The current issue of the Washington City Paper has a piece on page 48 by Dave Jamieson titled "Photo Opportunity" that raises (at least in my mind) some uncomfortable issues about copyright and art and more importantly, the lack of clarity in the law as to what constitutes copyright infringement in the visual arts.

The piece discusses "a controversial painting method" employed by artist Barbara Beatty, currently on exhibit at Foundry Gallery in the Dupont Circle area. Beatty paints from photographs, which is neither controversial or new.

But according to the article, Beatty "pores over the Washington Post and the Washington Times each morning" essentially searching for photos that she then uses as the basis to create paintings. I don't know enough about the law to figure out if this would be or could be interpreted as walking on copyright's thin ice, as the variables are too many, but it does bring up the point that artists should always be aware of what copyright means in the visual arts.

There is also a great article on the subject in the current December issue of Art Calendar Magazine. This monthly publication is a great resource for visual artists, as it focuses on the business of the arts, rather than art itself.

Anyway, on page 29 there's a great article by Attorney Elizabeth Russell on the subject of Art Law.

According to Ms. Russell, the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (or USC 106A) is an amendment to the US Copyright Act designed to protect artists' "moral rights," which are the artists' personal (as opposed to economic) interests in a visual work of art.

But the most interesting issue addressed by VARA (at least to me) is that since 1990 the law has defined what constitutes a "work of visual art." And the following are legally defined as not being "visual art": "poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication or similar publication."

And equally eye-opening is the fact that the law defines (17 USC 101) a "work of visual art" as follows:

(1) A painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or

(2) A still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.
A work of art does not include --
(A) (i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication or similar publication;

(ii) any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container;

(iii) any portion or part of any item described in clause (i) or (ii);

(B) any work made for hire; or

(C) any work not subject to copyright protection under this title.

Is this eye-opening or what?