ART AS BUSINESS: OWNERSHIP VS COPYRIGHT

Usually, when I buy a work of art, I ask for a receipt, and a Certificate of Authenticity. I do this whether the creator of the work is alive or dead for two basic reasons: First, I want to document as much as possible about the artwork, and second, to register its value for insurance purposes.

This documentation creates a provenance paper trail, and usually confirms my ownership and rights to keep, sell, or publicly display a given work of art.

But in the past few months, I have seen an unusual claim by artists selling original artwork, adding a phrase to the Certificate of Authenticity: “COPYRIGHT AND REPRODUCTION RIGHTS ARE RESERVED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE ARTIST”

I believe this is a bogus claim, because the sale of an original, unique signed artwork automatically transfers any copyright and reproduction rights of an original artwork from the artist to the purchaser. The purchaser cannot go out to a copying machine or printer and run of 50 copies of that work and sell them as originals.

However, the sale of images of original artwork are available in museum and gallery gift shops around the world.

There are exceptions: If a publisher wants to include a reproduction of an artwork held in the vast art collection of the Queen of England, application must be made to the royal household. This is why the publication of an image of such includes a credit line stating that the image of such-and-so artwork appears “with the gracious permission” of the Queen.

Not all holders of original, unique artworks are so generous. The Picasso family has yet to publish, much less exhibit, the full body of the great artist’s work. For a variety of security and legal reasons, no documentarian has been allowed to view (much less photograph) the entire collection.

Tight control over use of images has also been employed, for similar tax, security and legal reasons by the familial or institutional heirs of other great artists such as Magritte, Malevitch, Van Gogh and others.

There are certain instances where reproductive rights can and should be limited. I own several works of the great American photographer, Weegee. It would be fraud if I ran off, say, 50 copies of a recognizable image, selling each of them as an original. They would be no such thing. They are simply copies, of only minimal value.

The same rule would apply to serried artworks, such as prints, silk screens, lithographs, etchings or similar works usually published in numbered and signed editions. I have a work by the great painter and etching image maker, John Sloan. The work is signed on the plate, and then individually hand signed, numbered and titled by the artist on the margins of the paper. It would be fraudulent for me to make 50 copies of that etching and then sell it as an original. Again, it is merely a copy, not an original signed work.

Of course, there have been some absurd tests of this situation. In 1953, Robert Rauschenberg erased a drawing by Willem de Kooning, raising the interesting question of whether Rauschenberg destroyed a work of art, or by his act actually created a new one.

More notoriously, in 2018, the artist known as Banksy shredded his own work, “Girl With a Balloon”, immediately after it was sold at auction for $1.4 million. The act, which shocked auction goers, had the unexpected effect of doubling the value of the partially destroyed piece.

Banksy, to his credit, has made no claim that he has any “copyright or reproductive rights” to the widely documented demolition of his artwork. After all, the artwork had already been sold, and he no longer had any rights to it.

Josh Martin