3 ms·
Any art paid for with public funds should be in the public domain. It seems like an unfortunate oversight that the artist was allowed to retain copyright here.
by dublinben 11y ago
Any art paid for with public funds should be in the public domain. It seems like an unfortunate oversight that the artist was allowed to retain copyright here.
- brashrat 11y agoyes, and for that matter, any art placed in public spaces as well. Tourists LO VE to take their pictures while climbing on friendly statues from New York Philadelphia to Indiana. (where do i learn how to format html for these submissions? i need linebreaks and italics.)
- dalke 11y agoThere are many ways around that. Instead of buying the artwork, it could be on a 99 year lease. Or a museum wins a bid to host the artists exhibition for 10 years. Another question - is there some threshold which triggers the switch to public domain? Eg, if the public pays for 10% of the cost, through taxes, and private donators pay for the rest, then is it still placed in the public domain? I agree - I think the Portlandia case should not have let the artist keep that restriction on use. But I think it should be done as part of the contract, rather than a blanket rule that any public funds => public domain.
- 13of40 11y agoSo as an artist, I should do a background check on all of my clients, lest I accidentally receive public funds and lose rights to my art.