A political science degree can only take you so far.
A clarification. I gave the general cases about works that already been published. I forgot that some or all of the material in this specific case has never been published. Those would be handled under the original copyright and a derivative use wouldn’t come into it. In addition, there is no way of knowing whether the photographers kept their copyright or they were working for the corporation (Guccione) and so were creating works made for hire. That’s the thing about copyright: the individual details matter enormously.
Unpublished works have their own set of terms before entering the public domain. See this always useful chart.
Have publicity releases or copyright documents ever been written up as bearer documents? In theory, it’s possible to write a check payable to “bearer” where legal ownership of the check carries with it a legal right to the money. Can this be done with intellectual property?
So all those offices with art hanging on the walls are violating copyright unless they have a signed release by the copyright owner? As is anyone who has a picture hanging where it can be seen thorough a window of their house? (This includes your wedding photos, since the photographer generally retains copyright).
How does charging admission to see your manuscript or photo collection differ from charging admission to see your copy of a movie playing on the big-screen TV?
Yes. If it’s not an authorized reproduction and the work is under copyright, it’s piracy.
Authorized purchase usually encompasses - or tolerates - things like casual public visibility.
Is that explicit or precedent? Or just assumed?
Note there was the ASCAP (?) persecution of auto shops, dentist offices, etc. where even the worker’s personal radio being heard in the public area was grounds for demanding licensing fees. Oh, and the demand for license fees for the Girl Guides to sing campfire songs.
IANAL, just a publisher… 
I believe it’s much like the difference between home cable service, where they don’t really care how many people watch it, even 50 people to watch a football game, and a TV in a public place like a bar that has to pay a commercial rate.
If you purchased a work for public showing, it might - might - be subject to additional licensing costs. But for the most part, prints, reproductions and castings are authorized for public viewing, such as through a window or in your yard.
I can’t see any reason an artist or publisher would come after someone for having a framed copy of an authorized reproduction on display… but if it was being used commercially (e.g., as part of a logo, or sign, or to attract business) they would.