Are people interested in embroidered replicas of famous art?
George
paintings but I have no idea weather people like this kind of art
style or not. Does anyone have any ideas about it? We did make some
of silk embroidery paintings that you can view them at
http://EmbroideryArtwork.com.
Thanks.
georg
Make anything you want to make.
I'm not understanding what you are talking about. We don't buy and sell
finished works in this newsgroup.
-georg
Dianne Lewandowski
ten people who would like a Monet or Rembrandt, another ten would like
an abstract. For every 20 that would love kittens, another 20 would
prefer a cottage in the woods.
There just isn't a concensus when it comes to art. My own opinion is
that people enjoy designs that are indicative of the culture from whence
they came. So your works of cranes, tigers, lotus, villages, are
appreciated because they are unique. To "Westernize" it, (to me) is to
lessen its importance.
Remember, that's just my "opinion". As I looked at your finished
embroideries, the ones I was drawn to are the ones unique to your
culture. I don't have the dollars to purchase one of your designs, but
if I did, that is what I would purchase . . . not a fad piece that will
have no lasting value.
Dianne
Ellice
However, just a note, that reproducing famous works of art usually requires
expensive licensing from the estate or the museum which owns that piece.
Just a thought.
Ellice
On 11/21/03 9:31 AM,"Dianne Lewandowski" <dia...@heritageshoppe.com> posted:
Dianne Lewandowski
> I agree with what Dianne wrote - see, it happens ;^)
Gee, I didn't know we disagreed! That's how much I pay attention to
comments. I'm as likely think your nuts one moment and hug you the
next. <g> I wouldn't want a world filled with people like me. The mix
is much more fun, valuable, and interesting.
Seriously earnest Dianne or was that
Earnestly serious Dianne <huge grin>
Anders
"Ellice" <Ell...@cox.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:BBE39B29.CB19%Ell...@cox.net...
> I agree with what Dianne wrote - see, it happens ;^)
>
> However, just a note, that reproducing famous works of art usually
requires
> expensive licensing from the estate or the museum which owns that piece.
> Just a thought.
Are you implying that the copyright is held by the owner although the artist
has been dead for a long time? Are you sure about this?
Ellice
Maybe. 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". Similarly, a long dead artist may
have passed down their artwork in the family, and it's still a work owned by
the great-great-whatever, or family friend, or guy who found it in the
street, or the local butcher from 1789's great-great-great-great.. The piece
may be on public display, but the rights to its commercial use might still
be retained by the owner. At least here in the US.
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.
The copyrights on works of art, are a little different than published works
of literature. And, there are people who indeed own a painting, or an
antique sampler, and therefore have the rights to use of that image. I know
several designers that do reproduction samplers, or other needlework. They
are extremely careful to license the use of the original image - in some
cases from a private collection. You can look at samplers done by Of Female
Worth, or Handwork amongst others, and see the attribution "original sampler
from the collection of XXXXX" . There is a fee paid (usually) and at the
least a signed agreement permitting the use of the original sampler to be
copied. The designs taken from the Winterthur Museum collection of
needlework are all licensed to a specific designer who has the rights to do
the reproduction needlework kits/charts - of those authentic pieces.
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.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty darn sure about this. It's about commercial
use of someone's property vs private use - fair use - of a public image. If
you just want to make an interpretative sketch, or take a photo, and stitch
it for yourself - that may be considered fair use. But, if you then want to
take your chart and sell it, that's a different story. Of course, the rules
are different in different countries, and international copyright law is a
whole different thing. Of course, in Paris, how many places can you see
pictures on t-shirts, or scarves, of some painting from the Louvre, etc.
Just depends on what is in the public "ownership" , public domain, where you
are, how you intend to use it.
TNNA, the National Needlework Association, just issued to its members a
brochure on copyright. It's free for us to photocopy, and distribute. Lots
of information - particularly about issues in needlework. If you have a LNS
that is a member, they may have it for reading, or to give out. I don't want
to go into the copy business, but if anyone is really wanting it, I could
scan it, and make a PDF that people can get. Just LMK.
Ellice - not a lawyer ;^)
Anders
Hi Ellice.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm very interested in the subject and I'd like
to get this sorted out ones and for all.
I see your point, that the owner of a piece of art should be protected in
some way. I'm not sure, however, if such a protection is regulated by the
U.S. law.
In fact, most of the major nations have signed the Berne Copyright
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html) and hence since
1978 most countries have very similar Copyright Laws.
The Convention appears to allow some national variations, whereas the U.S.
Copyright Office(http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/) should be the source to be
relied on.
According to the U.S. Copyright Office (in short and as I understand it):
- 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 I see this, copyright may be transferred to a museum or, of course, an
inheritor, but the copyright duration is independent of such a transfer. The
duration is a certain amount of time after the creation or publishing of the
work or after the death of the author(s).
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.
For the example with the guy finding a piece of art in the street, I
interpret the law as if this guy will never be the copyright holder.
Transfer of copyright seems to be possible only by a contract, signed by the
author, or by inheritance.
For the example when the painting was created in 1789, the law clearly
judges it to be in the public domain.
As I initially said, I'm not a lawyer and since TNNA has issued to its
members a brochure on copyright that seems to state differently than my
interpretation of the law, I'd very much like to continue this discussion.
Ellice, I'd be much obliged could you make the TNNA copyright brochure
available.
Best regards,
/Anders
Ellice
*snip*
But, in this case, the rights to use of the image are resting with the
owner, not the creator at this point. In the art world I think there is more
to it than just the you published it, it's been X years, now anyone can use
the image for any reason.
*snip*
> As I initially said, I'm not a lawyer and since TNNA has issued to its
> members a brochure on copyright that seems to state differently than my
> interpretation of the law, I'd very much like to continue this discussion.
>
> Ellice, I'd be much obliged could you make the TNNA copyright brochure
> available.
I'll ask if they're planning to make it available on the web-site. If not,
I'll scan it and make a PDF. Maybe I can get them to send me a PDF. Who
knows. But, I will talk about this with one of our lawyer friends,
relatives. It is pretty interesting. I just know that Museums in the US are
very protective of any commercial use of an image of a piece of art that
they own. It is interesting.
ellice
Anders
<snip>
I'm not sure I understand this. Could you please elaborate? English isn't my
native tongue so please bear with me...
> In the art world I think there is more
> to it than just the you published it, it's been X years, now anyone can
use
> the image for any reason.
According to the U.S. Copyright Office this seems to be the case, though.
Any work, created or published before 1908, now belongs to the public
domain.
>
> *snip*
>
> > As I initially said, I'm not a lawyer and since TNNA has issued to its
> > members a brochure on copyright that seems to state differently than my
> > interpretation of the law, I'd very much like to continue this
discussion.
> >
> > Ellice, I'd be much obliged could you make the TNNA copyright brochure
> > available.
>
> I'll ask if they're planning to make it available on the web-site. If not,
> I'll scan it and make a PDF. Maybe I can get them to send me a PDF. Who
> knows. But, I will talk about this with one of our lawyer friends,
> relatives. It is pretty interesting. I just know that Museums in the US
are
> very protective of any commercial use of an image of a piece of art that
> they own. It is interesting.
Talking to a lawyer in person is probably more useful than trying to
interpret the law on your own, I guess...
Please let us know what you learn from that conversation.
Best Regards,
/Anders
George
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.
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
Anders
news:f8f7c4e5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> Are Van Gogh/famous art still under copyright? 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.
>
> 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?
The simple answer (which I believe in) is no, it will not infringe copyright
since van Gogh has been dead for more than 110 years by now.
The somewhat more involved answer is based on the fact that van Gogh was not
a U.S. citizen but a Dutchman. To be certain you have to consult Dutch law,
but I'd be much surprised if it is more rigorous than the U.S. one. The fact
that the piece of art is owned by a museum or estate is probably of minor
significance regarding copyright. However, if you'd like to take a picture
of the piece at the museum or what ever, the owner could of course prohibit
you from doing so.
> Below is summary of the discussion (true or false?):
Since I'm not a lawyer this is of course just my interpretation of the U.S.
law (See U.S. Copyright Office(http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/))
>
> "Reproducing famous works of art usually requires expensive licensing
> from the estate or the museum which owns that piece."
False or true depending on how old the work is.
>
> "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."
Sorry. This I do not understand.
>
> "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."
This is probably false. If the copyright duration has not yet expired, you
are not allowed to use another person's work if it cannot be considered as
satire. (This is how I remember it, but you should refer to my link on this)
>
> "I'm pretty sure these artist's works are not protected by copyright
> any more, if they ever were."
I'm not sure of to what work you refer. Way back in time there where
probably no such thing as copyright. Is that applicable?
> "If you were going to render a classic image of GREAT WORLD ART in
> embroidery, I would think that it would be okay."
True if the copyright has expired. False if it hasn't.
>
> "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 law in this matter seems rather unambiguous.
> "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"."
They own the physical piece which means you cannot take it with you when you
go home. Has the artist been dead for long enough, the copyright has
expired, however.
>
> "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."
There is probably no way of escaping from the copyright law by such a
statement. If your piece shows too much likeness to the original and it's
still copyrighted, you may have to pay...
>
> "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."
If the museum allows the sketching in the first place and the painting is
old enough, you may probably sell as many copies you'd like.
>
> "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."
These are my own comments and I still think they are valid :-)
>
> "Museums in the US are very protective of any commercial use of an
> image of a piece of art that they own."
True, without any doubt. Why shouldn't they? It's no law against being
protective, but they won't get paid for that... ;-)
Take my comments for what they are. I'm not a lawyer, but the U.S. law is
pretty straightforward on this. Take a look and make your own decision.
Regards,
/Anders
Brenda Lewis
This is a link to the photography and sketching policies for the
Metropolitan Museum of Art. The basic theme is they own the original
works and have to right to decide who may copy them and in what format.
They also have to right to tell you whether or not you may reproduce
your copies in any media. Since one of the ways they raise funds is
through sales of their prints and items based on gallery images, I'm
sure they would frown on someone else commercially exploiting their
property.
Darn, they sucked me in. I'm just going to go stare at the Tiffany
items in the Met Store...
--
Brenda Lewis Rhianno...@netscape.net
WIP: "Pink Baby" photo frame, Candamar
Dianne Lewandowski
"duplication" of an original for fraudulent sale as an "original".
Dianne
Anders
"Brenda Lewis" <Rhianno...@netscape.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:3FC5EF02...@netscape.net...
> http://www.metmuseum.org/visitor/index.asp#Policy
> This is a link to the photography and sketching policies for the
> Metropolitan Museum of Art. The basic theme is they own the original
> works and have to right to decide who may copy them and in what format.
> They also have to right to tell you whether or not you may reproduce
> your copies in any media. Since one of the ways they raise funds is
> through sales of their prints and items based on gallery images, I'm
> sure they would frown on someone else commercially exploiting their
> property.
Their policy is in no conflict with what I wrote, but it probably has
nothing to do with the copyright law. The owner may prevent you from taking
at picture of the work. They may also force you into a contract of not using
the photograph commercially to be allowed taking the picture. They may even
stop you from even looking at the work...
However, has the copyright duration expired and you are able to produce a
cross stitch chart from a different source than a particular photograph
taken at this particular museum, you are probably not breaking any law. Is
it a very famous piece of art, it shouldn't be to hard to find a different
(and legal) source either.