Master's reproductions

[jose_salatino]

I see today a paint for sale in EBAY.

This paint is signed by "Francesco" or something like this.

But the image is a reproduction of a Borguereau's paint.(Le soupe)

Is that legal ??

[centyr]

Depends on how long the artist has been dead and also what country they where from.

centyr

[jose_salatino]

It's not clair for me . Please explain.

I'm very intersting in that theme.

[centyr]

Well first you would need to find out in what country the artist did the work in and see what their copyright laws are. If it he worked in a European or similar country there laws are pretty much the same as the USA. which means he would have to be dead for a least 50 years before it would fall into the public domain.

centyr

[Andrew Scotchmer]

I'm a little late in answering this question but I've only just joined so here goes.

Copying a painting by any artist living or dead is perfectly legal and does not infringe any copyright law. This is due to the fact that your copy is in fact legally classed as an original. It is your work and no one elses, even though the subject matter is a copy f another painting.

I am planing an exhibition of reproductions next year and included will be many paintings by living masters (David Hockneys "A Bigger Splash" to name but one) knowing perfectly well that I am perfectly working within the boundaries of the law. Indeed I am not even close to the edge.

Countries and the artist must be dead for 50 years does not apply to paintings remember copies are original pieces no matter what the subject matter.

[centyr]

Copying a painting by any artist living or dead is perfectly legal and does not infringe any copyright law. This is due to the fact that your copy is in fact legally classed as an original. It is your work and no one elses, even though the subject matter is a copy f another painting.


This is simply not true. I think you need to do some more research and get your facts straight. If you are planning of exhibiting works copied from other people your are playing with fire. I suggest you go talk to a copyright lawyer he/she will set you straight. Or you might be talking to one when you get sued.

centyr

[timelady]

Andrew's explanation is completely and utterly false and hope no one sues him.

Aside from that - works of art are copyright for 70 years after the death of the maker in the US and European countries (and much of the western world). This is as laid out in the Berne Copyright Convention which the US signed up to several years ago, making it 70 like Europe instead of 50 which is was previously. (the US signed up to this while I was doing my degree in publishing, so it was 1995 or 1996).

Tina.

[Andrew Scotchmer]

Hi all.

Very interesting comments and I've done some more research into this area of copyright infringement and found this article to be interesting

http://homepages.tesco.net/~p.wilkinson/Copyright.htm


I am now working safe in the knowledge that my work is legal regardless of the age or health of the original artist. This is because:

1: My work is legally classed as unoriginal (I stand corrected on that point) and consequently as the article explained "an artist who adapts another artist's work to the extent that it can longer be identified as the product of the original artist, is probably not infringing copyright." My work are adaptions. They are not precise museum replicas more interpretations that look very similar but on closer examination are clearly not.

2."For copyright infringement, you need to make a "substantial"
copy of someone elses work without contributing your own
skill and effort." All my copies have been committed using my skill and at great effort on my part to keep to my original style. Although many may think the work is by the master a more experienced eye will detect my own hand in the execution of the work.

3.My copies of living artists always bears their name next to mine (for example "Andrew Scotchmer after / inspired by David Hockney") and my paintings of living masters are always sold at a loss to myself (only asking the price for materials) with my old masters making up the difference.

I hope this is a better interpretation of my meaning and I hope it is still legal. Then again no publicity is bad publicity as the saying goes and it would make an interesting law case. :)

Andrew

[jose_salatino]

This compotition show the original paint at left.
Author: William Bourguereau (1825-1905) paint in 1865. Title : La Soupe.

At right a paint signed by "Francois" a contemporary painter from France. Title: The Girl.

[J. D. Hillberry]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andrew Scotchmer
.

My work are adaptions. They are not precise museum replicas more interpretations that look very similar but on closer examination are clearly not.

Your work would be classified as a derivative of the original work. If an artist prepares a derivative work without permission, he would be a copyright infringer.

All my copies have been committed using my skill and at great effort on my part to keep to my original style. Although many may think the work is by the master a more experienced eye will detect my own hand in the execution of the work.

Copyright infringement cases are decided by a judge and a jury consisting of average people, not art experts with "a more experienced eye". If it is true that "many may think the work is by the master" you are infringing on the original artists copyright and this would be easily proven in a court of law.

My copies of living artists always bears their name next to mine (for example "Andrew Scotchmer after / inspired by David Hockney") and my paintings of living masters are always sold at a loss to myself (only asking the price for materials) with my old masters making up the difference.

Giving credit to the original artist does not make you exempt from a copyright lawsuit. All that does is admit that it is copied. It's like placing a sign on your clothing that says "Stolen from Target".

Taking a loss on the sales of your copies, does not make you exempt from a lawsuit either. There doesn't even have to be any sales. Anyone who publicly displays - without permission - artwork that is copied from another artist is committing copyright infringement. The original copyright holder is not limited to suing for the profits you made on the artwork. If the court decides that the infringement was committed willfully, you can be sued for statutory damages of up to $100,000.00. By the way, the gallery that sells your work could also be liable.


I hope this is a better interpretation of my meaning and I hope it is still legal. Then again no publicity is bad publicity as the saying goes and it would make an interesting law case. :)

I think I understand your meaning, but it is not legal, and you are mistaken about copyright laws. I suggest you do some more research on copyright laws before you proceed. Start by reading the "sticky" thread at the top of legal forum here and Check out " The Artist's Friendly Legal Guide" Published by North Light Books.

As far as it being an interesting law case, I disagree. There would be virtually no publicity. The same situation as been tried in the courts thousands of times and it would be a slam dunk for the original copyright owners.

I sincerely hope you take the advice that has been given in this forum. I'm sure you are a very talented artist and I hope you direct your talent towards more creatively satisfying (and legal) endovers.

J. D. Hillberry

[jose_salatino]

All post are very intersting and teach me about copyright, but I need somebody to answer my question about the reproduction in ebay.

Thanks.

[Michael Rutherford]

Andrew if you copy any of my paintings I will sue you and I will win. I have already proven it once. Want to be the second one?

Seriously I think you are mistaken. And while it may be an honset misunderstanding believe me I understand you are still incorrect.
While it sounds like you can copy works of art in this article someone wrote he is incorrect. I would check out the actualy copyright law website or contact a lawyer who works in copyright law. The guy who wrote the article obviously doesnt know what hes talking about.
QUOTE "Consequently, an artist who adapts another artist's work to the extent that it can longer be identified as the product of the original artist, is probably not infringing copyright."
This is true in the article that you posted. I could use the a famous photo froma famous photographer who iss still living and alter it to the point that it is not recognizable then it would be not breaking the copyright.


REREAD JD Hillberys post it is very informative.

No offense but why are you copying someone elses work in the first place. True creative artist will create their own interpretation of a piece of art. Why copy someone else. I great artist creates original pieces of work a forger creates someone elses.
Just something to think about.
Thanks and good luck.
Mike :)

[centyr]

jose_salatino to answer your original questions is hard. Since you didn't provide a link to the auction and i was to lazy to go search for it myself and i am not familiar with the work all i can say is it really depends on how long the artist has been dead (if he is dead) and what the copyright laws apply to the work.

centyr

[CarlyHardy]

Jose, in answer to your question about the auction...if your research is correct as posted above the paintings above,

(quote)This compotition show the original paint at left.
Author: William Bourguereau (1825-1905) paint in 1865. Title : La Soupe.

At right a paint signed by "Francois" a contemporary painter from France. Title: The Girl.

....and, Bourguereau died in 1905, the copyright on this painting ended in 1980 and it became public domain and can be copied and sold. That is, if there were no other copyright issues that the family could bring into effect at that time and have copyright extended.

Copyright can differ by country....and if I were you, I'd contact the government about copyright laws before I broke them! Ignorance will not hold you guiltless in a court of law.

Paint your own originals from life or personal photos or imagination!
carly

[jose_salatino]

Thanks Carly

I try to be original, but if I can paint an acceptable reproduction of a master and I can sell it on EBAY, I want do it.

[oleCC]

Andrew... Many of my students were using reference material that concerned me...the possability someone might want to buy the paintings etc. To clarify the copyright questions I had a lawyer who deals with this a lot come to my gallery and conduct a seminar. It was extremely informative - complete with examples of infringment that surprised even me (and I preach against this a lot)...
Your information is totally incorrect - and could cost you a lot of money in the long run. Please, please re-check your sources of information and take to heart what you read in this forum. I know a person who ended up in court and it cost her $14,000. for copying something (but not exactly)... !!!!! Her style was very different, but the thought expressed was the same.
Carol

[arlene]

Originally posted by Andrew Scotchmer
I'm a little late in answering this question but I've only just joined so here goes.

Copying a painting by any artist living or dead is perfectly legal and does not infringe any copyright law. This is due to the fact that your copy is in fact legally classed as an original. It is your work and no one elses, even though the subject matter is a copy f another painting.

I am planing an exhibition of reproductions next year and included will be many paintings by living masters (David Hockneys "A Bigger Splash" to name but one) knowing perfectly well that I am perfectly working within the boundaries of the law. Indeed I am not even close to the edge.

Countries and the artist must be dead for 50 years does not apply to paintings remember copies are original pieces no matter what the subject matter.

sorry this is wrong...I don't kknow where you're getting your information but by copying david hockney you could be sued...

[arlene]

: My work is legally classed as unoriginal (I stand corrected on that point) and consequently as the article explained "an artist who adapts another artist's work to the extent that it can longer be identified as the product of the original artist, is probably not infringing copyright." My work are adaptions. They are not precise museum replicas more interpretations that look very similar but on closer examination are clearly not.

Actually if it can be deemed that the work was dervivative from the original it is still copyright infringement...see JD's example of his own copyright case.

[Beach Baby]

I am not familliar with copyright laws in other countries but in the good ole USA you cannot even copy my 'style'.... at least not legally.

I recently went to court, or I should say the lawyers for the people who represent my work went to court and won when someone tried to knock off my style. I did however have all my i's dotted and t's crossed by sending in my material to the US copyright office which sealed the case. I also write as well as paint and often calligraphy artist use my work thinking they can simply add my name and then write..calligrphy by... and sign their name... Then then sell it. I have also sued three of then and won all three times.

Even pleading ignorance doesn't save them..if they didn't write it or don't know who did, they can not use it.

If product bearing my work is produced overseas without my permission, I cannot sue the place overseas, but I can sue, an win, the place that tries to sell it here in the US. I have infact done it! They backed down, paied me a royalty and pulled the product.

One of the perks of being a citizen of the greatest country in the free world!!!!

[wayfarer]

certainly not the most stimulating reading, but this website should answer some questions

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/

This other site was posted on Wet Canvas too.

http://www.rightsforartists.com/siteindex.html

wayfarer

(I agree with you, Carly. I don't know the law. I don't pretend that I do. I work from my own photos when I can. I save the photo with the painting's title and date.)