View Full Version : Speaking of Copyrights...

06-27-2002, 11:47 AM
What do ya'll think of an artist that paints a copy of a master's work, one that is out of copyright, and does not credit the master but instead calls the painting an "original (insert artist's name)" For example, Klimt's "The Kiss." I believe he's been dead for just under 100 years now, right? And he would no longer be in copyright. (isn't that 70 years after death?)

AND, even though there is no copyright anymore, is it legal (obviously not ethical) to call their copy an original?

Just something I stumbed across on Ebay. Klimt, (a fav of mine) seems to have a lot of copiers.

06-27-2002, 05:01 PM
got examples on ebay to point us to?

06-27-2002, 06:02 PM
I had to find it again. LoL Here it is. It was still open when I saw it. It's closed now.


06-27-2002, 06:15 PM
You mean that there is no tribute to the artist at all, such as "in the manner of ... the artist," or" interpretation of ...the artist," "or inspired by...the artist?"

Although, it may no longer falls under the copyright laws, it's a misrepresentation of truth and I think that stinks!

06-27-2002, 07:00 PM
I agree with you both, it does stink, a mention as "in the style of" would not have detracted from the painting.

06-27-2002, 07:06 PM
I've been told that there is no copyright laws in Romania and that they are not part of the Universal copyright laws.

I've seen other art from this country that was obvious copies...reported as original works by (soandso) without any regard to the actual artist. Since they don't have copyright law to deal with....this is probably why you see it happening.

And...she may not even know that 'original' should mean that its her creation....not a copy. I had someone tell me their work was an 'original' just because they painted it!!!

06-27-2002, 07:36 PM
That's an interesting point, but she does say a "hand painted original".

06-28-2002, 12:08 AM
Not having seen the original, I don't know how close it is, but I feel sorry for anyone who buys her work thinking they have a one of a kind piece. Even if not illegal, it is certainly unethical, at least to our standards.

06-28-2002, 01:16 AM
Suzette, that's very easy to fix! :D Here's the original.


Be sure to continue on to check some of his other art. He's one of my favorite figurative artists. Some really nice work. :)

06-28-2002, 01:21 AM
Carly, I didn't know that about Romania! That doesn't sound like a very good thing. :mad: Ah well. Tis the way of the world I suppose. But you would think that claiming a master's as one's own would really ruin their name.

But, here in the US, does the museum that owns the piece have any kind of claims to a piece's reproduction that has passed out of copyright?

06-29-2002, 03:49 AM
Thanks, KJO, for posting the original. That is a blatant, out and out, copy. Not even subtle about it. It almost looks as though it was traced, it is so identical. Wow, some people have a lot of nerve.