Is a museum filled with reproductions legal?
In the media image: Nicolas J Leclercq on Unsplash
Replicas of artworks by world-famous artist and political activist Banksy are being exhibited at several locations in Amsterdam without the permission of the anonymous graffiti artist. Dirk Visser, Professor of Intellectual Property Law, says this is ‘clearly copyright infringement’.
Currently, three different exhibitions about the street art of British graffiti artist Banksy can be visited in Amsterdam, all without his permission or involvement. One of the museums even only shows reproductions of the anonymous artist’s work. This raises the question of whether it is allowed under copyright law to fill a museum with unofficial copies of works of art without the artist’s permission?
‘No, it’s clearly copyright infringement,’ says Professor Visser. A legally acquired work may be exhibited – everyone agrees on that. And when you own an artwork, you’re allowed to make a copy for personal use. But exhibiting it is by definition not “personal use”. What’s more, these reproductions were probably made illegally, and simply possessing them already constitutes copyright infringement.’
What is difficult here though is that only the owner, Banksy in this case, can take action against an infringement. But he chooses to remain anonymous. ‘In the Netherlands, a publisher can act on behalf of an author who wishes to remain anonymous’, the professor explains. ‘But even then, the court can ask difficult questions: does Banksy exist? Is it a person or a collective? Or are they perhaps lots of different people who operate independently?’
More information?
Read the full article in NRC newspaper (€, in Dutch)