Dead man's initials

January 16, 2006 6:16 AM

Is it OK to use a 500-year-old monogram on my website?

I am writing content for a professional website which will promote my translation services. It so happens that my initials are the same as Albrecht Dürer's (144K image, relevant monogram at bottom of woodcut) and I'd like to use this monogram for my own site.

I'm assuming this would be legally OK as he's been dead a long time - am I right? Also, is it generally a good idea? (I might also include a bit of a St Jerome theme, and Dürer might be able to help with that). I'm also imagining that any decent web designer would be able to come up with something if I supply e.g. the image I link to here, along with an explanation of the kind of thing I'd like. Am I right?

This is the first website I've been involved with creating, so be nice...

posted by altolinguistic to writing & language (14 comments total)

You should be fine, especially if you're planning to have a graphic designer make you an original image rather than just cropping the monogram out of an existing work -- but even if you did that, the work is long since in the public domain.

All the pictures on his Wikipedia entry are marked as public domain as well. You should be fine.
posted by Gator at 6:28 AM on January 16, 2006

I've seen a lot of people using woodcuts like these (I know you're not using the woodcut directly) on reasonably high profile sites, so I think their time has long passed :) Cool monogram, btw.
posted by wackybrit at 6:59 AM on January 16, 2006

Even with Disney's efforts to achieve a nearly perpetual copyright, this copyright has long expired. However, if you are to use someone else's photograph of it (directly, not to give to an artist to make a new version) then there could be an issue. Make sure you get the rights to the new version.
posted by caddis at 7:17 AM on January 16, 2006

What caddis said (but you might just give attribution to the site you lift it from, even just in the image properties and then if they object, you can negotiate or find another source, of which there are many).

I would recommend having the title/series title translated into german (and maybe french and dutch) and searching some more - the one you post is kind of photocopy quality. I found one here but I'm not sure why I get failure to connect with the zoomy feature - can't quite tell the quality as is. There's also another 'look' here. Perhaps you might also consider finding a book which includes it and getting it digitized yourself.
posted by peacay at 7:37 AM on January 16, 2006

> I'd like to use this monogram

I would highly recommend against using this monogram. While the artwork copyright may have long expired, the history behind this particular monogram is too strong to ignore. When I did a Google search for "Albrecht Dürer initials" numerous articles discussed their significance to signatures in artwork, the first use of copyright notices, and early development of gothic typography.
posted by chase at 8:12 AM on January 16, 2006

Note to self: read question.
posted by peacay at 8:33 AM on January 16, 2006

However, if you are to use someone else's photograph of it (directly, not to give to an artist to make a new version) then there could be an issue. Make sure you get the rights to the new version.

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel implies that anyone claiming infringement because you used their photograph wouldn't have much of a claim. IANAL.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:36 AM on January 16, 2006

chase: I am not intending to use it without comment - details uncertain yet, but I'd certainly include a section about the monogram, with links, for anyone interested. I wouldn't be trying to pass it off as my own design.
posted by altolinguistic at 8:40 AM on January 16, 2006

peacay:-) your advice was helpful anyway, thanks. The link I posted was just so people could see what I was talking about.
posted by altolinguistic at 8:41 AM on January 16, 2006

Yeah, I was just looking at Wikipedia's summary of that ruling. However, altolinguistic is in the UK, where they did not take at all kindly to that ruling.

Ultimately, to avoid these concerns altogether, creating an original work for the site would be the best course of action. I can't think of how anyone could object to an original monogram designed in the style of Durer's. If you have a particular fondness for Durer and his work, you can always make a few remarks in tribute on your "About" page, assuming you'll have one on your site.

On preview, ah, good. :)
posted by Gator at 8:43 AM on January 16, 2006

Draw it yourself.

IANAL, but I have not heard of a "succession Durer" who will aggressively track you down and sue you into submission like you would get with Picasso, Balthus etc. I doubt there will be anyone concerning themselves with protecting his legacy at this level.
posted by fire&wings at 8:50 AM on January 16, 2006

Just so there is no confusion, draw it exactly the same if you want, or have your artist do it that way. The monogram has zero protection. Taking a photograph of it later adds no protection to the monogram itself. The only think to concern yourself with would be copying the photo itself, and even then the risk is low. Since you don't want to copy the photo forget I ever mentioned it up there at the top of the thread. It only added confusion. Sorry about that.
posted by caddis at 9:01 AM on January 16, 2006

Well, as the Art Director's club has already appropriated it, you really should have no problem using it...
posted by lovejones at 1:52 PM on January 16, 2006

It is in the public domain. You may do it legally in any way you see fit, with or without credit.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 2:00 PM on January 16, 2006