Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collectors’ Rights “Versus” Artists’ Rights—Conservation and Collection Care

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Art Collections, Private and Public: A Comparative Legal Study

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Law ((BRIEFSLAW))

  • 798 Accesses

Abstract

In civil-law countries such as France, owners of artworks that are considered significant parts of the cultural heritage of the country, may have an implied legal duty to maintain the integrity of the work, whereas in common-law countries like the USA and the United Kingdom, personal property rights often are a hurdle to any obligation to protect an artwork (moral rights aside). In theory, a US owner of a rare Picasso could set it on fire, if desired.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Rozell 2014, p. 145.

  2. 2.

    See Costonis 2000, p. 1847, reviewing the book of Joseph Sax, “Playing Darts …” (see next footnote): “Many [collectors] see themselves as stewards, self-obligated to protect the art and even to loan it out for public viewing from time to time. Were all collectors similarly inclined, Sax would eschew a formal legal regime mandating periodic display of their master works. Not all collectors, however, are so inclined”.

  3. 3.

    Sax 1999, p. 21.

  4. 4.

    Merryman 1976, p. 1042, was asking: “Given the cultural importance of American art, should our law be modified in such a way as to protect the integrity of works of art? I believe that the answer to that question is clearly ‘yes’”.

  5. 5.

    Barron 2002, p. 368.

  6. 6.

    Ginsburg 2003, p. 1063.

  7. 7.

    Fenzel 2007, p. 546.

  8. 8.

    Farley 2005, pp. 815–819.

  9. 9.

    Bonneau 2013, p. 48.

  10. 10.

    Liemer 2005, p. 1.

  11. 11.

    Tushnet 2012, p. 685.

  12. 12.

    The artists’ creative minds and souls as embodied in their works, see Applebaum 1992, p. 183.

  13. 13.

    Munzer and Raustiala 2009, p. 68.

  14. 14.

    Nimmer on Copyright § 8D.01[A] n.4 (2010), cited by Prowda 2013, p. 101 n. 3.

  15. 15.

    Dworkin 1995, p. 230.

  16. 16.

    Bonneau 2013, p. 52.

  17. 17.

    Cotter 1997, p. 1.

  18. 18.

    Rigamonti 2007, pp. 72–73.

  19. 19.

    Rector 2010, pp. 584–585.

  20. 20.

    Ng 2009, p. 422.

  21. 21.

    Moore 2003, p. 612.

  22. 22.

    Tang 2012, p. 229.

  23. 23.

    Certain scholars have similarly expressed about the connection of literary works and trademark law: they have argued that the attribution right for literary works derives from trade mark law, see: Ginsburg 2005, p. 381; Heymann 2005, p. 1377.

  24. 24.

    Prowda 2013, pp. 102–105.

  25. 25.

    Rosenthal Kwall 2001, p. 152.

  26. 26.

    Liemer 1998, pp. 45–46.

  27. 27.

    Dine 1995, p. 550.

  28. 28.

    See Prowda 2013, p. 114. She points out that before 1988, plaintiffs sometimes requested courts to fashion a sort of moral right through the laws of defamation, passing off, contract, and Section 43 of the Copyright Act of 1956 (false attributions of authorship).

  29. 29.

    Prowda 2013, pp. 114–115.

  30. 30.

    Prowda 2013, p. 115, states that there is not much case law on moral rights in UK and that the moral rights cases have rarely succeeded.

  31. 31.

    Dietz 1995, p. 214.

  32. 32.

    Rigamonti 2006, pp. 370–371.

  33. 33.

    Roeder 1940, p. 569.

  34. 34.

    Ladas 1938.

  35. 35.

    Bock 2011, p. 162.

  36. 36.

    VARA only states what destruction or modification is not, holding conservation and relocation efforts acceptable “modifications” of an artwork that do not actually destroy it, 17 U.S.C. Section 106A(c)(1)–(2), see Tischler 2012, p. 1698 n. 265.

  37. 37.

    Bonneau 2013, p. 69.

  38. 38.

    Tipton 2009, p. 274.

  39. 39.

    Butera 2010, p. 127.

  40. 40.

    Fenzel 2007, pp. 569–570.

  41. 41.

    It applies to the whole of the United Kingdom—England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, § 157.

  42. 42.

    Dworkin 1995, pp. 245–263.

  43. 43.

    And the Copyright Act sets out factors for determining whether the act was ‘reasonable’, see Hudson 2006, pp. 68–70.

  44. 44.

    Loughlan 2002, pp. 19–20.

  45. 45.

    Hudson 2006, p. 69.

  46. 46.

    Janke 2005, p. 107.

  47. 47.

    Corbett 2012a, p. 882.

  48. 48.

    Corbett 2012b, pp. 920–921.

  49. 49.

    Which, as stated, has gained a reputation as one of the most adventurous contemporary museums, see Rector 2010, p. 580.

  50. 50.

    Telesetsky 2008, p. 87.

  51. 51.

    Rector 2010, p. 581.

  52. 52.

    “The implications of this case regarding the shifting dynamics between artists and institutions are enormous, especially as institutions move into the role of producing and financing the creation of artworks rather than just exhibit them”, Gover 2012, p. 46.

  53. 53.

    Telesetsky 2008, p. 89.

  54. 54.

    Redish 2005, p. 1329.

  55. 55.

    Mass. Museum of Contemporary Art Found., Inc. v. Büchel, 565 F. Supp.2d 245 (D. Mass. 2008).

  56. 56.

    71 F. 3d 77 (2nd Cir. 1995).

  57. 57.

    Telesetsky 2011, p. 256.

  58. 58.

    Telesetsky 2011, p. 257.

  59. 59.

    Rector 2010, p. 598.

  60. 60.

    Wu 2009, p. 151.

  61. 61.

    Price 1968, pp. 1334–1335.

  62. 62.

    Kumar 2014, p. 444.

  63. 63.

    Favretto 2007, p. 164.

  64. 64.

    Brauneis 2013.

  65. 65.

    Plaisant 1987, p. 157.

  66. 66.

    Favretto 2007, p. 164.

  67. 67.

    Sobre el estatuto jurídico tributario del coleccionista en España y posibles medidas que contribuyan a su promoción, Informe de la Fundación Arte y Mecenazgo, Barcelona 2014, p. 34.

  68. 68.

    Merryman 1992, pp. 107–108.

  69. 69.

    Werbin 2014.

  70. 70.

    California Civil Code § 986 (c)(1).

  71. 71.

    California Civil Code § 986 (a).

  72. 72.

    California Civil Code § 986 (a)(7). See also Kumar 2014, p. 448.

  73. 73.

    Estate of Graham v. Sotheby’s Inc., 860 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (C.D. Cal. 2012).

  74. 74.

    O’Donnell 2014a.

  75. 75.

    O’Donnell 2014b.

  76. 76.

    Rub 2014, p. 3.

  77. 77.

    Rub 2013, p. 133.

  78. 78.

    Perlmutter 1992, p. 403.

  79. 79.

    Hansmann and Santilli 2001, p. 259.

  80. 80.

    Landes and Posner 1989, p. 327.

  81. 81.

    The representative J. Nadler introduced the: H.R. 3688, “Equity for Visual Artists Act of 2011”.

  82. 82.

    H.R. 4103, “American Royalties Too Act of 2014”.

References

  • Applebaum JR (1992) The visual artists rights act of 1990: an analysis based on the French droit moral. Am J Int Law Policy 8:183–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron A (2002) Copyright law and the claims of art. Intellect Prop Q 4:368–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock EM (2011) Using public disclosure as the vesting point for moral rights under the visual artists rights act. Mich Law Rev 110:153–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonneau SG (2013) Honor and destruction: the conflicted object in moral rights law. St. John’s Law Rev 87:47–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Brauneis R (2013) National treatment in copyright and related rights: how much work does it do? The George Washington Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Paper No. 2013-103. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2291630

  • Butera A (2010) A seemingly small, but major victory for visual artists. NYSBA Entertain, Arts Sports Law J 21:125–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett S (2012a) The digital museum and copyright law: can there be reconciliation? New Zealand Intellect Prop J 6:882–887

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett S (2012b) Maori cultural heritage and copyright law: a balancing exercise. New Zealand Intellect Prop J 6:916–921

    Google Scholar 

  • Costonis J (2000) Casting light on cultural property (book review). Mich Law Rev 98:1837–1862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotter TF (1997) Pragmatism, economics, and the droit moral. North Carolina Law Rev 76:1–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz A (1995) The moral right of the author: moral rights and the civil law countries. Columbia-VLA J Law Arts 19:199–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Dine JM (1995) Authors’ moral rights in non-european nations: international agreements, economics, Mannu Bhandari, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Mich J Int Law 16:545–583

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin G (1995) The moral right of the author: moral rights and the common law countries. Columbia-VLA J Law Arts 19:229–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley CH (2005) Judging art. Tulane Law Rev 79:805–858

    Google Scholar 

  • Favretto S (2007) Il diritto a braccetto con l’arte. Opportunita e tutele giuridiche nei beni culturali e paesaggistici, nel mercato delle opera d’arte. Edizioni Falsopiano, Alessandria

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenzel C (2007) Still life with “spark” and “sweat”: the copyrightability of contemporary art in the United States and the United Kingdom. Ariz J Int Comp Law 24:541–585

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg JC (2003) The concept of authorship in comparative copyright law. DePaul Law Rev 52:1063–1092

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg JC (2005) The author’s name as a trademark: a perverse perspective on the moral right of “paternity”? Cardozo Arts Entertain Law J 23:379–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Gover KE (2012) Christoph Büchel v. mass MoCA: a tilted arc for the twenty-first century. J Aesthetic Educ 46:46–58. doi:10.5406/jaestdeuc.46.1.0046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann H, Santilli M (2001) Royalties for artists versus royalties for authors and composers. J Cult Econ 25:259–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heymann LA (2005) The birth of the authornym: authorship, pseudonymity, and trademark law. Notre Dame Law Rev 80:1377–1449

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson E (2006) Cultural institutions, law and indigenous knowledge: a legal primer on the management of Australian indigenous collections. University of Melbourne, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Janke T (2005) Managing indigenous knowledge and indigenous cultural and intellectual property, In: Nakata M, Langton M (eds) Australian indigenous knowledge and libraries. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 36(2):95–107. doi: 10.1080/00048623.2005.10721251

  • Kumar N (2014) Constitutional hazard: The California resale royalty act and the futility of state-level implementation of droit de suite legislation. Columbia J Law Arts 37:443–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwall RR (2001) Preserving personality and reputational interests of constructed personas through moral rights: a blueprint for the twenty-first century. Univ Ill Law Rev 151–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladas SP (1938) The international protection of literary and artistic property. The Macmillan Co, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes WE, Posner RA (1989) An economic analysis of copyright law. J Legal Stud 18:325–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liemer SP (1998) Understanding artists’ moral rights: a primer. Boston Univ Public Interest Law J 7:41-57

    Google Scholar 

  • Liemer SP (2005) How we lost our moral rights and the door closed on non-economic values in copyright. John Marshall Rev Intellect Prop Law 5:1–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Loughlan P (2002) The ravages of public use: aboriginal art and moral rights. Media Arts Law Rev 7:17–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Merryman JH (1976) The refrigerator of bernard buffet. Hastings Law J 27:1023–1049

    Google Scholar 

  • Merryman JH (1992) The wrath of Robert Rauschenberg. Am J Comp Law 41:103–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore AD (2003) Intellectual property, innovation, and social progress: the case against incentive based arguments. Hamline Law Rev 26:601–630

    Google Scholar 

  • Munzer SR, Raustiala K (2009) The uneasy case for intellectual property rights in traditional knowledge. Cardozo Arts Entertain Law J 27:37–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng A (2009) The social contract and authorship, allocating entitlements in the copyright system. Fordham Intellect Prop Media Entertain Law J 19:413–482

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell N (2014a) Have some foie gras with your ethanol: auction houses urge ninth circuit not to rehear California resale royalties act argument. The art law report. http://www.artlawreport.com/2014/09/23/have-some-foie-gras-with-your-ethanol-auction-houses-urge-ninth-circuit-not-to-rehear-california-resale-royalties-act-arguments/

  • O’Donnell N (2014b) Full ninth circuit to review california resale royalty act en banc. The art law report. http://www.artlawreport.com/2014/10/31/full-ninth-circuit-to-revie-california-resale-royalty-act-en-banc/

  • Perlmutter S (1992) Resale royalties for artists: an analysis of the register of copyrights’ report. Columbia-VLA J Law Arts 16:395–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Plaisant R (1987) Droit de suite and droit moral under the berne convention. Columbia-VLA J Law Arts 11:157–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Price ME (1968) Government policy and economic security for artists: the case of the droit de suite. Yale Law J 77:1333–1366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prowda JB (2013) Visual arts and the law. a handbook for professionals, Lund Humphries in association with Sotheby’s Institute of Art, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • Rector SL (2010) A training ground for contemporary art: massachusetts museum of contemporary art v. Büchel’s overly broad exclusion of artistic collaborations. Univ Colorado Law Rev 81:581–626

    Google Scholar 

  • Redish MH (2005) Summary judgment and the vanishing trial: implications of the litigation matrix. Stanf Law Rev 57:1329–1359

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigamonti CP (2006) Deconstructing moral rights. Harv Int Law J 47:353–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigamonti CP (2007) The conceptual transformation of moral rights. Am J Comp Law 55:67–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeder MA (1940) The doctrine of moral right: a study in the law of artists, authors, and creators. Harv Law Rev 53:554–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozell M (2014) The art collector’s handbook. a guide to collection management and care. Lund Humphries in association with Sotheby’s Institute of Art, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • Rub GA (2013) Stranger than kryptonite: inalienable profit sharing schemes in copyright law. Harv J Law Technol 27:49–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Rub GA (2014) The unconvincing case for resale royalties. Yale Law J Forum 124:1–10. http://www.yalelawjournal.com/forum/the-unconvincing-case-for-resale-royalties

  • Sax JL (1999) Playing darts with a rembrandt. public and private rights in cultural treasures. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobre el estatuto jurídico tributario del coleccionista en España y posibles medidas que contribuyan a su promoción (2014) Informe de la Fundación Arte y Mecenazgo, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang X (2012) The artist as brand: toward a trademark conception of moral rights. Yale Law J 122:218–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Telesetsky A (2008) Massachusetts museum of contemporary art foundation, inc. v. Christoph Büchel, U.S. District of Massachusetts, Case 3:07-cv-30089-MAP. Int J Cult Prop 15:87–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telesetsky A (2011) Massachusetts museum of contemporary art foundation v. Christoph Büchel: an appellate perspective on the visual artists rights act. Int J Cult Prop 18:255–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tipton S (2009) Connoisseurship corrected: protecting the artist, the public and the role of art museums through the amendment of VARA. Rutgers Law Rev 62:269–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Tischler RJ (2012) “The power to tax involves the power to destroy”. How avant-garde art outstrips the imagination of regulators, and why a judicial rubric can save it. Brooklyn Law Rev 77:1665–1705

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushnet R (2012) Worth a thousand words: the images of copyright. Harv Law Rev 125:683–759

    Google Scholar 

  • Werbin B (2014) Federal art resale royalty inches toward reality. art and advocacy 18

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu LF (2009) Museum of contemporary art v. Büchel: construing artists’ rights in the context of institutional commissions. Columbia J Law Arts 32:151–178

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Elina Moustaira

Authors
  1. Elina Moustaira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elina Moustaira .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Moustaira, E. (2015). Collectors’ Rights “Versus” Artists’ Rights—Conservation and Collection Care. In: Art Collections, Private and Public: A Comparative Legal Study. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15802-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation