PDA

View Full Version : COPYRIGHT and copying artist's works


artbyjune
09-10-2009, 01:12 AM
Now that we are starting to look at the work of more modern masters in addition to old masters, we have to be careful of copyright issues.

Here's the info I received from admin:

'I believe the rule is that the artist must be well dead for 70 years before one can 'copy' the work and post it anywhere. It cannot be sold nor exhibited. '


So when studying modern masters, we cannot post direct copies of their work. We can comment about aspects of their work in discussions. We can make hommage to their work.

Always check the dates then before copying artwork!!:thumbsup:

artbyjune
09-10-2009, 01:16 AM
Also, we should be careful when posting photos of another artists work. Make sure the photos you post come from a commons site where they give permission to copy them for study purposes. If in doubt, just give a link to the website with the artists work, and we can go look at it onsite and come back here to discuss it, etc.

lovin art
09-10-2009, 05:40 AM
Also, we should be careful when posting photos of another artists work. Make sure the photos you post come from a commons site where they give permission to copy them for study purposes. If in doubt, just give a link to the website with the artists work, and we can go look at it onsite and come back here to discuss it, etc.

No worries June, thanks for the info, see you in the threads.....

Sandra.

trafford
09-10-2009, 06:17 AM
June we can't personally make copies of an artists work who died after 1939, but can we post an original work to study or be inspired by? If not, we better stick to the very old masters as we have already posted artist's work who died after 1939 and so has the Art History forum.

I did see a blog on Chagall, where they only posted links, as they said, because of copyright they couldn't post originals. :eek: What about U-tube which is abound with died not long ago videos. Do some sites have special permission? Tis confusing. :heart:

gakinme
09-10-2009, 09:38 AM
June, perhaps to be on the safe side, my original post should be edited to give only links to the images instead, or a blanket google image link for Chagall.

artbyjune
09-10-2009, 01:28 PM
http://www.artlawteam.com/tags/fair-use/

Above is a link on copyright given to me by one of the moderators. I haven't read it yet but I am sure it will give more detailed info.

We can stick to artists prior to 1939 as you suggest, or we can just make it clear that for modern artists we may only do hommage to, or in the 'style' of...but they have to be our own compositions.

Thus we could take principles discovered by a modern artist and adapt them to be of use in our work, or perhaps do a subject matter the master artist was fond of, but in our own style, etc etc....

artbyjune
09-10-2009, 01:31 PM
As far as photos are concerned I think for the future, if you want to be safe about it, you should just post a link to the site of interest. That way you will be in the clear, I presume. We can't vouch for whether Utube or other sites have the right or not to publish the artists work as that's a concern for them.

Wow it is tricky isn't it. Maybe we should stick to pre-1939 artists as Janet suggests!!

Dana Design
09-10-2009, 02:32 PM
Hi, June...
The link I gave to you is for US copyright law. Other countries have different laws, some more lenient, some stricter so it pays to bone up on your own country's laws.

Copied from the link briefly:
Here is the general rule: Use of all or any part of someone elseís copyrighted work constitutes copyright infringement. This includes copying and making derivative works from anotherís work, as well as distributing, displaying and selling someone elseís work.

There seems to be some esoteric idea that you can copy 30% of a piece and still be ok but that just isn't true. Not too many years ago, a famous artist (?) painted a photo by a famous photographer. The artist was sued and lost.

gakinme
09-10-2009, 03:15 PM
June, could you change my original Chagall posting please?

Just put these two links in for his work. That should be sufficient.

http://images.google.com/images?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=marc+chagall&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=Fk6pSuzJJouEswPx9tH6BA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&biw=1398

http://www.artsfairies.com/Chagall/chagall.htm

You know, for October, I would like to change the children's illustrator and not do Robert Mccloskey since he's contemporary.

Could I do Gustave Dore instead? He illustrated great literature and he's quite dead. LOL. I feel more comfortable copying masters' works who are long gone.

trafford
09-10-2009, 04:04 PM
I have a problem here. My Fauves images will have to go because most of the artists died in the 50's....going back this would apply to threads of Frida Kahlo (1954), Beatrix Potter (1943) and many other threads. I presume we are just moving on from here.

It's a shame that we can't show the artist's images that make the threads so interesting. I'll try to find a mixture of links for dead after 1939 and images of the dead before 1939. :lol: There must be a way to dress it up a bit, so that people will take the time to go into the links.

It's a challenge....meanwhile I'll find a group in October that were all nicely tucked away before WWII. :heart:

Just Granny
03-03-2010, 09:33 PM
I wrote to the artist who painted the snow lepoard on wet canvas.....
he gave me permission to paint the snow leopard from his picture but only for my own family....
my husband is an amature astronomer, he had me look at the new Hubble pictures ...they are beautiful.... I wrote to the copywright dept and ask for permission to paint some of them, they gave me written permission and ask only that could I please send them a copy of what I paint for their records...

Cieljaune
09-13-2011, 11:07 PM
I'm a journalist, and the worlds of news reporting, commentary and education operate under a special case of copyright rules -- the "fair use" of copyrighted images, sound recordings or words. In federal law, fair use is explicitly excepted from violations of a person's copyright. "Fair use" can be for educational purposes, for purposes of public commentary or for reporting of information to the public. I'm wondering whether the things done in the Wet Canvas forums amount to educational activity. It seems pretty clear to me that it is. The motivation is not commercial or for immediate purposes of profit making. It's for art education, being done by volunteer teachers/coaches. That looks like fair use to me.

Also, some people may be perplexed by the matter of selling an image (or words, etc.) vs. showing, posting or exhibiting it non-commercially. Under U.S. copyright law, all those activities are considered "publishing" the material. When Jane Doe puts "Copyright (c) 2011 Jane Doe" on her original watercolor painting, it becomes covered by common law copyright as soon as she "publishes" it, i.e., shows it or gives it or exhibits it to someone else or to the public in general. Putting an image on Wet Canvas -- whether your own or an image copyrighted by someone else -- is "publishing" it in that sense.

The 2008 image of Barak Obama speaking with his head tilted, a well-known poster image done in lithograph-like flat colors, got the artist in hot water because it was based on a copyrighted news photograph. If it had been done as a private, personal Photoshop exercise, it would not have violated the photo service's copyright. If it had been done as part of a political commentary -- even if it had been in a profit-making newspaper -- that would have amounted to fair use. At least that's what the newspaper's copyright lawyer would have argued, and quite persuasively. But the Obama picture was published and sold as artwork, and that violated the copyright.

It's fair use for an art history teacher to show a slide of a Hockney painting to a class. But it's not kosher for the teacher to make many copies of a chapter of a copyright book on art history and hand them out to the students.

This is all a bit of a can of worms, and people with good lawyers often beat up people who do not have them over matters of copyright. However, I still think that the spirit of Wet Canvas is overwhelmingly educational -- even though all of us would like to see our painting go under the hammer at Sotheby's some day!

KEVOOGLE
07-03-2012, 10:09 AM
Now that we are starting to look at the work of more modern masters in addition to old masters, we have to be careful of copyright issues.

Here's the info I received from admin:

'I believe the rule is that the artist must be well dead for 70 years before one can 'copy' the work and post it anywhere. It cannot be sold nor exhibited. '


So when studying modern masters, we cannot post direct copies of their work. We can comment about aspects of their work in discussions. We can make hommage to their work.

Always check the dates then before copying artwork!!:thumbsup:

how does an artist copywright their work

KEVOOGLE
07-03-2012, 10:17 AM
2 QUESTIONS)
1)How does an Artist copyright their art work?
2)DOES an Artist need to be in the Artist Association
TO BE ABLE TO ENTER AN ART SHOW AT A GALLERY?
thank you for your time

Dana Design
07-03-2012, 01:24 PM
1. By signing it.
2. It depends. If it's a co-op gallery run by a non-profit association, you probably need to be a member. At a private gallery, no. You'd give them a percentage of the proceeds from your sales.

fatbrush
12-26-2013, 02:31 AM
This is all about respect really, isn't it? You don't go around copying someone else's work and then trying to tell people by selling it that it is your work. The act of painting it may have been yours but the inspiration, subject etc is certainly not yours. Years ago, the traditional method of learning was to copy the works of the great masters as exercises in 'How to do it'. The same was true in music where, for example the students in J.S. Bach's time would sit round a table copying out the great master's works in order to learn how to compose fantasias, fugues and other musical devices. Copying artistic works can be a great and useful way of learning a whole host of artistic techniques from skies to trees, from portraits to landscapes but these are learning exercises. Obviously the legal bit kicks in if anyone dares to exhibit, publish or sell these. thus claiming the artistic rights to be theirs (Which they are obviously not). Why should anyone want to do this. It only shows an utter disrespect for the original artist and their work and yet the artist can learn so much by respectful study and copying, learning from the techniques of other great or not so great artists, within their own studio to help them emerge as much better artists in their own right.