Цитата:
Сообщение от Wladzislaw
Actually, you do not have to pay as the artist or his descendants, if the copyright had not expired.
|
For reproduction of works paying copyright holder.
qwerty said that the works were sold with copyright.
Frosya, history, in my opinion, is really more mysterious. The size of the sums obtained by the investor - the tenth case, and they look not so extravagant, given that Wyeth was one of the most expensive and most reproduced artists in the world. But why did he have in the 1990's. sell their avtoriskie right? In any case, not because of lack of money
qwerty on sales of works with assignation of copyright to individuals can not say anything. In theory - why not?
But Russia's museums, for example, in the case of purchase, and I think even give gifts to sign a document on the full assignment of copyright. Another thing - there are non-transferable rights (eg, the right route, which apparently is due to
Wladzislaw, different from the tradeable rights to reproduce, to display, etc.).
We ought to take a closer look way more detail to this museum contracts, everything is there on a compass
On the other hand, the practice of providing paid work at the exhibition in the United States - a common occurrence. For example, when I met with the director of the museum Zimmerly (now seems to have the former), in 2006, he was interested only as dearly as possible to provide the items from the museum collection, the speed they did it - "on hire" their work to the museum that Johnson (or Jackson? not remember, but too lazy to search for directory) in Minneapolis.
You can also change the scale and talk about the Louvre in Abu Dhabi, which will also "remove" pieces of this, the French Louvre, just yesterday I read that this is a modest figure of 190,000,000 euros.