regard. Just so that it is coextensive with the Copyright Act as it exists to American artists for works created here.

Mr. FISH. Professor.

Ms. GINSBURG. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question?

Mr. FISH. Mr. Oman, in his testimony, suggested the subcommittee has gone too far and should reconsider what we are doing, which is extending protection to foreign artists, irrespective of their nationality or where their works are first published.

Ms. GINSBURG. Do I think that that is going too far, no. I think that if one considers that there is a human rights value to protection of art works, one can analogize this to the Copyright Act's present protection of unpublished works, regardless whether the author is a citizen or domiciliary of a country with which we have treaty relations.

That is because I think we believe that there is a basic value to the protection of the unpublished expression of the author, so I would find that there already is an analogy to this.

Mr. FISH. Thank you very much.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. One other question. The Register of Copyrights suggests that the bill require registration of the copyright before a claim could be made under this bill. Would you agree with that? It is not, perhaps, a large thing, but▬▬

Mr. KOEGEL. Fine, give it to them.

Ms. GINSBURG. I think I have more reservations. I think that registration is a good thing, but I do have questions about its almost mandatory character. I realize that it would not be necessary to bring a basic claim, but if you want enhanced damages or attorney's fees, you would have to register.

Well, as a practical matter, attorneys' fees could be quite important and might have an effect on the bringing of the claim. I am not sure that I would want to impose formalities on particularly this kind of right.

Mr. KOEGEL. It shouldn't be any different. It should be the same. It fits right in the copyright law. All the remedies should be exactly the same. No need to go create new things. In fact, I don't even think you have to put waiver in. I don't mean to bring up a bad subject here, but I just think that it should be-it belongs in the copyright law to fix a gap that exists as it regards this particular kind of work. You don't have to go any farther beyond that.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. You would probably feel we shouldn't even have to exempt works for hire?

Mr. KOEGEL. No, that is all right. You see, I would love to have these other things. That helps me, but I think the legislation would be fine if it, again, just brought parity, not created new rights.

In a work-for-hire situation, the person or entity that buys it, or because they are an employer, they are considered the author. We are trying to do something here for the creator because there is a personal connection between the real creator and that object. So it doesn't really apply to the person who happened to be the employer.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you.

If there are no further questions, we are very thankful to you both, Professor Ginsburg and Mr. Koegel, for your testimony this morning.

Our last panel consists of three people who are very well qualified to testify about this legislation and I am going to ask our erstwhile colleague to introduce our first witness. In addition to our first witness, we will also have Mr. Weltzin Blix, from the State of Oregon, tell us about how one of his works of art was threatened with destruction, and Kenneth Snelson, who is a well-known sculptor from New York. Both of them will appear on behalf of the National Artists Equity Association.

To introduce our first witness in this last panel, I will call on our colleague, Ben Cardin, of Baltimore.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that you still recognize me. I very much-

Mr. KASTENMEIER. You have presumably gone to a higher calling.

Mr. CARDIN. Not a higher calling, I can assure you of that, but I am very honored to have Arnold Lehman here today. Baltimore is fortunate for many things. We have some great institutions in our city, great art institutions and we are very fortunate to have the Director of the Baltimore Museum of Art, Arnold Lehman who has served Maryland with distinction. I am very honored to have him before this committee.

I was explaining to him, as of yesterday, I would have been on the committee, but today, because of rules that I don't quite understand, I can't serve on the Judiciary Committee and Ways and Means Committee-nobody explained that to me ahead of time, otherwise I would have reconsidered.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. We thank our Ways and Means Committee colleague, Mr. Cardin.

Welcome, Mr. Lehman, all three witnesses, and you may, of course, proceed, as you wish.

STATEMENT OF ARNOLD L. LEHMAN, DIRECTOR, BALTIMORE MUSEUM OF ART, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ART MUSEUM DIRECTORS, THE AMERICAN ARTS ALLIANCE, AND THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS

Mr. LEHMAN. With that very nice introduction from Congressman Cardin, I would like to begin by saying, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I am Arnold Lehman, director of the Baltimore Museum of Art, just up the road a bit.

I am here today on behalf of the American Arts Alliance, the Association of Art Museum Directors, on which I serve as first vice president and the American Association of Museums.

I first wish to commend you, Mr. Chairman, and Representatives Berman and Markey for your leadership in advancing the interests and rights and recognition of the visual artists of our Nation. The arts community believes strongly in strengthening safeguards against the irretrievable damage of culture properties and America's art museums strongly support the underlying concept of the Visual Artists Rights Act, namely guaranteeing the integrity and attribution rights of artists.

I have been the director of the Baltimore Museum for the past 10 years. Along with its major collections of art from all centuries, the

museum is the major collector and exhibitor of contemporary art in the State of Maryland and one of the more active presenters of contemporary art in the country.

Contemporary art is the growing focus of our program in response, in direct response, to public interests and community activity. Our collections include works by artists of national and international stature, including, I am delighted to say, work by Mr. Snelson, who joins me on this panel, as well as by works of regional artists, and we have organized international and regional exhibitions for many decades.

Parenthetically, but related, I believe, to the broader discussion of artists' rights, in my experience as director of the museum, my direct contact with artists has always been substantial over the years, but more recently, has diminished. Changes to the tax laws in the late 1960's ended tax incentives for artists who make gifts of their works to museums and so most contact now from myself is with art dealers and donors, except in the context of exhibitions. For contemporary art museums, for artists in terms of the dissemination of their work and for the general public, current tax laws discourage the broadest public ownership and exposure of contemporary art. Many of the major works of art in the collection of our museum were, in fact, given in the 1950's and 1960's by artists themselves, prior to the tax law change, a very major contribution to the history of art in our country, indeed, came from its own artists.

Today, because of the escalating prices that we all hear about and the lack of tax incentives for artists' personal gifts of their work, few American museums can acquire major works by established artists. Without question, I believe this is not in the broadest public interest. That was all parenthetical.

The Visual Artists Rights Act, in many respects, provides an important Federal recognition for contemporary artists, a validation of their work. America's growing arts community leads the world in its diversity, its innovative spirit and its high standard of excellence. Those who are inspired to create works of art capture and reflect the essential human qualities of our time and enhance our understanding and appreciation of the world around us.

The concern of art museums regarding the bill are minimal. Many issues that were previously expressed to be of concern by the museum community, such as the exception for legitimate conservation practices and the resale royalty provision have been adequately addressed, we believe, in the bill as we have it before us today. But in contradiction to my-the speaker before me, Mr. Koegel, we persist in our concern over the supercharged word of "distortion" in section 3 and respectfully request its deletion from the bill.

Interpretation of this term might be so extended as to apply to the manner of installation or framing of an artwork in an exhibition setting or even the color of the wall upon which the work is placed.

Throughout the country, in many museum contexts, we have experienced an increasing involvement and appropriate involvement of an artist in the installation and exposure of his works. In many situations, where an installation is planned around the color scheme or lighting technique, an artist has often suggested that the

change in the tonality of the wall changes, in fact, the appearance of their work, and so this, in fact, issue of distortion, becomes a problem for museums and for the artists themselves.

Similarly, the phrase "other modification" in the same section could be interpreted broadly and may have the same effect. Its ambiguity may lead to unwarranted and unnecessary disagreements. All in all, we are in strong support of this bill. We believe that the bill addresses an important issue for artists and is appropriate in its approach, as well as forward-looking. It fairly balances, we believe, the additional administrative responsibilities with which museums will have to comply on the one hand and the importance of the recognition of the artist on the other.

I hope you will consider the modifications I have discussed and look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the subcommittee members, in advancing this bill. I will be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Lehman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lehman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARNOLD L. LEHMAN, DIRECTOR, BALTIMORE MUSEUM OF ART, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ARTS ALLIANCE, THE ASSOCIATION OF ART MUSEUM DIRECTORS, AND THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Arnold Lehman, Director of the Baltimore Museum of Art in Baltimore, Maryland. I am here today on behalf of the American Arts Alliance, the Association of Art Museum Directors and the American Association of Museums. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to present the views of the art museum community on H.R. 2690, the Visual Artists Rights Act.

Before I comment on our specific concerns regarding the bill, I wish to say a few words about the vital role played by the individual creative artist in our society and the artist's interaction with the art museum.

America's growing artist community leads the world in its diversity, its innovative spirit, and its high standard of excellence. Those who are inspired to create works of art capture and reflect the essential human qualities of our time and enhance our understanding and appreciation of the world around us.

The Baltimore Museum of Art and art museums across the country have an enormous responsibility to preserve and interpret their collections of our artistic and cultural heritage. Through their exhibitions and programs, art museums present the cultural patrimony of generations past and foster the creativity that is to become the patrimony of future generations. The success of this mission is directly dependent on the artist. Their work must be taken seriously, and their rights and the works they produce are unquestionably worth protecting.

With the well-being of the cultural community in mind, public policy must take on a new vision. This new vision must reflect an understanding that the arts are an integral element of our civilization; the arts are fundamental to our national character and are among the greatest of our national treasures.

From this preface, I wish to commend Chairman Robert Kastenmeier and Representative Edward Markey for their leadership in advancing the interest and rights of visual artists. I would also like to commend this subcommittee for its interest and attention to this very important issue. The arts Community believes strongly in strengthening safeguards against the irretrievable damage of cultural properties. The Visual Artists Rights Act brings meaningful and extremely complex issues to the fore, and I am here today to support the underlying concept of this measure, namely guaranteeing the integrity and attribution rights of artists.

Although we are in agreement on the intent of the legislation, I do wish to express some specific concerns for art museums regarding the bill.

Many of the issues of concern that were expressed with the bill in the 100th Congress have been adequately addressed in the bill we have before us today. The moral right provisions of the bill, pertaining to the rights of paternity and protection, have been partially clarified with a special exception made for legitimate conservation practices. Thus, last year's concern that conservation measures performed by museums to protect works of

35-822 0 - 90 - 5

1