Re: Copyright in a work of art
Joe Soap
news:1gtae8d.8ork7d4mpzc3N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk:
> I had the unusual experience this week of seeing in a shop window a
> poster for sale which was a reproduction of a pastel drawing that I own.
> I haven't given permission for the pastel to be reproduced, and the work
> of art in question has not been out of my sight for about 30 years.
>
> Since it was purchased from the artist direct I assume the artist gave
> permission for the work to be reproduced before I bought it. Either that
> or I have been burgled without noticing the event.
>
> I'm intrigued to know what the copyright on this work is likely to be.
> Do I now own the copyright or does it reside with the (deceased) artist?
> If I do own the copyright do I have the right to retrospectively control
> what happens to copies of the work, or if the artist had given
> permission to copy the work would his rights take precedence over any I
> may have?
You own the article. You don't, didn't and never will own the copyright.
--
Joe Soap.
JUNK is stuff that you keep for 20 years,
then throw away a week before you need it.
Jeremy Barker
Steve Firth wrote:
> I had the unusual experience this week of seeing in a shop window a
> poster for sale which was a reproduction of a pastel drawing that I
own.
> I haven't given permission for the pastel to be reproduced, and the
work
> of art in question has not been out of my sight for about 30 years.
Unless you own the copyright (which is unlikely) you have no say in
whether or not the work is reproduced.
> Since it was purchased from the artist direct I assume the artist
gave
> permission for the work to be reproduced before I bought it. Either
that
> or I have been burgled without noticing the event.
It could be that whoever currently owns the copyright was the one who
gave permission for its reproduction.
> I'm intrigued to know what the copyright on this work is likely to
be.
> Do I now own the copyright or does it reside with the (deceased)
artist?
It was part of the deceased artist's estate. Its current ownership
depends on the disposition of their estate which would depend on the
terms of their will if they had one. Whoever owns it now has the right
to control reproduction of the work.
> If I do own the copyright do I have the right to retrospectively
control
> what happens to copies of the work, or if the artist had given
> permission to copy the work would his rights take precedence over any
I
> may have?
You do not own the copyright and have no rights at all.
jb
Cynic
wrote:
>Jeremy Barker <jeremy...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You do not own the copyright and have no rights at all.
>
>Hmm well, I suspect that I have the rights to sell the original.
To sell, yes. But not to copy. It's copyright that we are talking
about. i.e the right to make copies.
> Thanks
>for the info though, what a bizarre situation.
Why is it bizarre? You are not entitled to copy your motorcar and
sell those replicas, but the company that desiged the car can sell as
many copies as they like without any permission from yourself. You
may of course sell your car. It's the same situation.
--
Cynic
Joe Soap
> OTOH if I pay a tradesman which is what an artist is, whether they like
> it or not, the tradesman has no right to the work that they have done
> for me.
But that isn't what you did. Somebody else made it, then you came along and
bought it.
Tim Jackson
> OTOH if I pay a tradesman which is what an artist is, whether they like
> it or not, the tradesman has no right to the work that they have done
> for me.
If you commission an artist to do a piece of work, you can write into the
contract that you are to own the copyright. It would be open to
negotiation whether you had to pay extra for that. If you don't have it
set out in advance, however, the copyright will belong to the artist.
www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/faq/copyright/own_copyright.htm
www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/faq/copyright/paid_someone_else.htm
www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/faq/copyright/commiss_work.htm
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@winterbourne.freeserve.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
copyr
steve%@malloc.co.uk:
> Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[snip] {Attribs not broken by me}
>> Why is it bizarre? You are not entitled to copy your motorcar and
>> sell those replicas, but the company that desiged the car can sell as
>> many copies as they like without any permission from yourself. You
>> may of course sell your car. It's the same situation.
>
> OTOH if I pay a tradesman which is what an artist is, whether they like
> it or not, the tradesman has no right to the work that they have done
> for me.
Wouldn't that depend on the trade of the tradesman and the contract that
you had with them?
Computer programmers have similar problems. For example (rhetorical
questions): who holds the copyright on a work that fred creates while he
works for Company PLC, or if he's a contractor for Company PLC, or if he
works for design_conslutancy_Ltd who are given a job by Company PLC.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> You do not own the copyright and have no rights at all.
>> >
>> >Hmm well, I suspect that I have the rights to sell the original.
>>
>> To sell, yes. But not to copy. It's copyright that we are talking
>> about. i.e the right to make copies.
>
>Sorry, I was just pointing out that I do not have "no rights at all", I
>have restricted rights.
>
>> > Thanks for the info though, what a bizarre situation.
>>
>> Why is it bizarre? You are not entitled to copy your motorcar and
>> sell those replicas, but the company that desiged the car can sell as
>> many copies as they like without any permission from yourself. You
>> may of course sell your car. It's the same situation.
>
>OTOH if I pay a tradesman which is what an artist is, whether they like
>it or not, the tradesman has no right to the work that they have done
>for me.
An artist is NOT a tradesman in that way. Copyright does not exist in
what a tradesman does.
And you didn't say even that you commissioned the artist to make that
drawing, just that you bought it from him.
If you had commissioned it from him, then you *could* have specified
in the contract that he assign the copyright to you, as is normal with
employment contracts, and common in contracts with freelancers.
But unless you did so, then he would continue to own the copyright, as
would also be the case with anybody else you hired to provide
something creative.
--
Alex Heney, global villager
If replying by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom (Change the DOT's and AT to the symbols).
Alex Heney
wrote:
He does, unless it specifies otherwise in the contract (which it
usually does).
I can't recall seeing a single IT contract (and I have seen many,
since that is what I work as) that didn't contain clauses regarding
intellectual property.
Jeremy Barker
Steve Firth wrote:
> Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> You do not own the copyright and have no rights at all.
> > >
> > >Hmm well, I suspect that I have the rights to sell the original.
> >
> > To sell, yes. But not to copy. It's copyright that we are talking
> > about. i.e the right to make copies.
>
I
> have restricted rights.
You have no rights in relation to copyright or other intellectual
property rights in the work. You do of course have normal real
property rights in relation to the physical article but that is a whole
different set of laws from what has been discussed here.
> > > Thanks for the info though, what a bizarre situation.
> >
> > Why is it bizarre? You are not entitled to copy your motorcar and
> > sell those replicas, but the company that desiged the car can sell
as
> > many copies as they like without any permission from yourself. You
> > may of course sell your car. It's the same situation.
>
> OTOH if I pay a tradesman which is what an artist is, whether they
like
> it or not, the tradesman has no right to the work that they have done
> for me.
Surely you're joking. Artists are decidedly not "tradesmen" and it is
rather insulting to suggest they they are, regardless of the artistic
merits of their creations.
jb
Michael Hoffman
> And the dishonest devil refused to stay bought.
You never bought the copyright, so the concept of "staying" bought
makes no sense. Calling anyone else involved here dishonest is
disingenuous.
--
Michael Hoffman
Tim Jackson
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:45:10 +0000, copyr <co...@dnac48.dabsol.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> >Computer programmers have similar problems. For example (rhetorical
> >questions): who holds the copyright on a work that fred creates while he
> >works for Company PLC, or if he's a contractor for Company PLC, or if he
> >works for design_conslutancy_Ltd who are given a job by Company PLC.
>
> He does, unless it specifies otherwise in the contract (which it
> usually does).
That's right if Fred is working under a contract for Company PLC.
If he's an employee of Company PLC, and the work is done in the course
of his employment, then the copyright belongs to Company PLC
automatically.
If he's an employee of Design_Consultancy_Ltd, and the work is done in
the course of his employment, then the copyright belongs to Company PLC
if the contract between Design_Consultancy_Ltd and Company PLC says so.
Otherwise it belongs to Design_Consultancy_Ltd.