Who owns this painting?
February 16, 2009 8:21 AM Subscribe
How do I find out who owns this painting?
I would like to use Thomas Gotch's "The Child Enthroned" to illustrate an article in a scholarly publication. I need to get a good b/w reproduction of it and permission to publish worldwide in print and online. The trouble is, I can't work out where it is, and so don't know who to write to for permission etc.
I've tried ARTSTOR and google, but am not getting anything - how do art historians go about sourcing material like this?
Given that it's on wikimedia commons, do I even need to?
Did you click on the image? It takes you to this page, which takes you to this page. If I were you I would just go ahead and use it, but I am not you.
posted by iconomy at 8:26 AM on February 16, 2009
posted by iconomy at 8:26 AM on February 16, 2009
It's in a private collection, but Bridgeman has it. It doesn't appear to be available for online purchase, but you could contact them.
posted by fire&wings at 8:27 AM on February 16, 2009
posted by fire&wings at 8:27 AM on February 16, 2009
I'm guessing you're still going to want to find out who took the photo. It's my understanding that the work itself can be in the public domain, but that the photo could still be under copyright.
Not a copyright lawyer though.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:12 AM on February 16, 2009
Not a copyright lawyer though.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:12 AM on February 16, 2009
Best answer: You should read this interesting article on "Copyright Ownership in Works of Art and Images", as it confirms both what you seem to be assuming (that you need to ask the museum for permission) and what grouse says (that it's in the public domain, and you don't need to ask permission) and gives more detail (emphasis is mine):
The 1976 and 1998 copyright acts yield a few rules of thumb: any work of art made after 1978 is in copyright for the life of the author plus seventy years; any work of art that was made before 1978 and never published is copyrighted for the life of the author plus seventy years; any work of art that was published before 1923 is in the public domain; and many works published between 1923 and 1978 remain in copyright today...
The complexity of U.S. copyright law, and its partial incommensurability with copyright law in other countries, is especially onerous for scholars who publish images of twentieth- and twenty-first-century art. Nevertheless, a gradually expanding definition in practice (rather than by law) of the "artistic work" that is protected by copyright has created analogous difficulties for scholars who study works of art that have long been in the public domain...
Thus, most museums now explicitly or implicitly claim copyright over images of all works in their collection, whether in the public domain or not. The same copyright ownership is implied by for-profit collections of images of public domain works, in digital as well as traditional photographic forms. Such collections include stock image providers geared exclusively to commercial applications (such as Corbis, a company founded in 1989 by Bill Gates, which describes itself as a "visual solutions provider" of all manner of images, not limited to works of art) and image collections focused on reproductions of works of art for commercial as well as scholarly applications (such as the Bridgeman Art Library and Art Resource, which present themselves as "archives" or "libraries" of art images, many of which are licensed to these providers by major museums as well as private collectors).
The article mentions Bridgeman Art Library, to which fire&wings refers. With all due respect, I would avoid Bridgeman - not only because I have an aversion to the "art industry" that it represents. In 1999, the southern district court of New York decided in a landmark case that's been used as precedent for other cases since against Bridgeman and in favor of Corel that Bridgeman holds no copyright over the images they propagate, not even over carefully-made reproductions that take a good deal of effort to make. The court made this ruling even though, as the court stated, the ruling might be very different in the UK, where Bridgeman is based and where the case was originally to be tried.
Now, you might worry that you're in a difficult position, since it appears that Thomas Gotch's The Child Enthroned is owned by the Alfred East Gallery in Kettering in the United Kingdom. I surmise this because both the Wikipedia page you linked and that museum's page say that most of his works are there; the chief clue to me, however, is that this small summary claims that there's a full-color print of The Child Enthroned inside the 32-page booklet that the museum hands out to visitors.
Anyhow, you might feel a little worried, considering that UK copyright law is quite different from US copyright law. However, if you're in the US, you're not under UK jurisdiction, and if history (and legal precedent) is any guide, you will not be held liable for copyright infringement here. You should be confident on this point; the work is in the public domain.
However, you may wish, in the interest of professional courtesy and even professional scholarship, to contact the owner of the painting and perhaps get some information about it. In that vein, I suggest contacting the Alfred East and asking them a few questions about it, letting them know you're going to be publishing a work on the painting. They seem to be a good museum, and they may have some interesting information about the painting; in the event that they don't turn out to have it, they can probably tell you who does. Just keep in mind that (again, so long as you're in the US) you are entirely justified and within copyright limits in producing this book.
As far as obtaining a high-resolution black-and-white image, you have several options. You probably noticed that this is the highest resolution available on the web; you could convert that to black-and-white. You could also request a better reproduction from the Alfred East, though I imagine that request won't exactly be met with glee. Or - and this is probably your best bet - you could go to the library, check out a book with a good large reproduction of that painting, and have it scanned in at maximum resolution. That is within copyright limits.
posted by koeselitz at 9:21 AM on February 16, 2009
The 1976 and 1998 copyright acts yield a few rules of thumb: any work of art made after 1978 is in copyright for the life of the author plus seventy years; any work of art that was made before 1978 and never published is copyrighted for the life of the author plus seventy years; any work of art that was published before 1923 is in the public domain; and many works published between 1923 and 1978 remain in copyright today...
The complexity of U.S. copyright law, and its partial incommensurability with copyright law in other countries, is especially onerous for scholars who publish images of twentieth- and twenty-first-century art. Nevertheless, a gradually expanding definition in practice (rather than by law) of the "artistic work" that is protected by copyright has created analogous difficulties for scholars who study works of art that have long been in the public domain...
Thus, most museums now explicitly or implicitly claim copyright over images of all works in their collection, whether in the public domain or not. The same copyright ownership is implied by for-profit collections of images of public domain works, in digital as well as traditional photographic forms. Such collections include stock image providers geared exclusively to commercial applications (such as Corbis, a company founded in 1989 by Bill Gates, which describes itself as a "visual solutions provider" of all manner of images, not limited to works of art) and image collections focused on reproductions of works of art for commercial as well as scholarly applications (such as the Bridgeman Art Library and Art Resource, which present themselves as "archives" or "libraries" of art images, many of which are licensed to these providers by major museums as well as private collectors).
The article mentions Bridgeman Art Library, to which fire&wings refers. With all due respect, I would avoid Bridgeman - not only because I have an aversion to the "art industry" that it represents. In 1999, the southern district court of New York decided in a landmark case that's been used as precedent for other cases since against Bridgeman and in favor of Corel that Bridgeman holds no copyright over the images they propagate, not even over carefully-made reproductions that take a good deal of effort to make. The court made this ruling even though, as the court stated, the ruling might be very different in the UK, where Bridgeman is based and where the case was originally to be tried.
Now, you might worry that you're in a difficult position, since it appears that Thomas Gotch's The Child Enthroned is owned by the Alfred East Gallery in Kettering in the United Kingdom. I surmise this because both the Wikipedia page you linked and that museum's page say that most of his works are there; the chief clue to me, however, is that this small summary claims that there's a full-color print of The Child Enthroned inside the 32-page booklet that the museum hands out to visitors.
Anyhow, you might feel a little worried, considering that UK copyright law is quite different from US copyright law. However, if you're in the US, you're not under UK jurisdiction, and if history (and legal precedent) is any guide, you will not be held liable for copyright infringement here. You should be confident on this point; the work is in the public domain.
However, you may wish, in the interest of professional courtesy and even professional scholarship, to contact the owner of the painting and perhaps get some information about it. In that vein, I suggest contacting the Alfred East and asking them a few questions about it, letting them know you're going to be publishing a work on the painting. They seem to be a good museum, and they may have some interesting information about the painting; in the event that they don't turn out to have it, they can probably tell you who does. Just keep in mind that (again, so long as you're in the US) you are entirely justified and within copyright limits in producing this book.
As far as obtaining a high-resolution black-and-white image, you have several options. You probably noticed that this is the highest resolution available on the web; you could convert that to black-and-white. You could also request a better reproduction from the Alfred East, though I imagine that request won't exactly be met with glee. Or - and this is probably your best bet - you could go to the library, check out a book with a good large reproduction of that painting, and have it scanned in at maximum resolution. That is within copyright limits.
posted by koeselitz at 9:21 AM on February 16, 2009
cjorgensen: It's my understanding that the work itself can be in the public domain, but that the photo could still be under copyright.
I'm not an IP lawyer either, but in the case I linked above, which appears to establish the current precedent, the court ruled that the very carefully produced high-quality scans that Bridgeman made at their own great expense fell into the public domain and could be used free-of-charge by Corel as clip art. The implication is that the photos don't fall into copyright unless they're not reproductions but something else entirely.
posted by koeselitz at 9:25 AM on February 16, 2009
I'm not an IP lawyer either, but in the case I linked above, which appears to establish the current precedent, the court ruled that the very carefully produced high-quality scans that Bridgeman made at their own great expense fell into the public domain and could be used free-of-charge by Corel as clip art. The implication is that the photos don't fall into copyright unless they're not reproductions but something else entirely.
posted by koeselitz at 9:25 AM on February 16, 2009
you might feel a little worried, considering that UK copyright law is quite different from US copyright law.
According to Wikipedia, copyright in an artistic work expires 70 years after the death of the author, so you'd be okay there too.
posted by grouse at 9:30 AM on February 16, 2009
According to Wikipedia, copyright in an artistic work expires 70 years after the death of the author, so you'd be okay there too.
posted by grouse at 9:30 AM on February 16, 2009
grouse: According to Wikipedia, copyright in an artistic work expires 70 years after the death of the author, so you'd be okay there too.
Yeah; the poster is safe either way, I think. The only circumstance in which there might, though this seems very unlikely, be a slight problem is if the poster somehow managed to acquire a reproduction that someone else made at great expense in England or Wales and used that reproduction in England or Wales in their publication. Even then, they'd most likely be fine.
posted by koeselitz at 9:59 AM on February 16, 2009
Yeah; the poster is safe either way, I think. The only circumstance in which there might, though this seems very unlikely, be a slight problem is if the poster somehow managed to acquire a reproduction that someone else made at great expense in England or Wales and used that reproduction in England or Wales in their publication. Even then, they'd most likely be fine.
posted by koeselitz at 9:59 AM on February 16, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
Wikipedia says that the work was created in 1894. If it was published in the U.S. before 1923, then it is in the public domain.
posted by grouse at 8:26 AM on February 16, 2009