't been photographed.
12 comments:
Could you please flowchart that?
The question, then is if they're gonna be happy with the photograph of the photograph from 2002, which is not in your museum's collection (so, do you have the rights to reproduce that photograph?), or do you have to go to the trouble of getting permission to photograph the photograph from 2006, and then photographing it?
You spin me right round, baby, right round.
Madduane, no, I can't distribute photographs of photographs which do not belong to us. But no, I don't have to get permission to photograph the one that is.
:-/
Whew!
Thank you for the clarification I had it all wrong the first time.
Ouch! That made my brain hurt.
So if a photograph steals the soul, are photographs of photographs soul derivatives, and photgraphs of photographs of photographs soul default swaps?
You can photograph me! A bargain at half the price!
Is that Richard Cohen in his younger days?
Oh wait, no--he's not wearing a dress.
Your explanation to the client about the Magritte was a wonderful example of the insanity involved in permissions and licensing of museum objects, owned or not.
Your explanation to the client was deliciously Escher-like. I bet you had to repeat it ad nauseum and pulled your friendly porkchop sideburns in frustration. Then you went outside for a cig.
Princess Sparklepony: Come for the Hairdos, Stay for the Recursion!
Post a Comment