More fun with Copyright curveball

[Sticky Signs]

I have an artist that wants to do this.
Take an image of a very old (public domain) painting. Blow it up and print it on canvas. He then plans to paint over the image and will apply his own "artistic" twist on things. I know the photographer of the image owns the copyright however in this case, there would be absolutely no part of the photograph visible as the whole print would be covered in paint. The print is basically just being used for layout purposes. Kinda like paint by numbers.
So what's your take on this?

 

[iSign]

my concern would be that it ain't "covered" when it leaves your shop right?

 

[J Hill Designs]

well, if its public domain, noone owns the copyright...correct?

 

[GoodPeopleFlags]

My understanding is that he/she would have to change the composition of the image so that when held side by side, you couldn't tell that it came from the original.

He/she could ask the photographer if they would allow them to use the photo.

 

[GoodPeopleFlags]

well, if its public domain, noone owns the copyright...correct?

The photograph that someone took is copyrighted. I can take a pic of the Staute of Liberty - anyone can. But MY pic is MY pic and someone can't take that exact one and copy it exactly, as in the angle and surroundings.

 

[MikeSTK]

Then why can't I take a pic of artwork and use it?

 

[Gino]

I'm not sure you're using the correct term.

I would think more along the lines of fraud or plagiarism.


Besides, if your 'artist' friend is truly an artist, why doesn't he want to create his own work ??

 

[Fred Weiss]

The owner of the photograph owns all rights to his photograph. Your artist needs to either license it or obtain a copy from some other source or create his own. the fact that nothing of the original will be visible makes no difference. What does matter is that the use of the photograph is being used to the benefit of your artist to save him time etc. His finished work is, therefore, a derivative and therefore requires a license from the owner of the original photograph.

 

[Fred Weiss]

Then why can't I take a pic of artwork and use it?

He can take a pic of the original painting that is in the public domain. He cannot take a pic of the photograph of the original because it is owned by the photographer of the original painting.

 

[omgsideburns]

If he's doing something with it, it's derivative work and the law gets kind of funky in there.

 

[GoodPeopleFlags]

Then why can't I take a pic of artwork and use it?

You can if you take the photograph yourself. Right, guys?

 

[MikeSTK]

Interesting reading.......
http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/10-misconceptions-about-the-public-domain.html#two

 

[signswi]

You can if you take the photograph yourself. Right, guys?

In this case, yep.

However as pointed out there's a chance that he'd be "sufficiently transforming" the photograph to the point where copyright wouldn't apply. That type of thing usually gets fought out in court. Easier to ask the photographer to grant permission or find a photo of the work that's been released into public domain (via creative commons or another public domain license).

 

[Gino]

I've been in museums, galleries and other places with fine artwork and there are signs posted everywhere about not taking photographs of certain work. It's not only to protect the artwork from unneeded light, but to eliminate the escape of artwork in some form... other than one's own memory.

For an overall basis, in the United Sates it's based upon 1923 as being the date of public domain or not. So,me say 70 years prior an artists death is a good rule of thumb. Prior to 1923, pretty much anything is free to photograph, copy and whatever else you want to do with it, unless there are specific rules or policies stating each and every room, section and/or sometimes individual pieces. In other countries and Europe, many of the rules are more strict.

This also means you can't take a picture of someone standing next to a painting in question or use a post card for re-producing.

The main thought here is the ethical part of it. Like my earlier thread, you shouldn't have to be told right from wrong on these things and for the most part, most people do know the difference, but sometimes it gets a little fuzzy.

 

[jiarby]

ask shepard fairey...

 

[btropical.com]

Ask Andy Warhol Soup to nutz Dee's Nutz

 

[vid]

I guess I need a lesson on the aspects of works in the public domain and derivative art, because I would be inclined to believe that it's feasible project.

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. argues that a reproduction of public domain art through photography can not be copyrighted. And the way that the OP described the project, the photograph is for reference only. Provided of course, that the intent of the photographer was to accurately and "slavishly" document the painting in the photograph.

Moreover, template lines, a notice (... or a mustache on the subject with the letters "L.H.O.O.Q." below-see Marcel Duchamps) could mark print as being designed as derivative art so that there is little question about the intended final product.

I'd vote YES, unless someone could point me to a more recent court decision.



But I'm not a lawyer... so proceed at your own discretion.

 

[Sticky Signs]

Perhaps I should elaborate. In this case, he's looking to use iconic paintings (google - icon paintings). From what I gather, these are paintings that are based around religion. You know, saints and sinner type stuff. Now try a search on Saint Michael Archangel for example. Google turns up a bunch of images that are all very, very similar. Some have slightly different colours but for the most part, every image shows an angel holding up a sword while stepping on the devils head.
So I'm wondering, what's the difference if the artist puts paint over top of a print OR puts paint on a blank canvas while looking at a googled image on his computer screen. Again, he would also incorporate his own style and colours there fore making the painting similar to the photo but not the same.
Where do you draw the line???

 

[Si Allen]

Where is Old Paint on this one

MY EQUIPMENT:
brains, eye hand coordination and god given talent to translate what i see & think, with a brush to a canvas........and create..................
without anything else)))))))))))))))))

He can't be much of an "artist" if he can not transfer a quick sketch onto the canvas and then paint!