Works of Van Gogh are still under copyright?
George
but I do not know whether it infringes copyright. How can I verify
that? Your advice would be appreciated. Thanks.
George - http://EmbroideryArtwork.com
Flying_Naked_People
g...@embroideryartwork.com says...
Hi George. Maybe you could a legal answer from Georgia's "Lawyers for the
Arts." http://www.glarts.org
And might I say, you've taken up quite a phenomenal project. I used to do
embroidery when I was a child... but not by choice. I think it was just my
mother's favorite form of punishment. Good luck.
Miriam
Here, the present laws gives copyright in seventy years from the death
of the artist.
A link to a page with more information about copyright:
http://painting.about.com/library/blpaint/blcopyrightfaq.htm
MJ
Hi, George
There is no clear answer to your question. In the end, the decision
could swing either way depending on the interpretation of a particular
federal judge or jury.
The general rule is that copyright infringement is not realized if the
new work is substantially changed from the original. An embroidered
version of an original work MIGHT be considered different enough from
the original to avoid copyright infringement. Or, a change in medium
(embroidery v. oils) MIGHT NOT be considered enough of a modification,
particularly if there were no changes in color, texture or
composition.
See www.copyright.gov for full information.
This is a personal comment, NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE.
Peter Gorman
> > but I do not know whether it infringes copyright. How can I verify
> > that? Your advice would be appreciated. Thanks.
> >
>
I think Miriam is correct.
Miriam
>
An embroidered
> version of an original work MIGHT be considered different enough from
> the original to avoid copyright infringement. Or, a change in medium
> (embroidery v. oils) MIGHT NOT be considered enough of a modification,
> particularly if there were no changes in color, texture or
> composition.
>
> See www.copyright.gov for full information.
>
> This is a personal comment, NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE.
I encourage all fools of your sort to follow your advice. Take away
that NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE. Hopefully you will end up
with bancrupcy, not managing to pay all your smart, expensive lawers
in a case you are doomed to loose.
Peter Gorman
art whose copyright has ended, including van goghs.
Andrew Werby
"George" <g...@embroideryartwork.com> wrote in message
news:f8f7c4e5.03112...@posting.google.com...
[I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure these artist's works are not
protected by copyright any more, if they ever were. For works created before
1978, when a new law took effect, there was a requirement that the author
affix a copyright notice and date to each work; which is something I don't
think the Impressionists bothered to do. However, the photographs of them
which you are probably using for an image source usually are copyrighted. If
you took the photos yourself, I think you'd be in the clear, for the works
of any artist who has been dead for 50 years or more where the copyright (if
it ever existed) has not been renewed. Here's a pretty good explanation of
current "intellectual property" law, aimed at multimedia content creators:
http://www.eff.org/CAF/law/ip-primer .
Museums often seem to regard the intellectual property inherent in the works
in their collections as their own, and try to protect it in various ways,
such as by prohibiting photography in their galleries, but they will
reproduce the work in various ways (on cocktail napkins, barbeque aprons,
you name it) for sale in their gift shops without the permission of the
artist or his/her heirs. It's a case of "possession is nine points of the
law"...]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
Argon3
property: it keeps you from putting these images on calendars, cocktail
napkins, scarves, etc. while the museums do just that and sell them in their
museum stores and catalogs. Consider all of the satires based upon American
Gothic...can the Art Institute of Chicago sue? Would they go after Paul Newman
and Joanne Woodward for the American Gothic pose that they affect on their
popcorn packages?
If you were going to render a classic image of GREAT WORLD ART in embroidery, I
would think that it would be okay. Earlier this year there was an article on
the copyists in the Lourve that appeared in the Smithsonian Magazine....good
article and it makes the terms of the relationship between the copyists and the
Lourve pretty clear. I doubt that you would be trying to pass an embroidery of
VanGogh's Sunflowers off as an original VanGogh. (You didn't know that the did
embroidery? He took it up while his ear was on the mend.)
argon
MJ
1. [Miriam] ... the present laws give(s) copyright [protection for]
seventy years from the death of the artist. Correct. See federal
regulations at www.copyright.gov.
2. [Andrew] ... photographs ... which you are probably using for an
image source, usually are copyrighted. Correct. See federal
regulations at www.copyright.gov.
3. The "totally free use of copyrights" claimed by Visipix is
misleading. Visipix owns the copyrights to ITS photographs of
artworks, and determines how ITS properties will be used. Note
Visipix states "totally free [USE] of copyrights," not "totally free
of copyright."
4. Visipix is a SWISS company. It is subject to U.S. copyright laws
only when its products are bought/sold in the United States.
5. [Miriam] "I encourage all fools of your sort to follow your
advice. Take away that NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE.
Hopefully you will end up with bancrupcy, not managing to pay all your
smart, expensive lawers in a case you are doomed to loose."
Miriam, I am a lawyer. And "loose" is correctly spelled "lose."
And once again,
Miriam
>
> 5. [Miriam] "I encourage all fools of your sort to follow your
> advice. Take away that NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE.
> Hopefully you will end up with bancrupcy, not managing to pay all your
> smart, expensive lawers in a case you are doomed to loose."
>
> Miriam, I am a lawyer. And "loose" is correctly spelled "lose."
>
>
> And once again,
> This is a personal comment, NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE.
The original question: I want to copy Van Gogh commersially to
embroidery, will I infringe copyrights? - is a completely straight
question and I have no problems with it. Your last posting is also
completely OK when it comes to intentions, as I see it.
If you are a lawer you might have tried to be helpful in your first
answer and I didn't mean to insult you. Still - tax evation logic
isn't a very good thing when it comes to copyright - for many reasons,
and your first answer can be interpreted as beeing in that category.
Those wanting to exploit the evation road should go to a lawer and pay
for it, not ask for free advice in this forum.
My attitude is just about to copyrights to artwork - there is a legal
term for this field, I don't recall the english term. I'm talking
about product from musicians, authors, painters, photographers and so
on. These days there is a lot of politics involved in
copyright-issuses, medicine, patent to crops, and so on, and that is
another debate.
The topic: Around here it wouldn't be enough to change three leaves in
a painting of Van Gogh to claim it altered. What medium you use for
reproduction isn't important.
Misspellings: English isn't my native tongue and my daily language.
Sometimes I mess up things and make grammar mistakes. Sorry about
that.
George
in puzzle in terms of those opinions in summary below. In fact, I
consulted a lawyer about it trying to get answers, but unfortunately
it did not help.
Here is the scenario we discuss:
Will that infringe copyright if one get a Van Gogh's work embroidered
for commercial purpose given the piece is in public domain already,
according to US law, but it is owned by a museum or estate in US or
foreign country? Yes or no?
Below is summary of the discussion (true or false?):
"Reproducing famous works of art usually requires expensive licensing
from the estate or the museum which owns that piece."
"The copyright is still held by the owner/museum/artist's estate
although the artist has been dead for a long time such as 100 yeas and
the item is in public domain already as the present laws gives
copyright in seventy years from the death of the artist."
"An embroidered version of an original work MIGHT be considered
different enough from the original to avoid copyright infringement.
Or, a change in medium
(embroidery v. oils) MIGHT NOT be considered enough of a modification,
particularly if there were no changes in color, texture or
composition."
"I'm pretty sure these artist's works are not protected by copyright
any more, if they ever were."
"If you were going to render a classic image of GREAT WORLD ART in
embroidery, I would think that it would be okay."
"There is no clear answer to your question. In the end, the decision
could swing either way depending on the interpretation of a particular
federal judge or jury."
"If a museum owns a piece of art, generally they own the legal right
to use it's image. That is why when you see stationery, or other
things done
in with reproductions of a painting, and it's labelled "Monet's
Waterlillies" it also says "Museum X"."
"If you, as an artist, choose to do a painting in the style of Monet's
Waterlillies, and sell it, use if for commercial purposes, then you
say
"After Monet's Waterlillies" - therefore making it clear that this is
a painting done by you in the style of."
"If you want to go into the National Gallery of art here (as I'm sure
Lula,
or Caryn, and other locals such as myself do) and sit and sketch -
that's
fine. But, if you want to then commercially reproduce your exact copy
of
Girl with a Watering Can - well, you're in trouble. And if you want to
make
a commercially sold embroidery of that painting, you're violating the
ownership rights of the museum."
"All works for which the statutory copyright period has expired
belongs to
the public domain.
- The copyright may be transferred to a new copyright owner, but this
transfer is not automated by the transfer of the ownership of the
actual
work. So, the owner of a work may or may not be the copyright holder.
- The duration of copyright for works first published prior to 1978
is, at
most, 95 years after the creation of the work.
- The duration of copyright for works created after Jan. 1, 1978 is,
at
most, 120 years from the year of its creation."
"As for your example with Monet's Waterlillies you may be right or you
may
not. Had Monet been a U.S. artist this would probably have been a
borderline
case based on when the copyright had been renewed. I'd say that it
would
probably belong to the public domain from this year, 2003. Since Monet
is
French, the U.S. law does, however, not apply."
"Museums in the US are very protective of any commercial use of an
image of a piece of art that they own."
Flying_Naked_People
g...@embroideryartwork.com says...
>
> This has been a very interesting and good discussion. But it is still
> in puzzle in terms of those opinions in summary below. In fact, I
> consulted a lawyer about it trying to get answers, but unfortunately
> it did not help.
>
Of course, the easy way OUT of all of this legal tangle-up is to produce your
*own* images!
Miriam
involved. If they give permission, your problem is solved. If not -
they may give you a legal reason for not accepting it.
Would be interesting to hear what it ends up with.