Commissioned Public Art - Artist Rights and Registration of Art
Summary
HB 961 creates new rules for commissioned State public art. It defines “State public art” as public art commissioned for a project that receives State funding, even if State money did not directly pay for the artwork itself. The bill prohibits contracts for such art from requiring artists to waive certain copyright-related moral rights under federal law, specifically the rights protected by 17 U.S.C. § 106A, while still allowing an artist to voluntarily agree to waive those rights if they choose.
The bill also requires that State public art be registered with the Maryland State Arts Council. The registration must include the artist’s name and contact information, the location of the artwork, the type and title of the art, and the date of installation or creation. In addition, the bill bars courts from enforcing waiver provisions that were included in existing contracts entered into before October 1, 2025, if those waivers would have required artists to give up the protected rights covered by the bill. The act takes effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
HB 961 amends the State Finance and Procurement Article by adding a new section governing State public art contracts and recordkeeping. It limits what public entities and other commissioning entities may require in contracts for State-funded public art, preserves artists’ federal moral rights unless voluntarily waived, and creates a statewide registration requirement administered through the Maryland State Arts Council. The bill affects State agencies, contractors, artists, and entities commissioning public art for projects with State funding, and it may also affect the enforceability of older contract provisions that attempted to secure broad waivers from artists.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support in the House, passing third reading by a strong margin of 123 yeas to 9 nays. The favorable committee report and lack of recorded committee debate suggest the measure was generally viewed positively, likely as a protection for artists and an administrative improvement for tracking commissioned public art. Overall, the voting history indicates the bill was not especially controversial among most delegates.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s restriction on contract terms that require artists to waive copyright protections or rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106A, which may concern commissioning entities that prefer broader control over public art projects. Another possible issue is the retroactive effect on preexisting contracts, since the bill prevents courts from enforcing certain waivers in contracts entered into before the effective date. Supporters are likely artists and arts advocates, while opponents or skeptics would more likely be public agencies, contractors, or entities that commission public art and want greater contractual flexibility.