Developing Intellectual Property Policies:
A How-To Guide for Museums
3.3 Related Policies
IP policy intersects with many other policy domains, such as information use, computer access, and privacy and publicity rights. Institutions often address these areas within their IP policy because they crop up so frequently in IP contexts. For example, the recent case of Hoepker v. Kruger, which pitted artist Barbara Kruger94 (and various museums and galleries that reproduced her work) against a photographer and model whose work and image were used by Kruger, illustrates the imbroglios that can occur when different policy arenas (in this instance, the rights of privacy, publicity and intellectual property) intersect.
The following related policy areas frequently arise in the context of IP issues:
- Information Use and Computer Access
Information policies address the creation, use, and management of information within an institution, whether this information exists in analogue or digital form. Because so much information is now managed on digital networks, these policies often overlap with computer access policies. The latter traditionally addressed areas such as use of computer resources, including malicious use (hacking, spam, system sabotage, harassment and defamation), electronic commerce, email, network security and Web use.
Information use and computer access policies frequently intersect with IP policies in the context of digital reproduction and distribution (particularly the use of museum and third party IP on websites), and with Web-specific functions like linking and framing which can violate copyrights and trademarks.
- Privacy and Publicity Rights
The right of privacy has many distinct aspects that include the right to secrecy and solitude, the right to control information about oneself, and the right to personal autonomy. The purpose of privacy rights is to protect a person against unwanted publicity and the harm that can result from it. The right of publicity protects a person's (usually a well known public or celebrity figure) right to commercially control their name, likeness, signature, voice or other distinctly identifying characteristic.
Some areas where IP policies may intersect with privacy and publicity policies include ownership of email communications conducted on museum time using the museum's computer system; use (particularly reproduction and distribution uses) of IP assets that happen to incorporate an image or other identifying characteristic of a celebrity or public figure; or web casting activities where a museum creates a live broadcast that includes gallery visitors.
Despite the apparent frequency with which privacy, publicity, and other related topics appear in IP contexts, they also occur in many non-IP contexts: for example, identity theft, unauthorized review of medical records, and illegal wiretapping are all invasions of privacy that are unrelated to IP issues. For this reason, policy and legal experts recommend developing separate policies for these topics to adequately address the broader sphere in which they occur. Museums are advised to develop separate policies in these areas, and link them to their IP policy (when relevant) by reference (e.g., "See also: The XYZ Museum's Privacy Policy.")
