Copyright and Original Art
April 8, 2004 2:06 PM Subscribe
If you own an original piece of art, for intstance a painting, do you own its copyright and reproduction rights?
No, the copyright remains with the original artist, unless they specifically sold you the copyright along with the painting. I am not a copyright lawyer but I play one on TV work with them on a semi-regular basis.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:14 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:14 PM on April 8, 2004
DevilsAdvocate is right. I work at an art museum and it is a never-ending source of amazement and irritation to the powers-that-be here that just because we own a Jasper Johns (for example), we can't just reproduce it willy-nilly without actually getting the okay from Johns himself.
Of course, this only applies to artwork that was created recently enough to fall under copyright protection. If there is no artist (or artist's estate) to hold copyright, then the copyright is (I believe) yours to do with as you wish.
posted by scody at 2:26 PM on April 8, 2004
Of course, this only applies to artwork that was created recently enough to fall under copyright protection. If there is no artist (or artist's estate) to hold copyright, then the copyright is (I believe) yours to do with as you wish.
posted by scody at 2:26 PM on April 8, 2004
scody, that is until Congress grants copyright in perpetuity. Just wait, Disney will ask for it sooner or later.
posted by jmgorman at 2:34 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by jmgorman at 2:34 PM on April 8, 2004
Heh. We were (grimly) joking about that very thing this morning.
posted by scody at 2:40 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by scody at 2:40 PM on April 8, 2004
Oh, good to know. Anyone have a link to the relevent bit(s) of copyright law?
US copyright law
posted by Grod at 3:07 PM on April 8, 2004
US copyright law
posted by Grod at 3:07 PM on April 8, 2004
Of course, this only applies to artwork that was created recently enough to fall under copyright protection. If there is no artist (or artist's estate) to hold copyright, then the copyright is (I believe) yours to do with as you wish.
Does ownership of the art in this case impart some sort of copyright to the image held by the owner? Or is the piece (or images of it) simply public domain?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:24 PM on April 8, 2004
Does ownership of the art in this case impart some sort of copyright to the image held by the owner? Or is the piece (or images of it) simply public domain?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:24 PM on April 8, 2004
You could say the same thing about anything and it's more obvious:
If you own an original recording of music, for intstance a CD, do you own its copyright and reproduction rights?
If you own an original piece of clothing, for intstance a t-shirt, do you own its copyright and reproduction rights?
That's what copyright protects -- your ability to make copies of the original, which the original artist still holds even after you buy a painting off him or her.
posted by mathowie at 4:01 PM on April 8, 2004
If you own an original recording of music, for intstance a CD, do you own its copyright and reproduction rights?
If you own an original piece of clothing, for intstance a t-shirt, do you own its copyright and reproduction rights?
That's what copyright protects -- your ability to make copies of the original, which the original artist still holds even after you buy a painting off him or her.
posted by mathowie at 4:01 PM on April 8, 2004
Does ownership of the art in this case impart some sort of copyright to the image held by the owner? Or is the piece (or images of it) simply public domain?
IANAL, but I'd be willing to bet a lunch that while the image itself is probably in the public domain, particular images of the image -- particular photographs of the Mona Lisa, say -- remain copyrighted by either whoever took them, or by the relevant owners if they were works-for-hire.
Given the control that museums have over taking photographs, I'd expect that most all photos of Famous Painting are copyrighted by the museum that owns the piece.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:05 PM on April 8, 2004
IANAL, but I'd be willing to bet a lunch that while the image itself is probably in the public domain, particular images of the image -- particular photographs of the Mona Lisa, say -- remain copyrighted by either whoever took them, or by the relevant owners if they were works-for-hire.
Given the control that museums have over taking photographs, I'd expect that most all photos of Famous Painting are copyrighted by the museum that owns the piece.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:05 PM on April 8, 2004
Grod (and all): U.S. Code Title 17 (Copyright Laws)
This particular section of the Code is laid out fairly cohesively so it's kind of nice to browse through. For specifics, Chapter 1, Section 106 lists the exclusive rights of the copyright holder (including the right to reproduce, meaning the copyright holder and the copyright holder alone legally has that right, except, of course, for the exceptions).
ROU is right about the photos-- the photographer of a copyrighted work (or anything, for that matter) owns the copyright in the photo, as the act of taking the picture is considered to provide the requisite "originality" in which the copyright vests.
(Oh yeah- I'm new here, and IANAL, but IAAAL- I am almost a lawyer, T-1 summer of bar study...)
posted by Harvey Birdman at 4:26 PM on April 8, 2004
This particular section of the Code is laid out fairly cohesively so it's kind of nice to browse through. For specifics, Chapter 1, Section 106 lists the exclusive rights of the copyright holder (including the right to reproduce, meaning the copyright holder and the copyright holder alone legally has that right, except, of course, for the exceptions).
ROU is right about the photos-- the photographer of a copyrighted work (or anything, for that matter) owns the copyright in the photo, as the act of taking the picture is considered to provide the requisite "originality" in which the copyright vests.
(Oh yeah- I'm new here, and IANAL, but IAAAL- I am almost a lawyer, T-1 summer of bar study...)
posted by Harvey Birdman at 4:26 PM on April 8, 2004
What's interesting is how the convention of whether the copyright is transferred or not varies across media. In some examples of (written word) publishing, the copyright is sold to the publisher. But, anyway, generally, if you own an original painting, you own the physical painting, not the idea of the painting, so to speak.
Not also that unlike the US, EU law recognizes an artist's "moral right" that is distinct from copyright. In that context, even if an artist has sold the copyright, they still have some control over how the art is used. Not in the US, though.
IANACL, of course.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:07 PM on April 8, 2004
Not also that unlike the US, EU law recognizes an artist's "moral right" that is distinct from copyright. In that context, even if an artist has sold the copyright, they still have some control over how the art is used. Not in the US, though.
IANACL, of course.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:07 PM on April 8, 2004
In some examples of (written word) publishing, the copyright is sold to the publisher.
Even though it's standard practice in those cases, my understanding is that the sale of the copyright is spelled out by contract. If I just sold a publisher my (physical) original manuscript--without signing any sort of license or contract--I would still hold the copyright, and the publisher could not publish it.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 5:17 PM on April 8, 2004
Even though it's standard practice in those cases, my understanding is that the sale of the copyright is spelled out by contract. If I just sold a publisher my (physical) original manuscript--without signing any sort of license or contract--I would still hold the copyright, and the publisher could not publish it.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 5:17 PM on April 8, 2004
hmm. obviously i need to have a show that consists enitrely of works purchased from other artists.
posted by fishfucker at 8:02 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by fishfucker at 8:02 PM on April 8, 2004
Visual art - works in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer, signed and numbered by the artist - is different; it's governed by the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. It's more or less a statutory right of publicity for artists. It controls how their work can be disseminated, altered, destroyed, or even displayed. Here's a layperson's explanation of VARA and what it means for artists and art buyers.
posted by PrinceValium at 8:07 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by PrinceValium at 8:07 PM on April 8, 2004
...which the original artist still holds even after you buy a painting off him or her.
Not to be picky, but it's technically not the "original artist," it is the copyright owner. It's actually an important distinction. The artist could have assigned the copyright, or even just exclusive administration rights to a collecting society, for example. Except for VARA, copyright law in the US is very much an economic property right as opposed to a personal right.
What's interesting is how the convention of whether the copyright is transferred or not varies across media.
Nonexclusive licenses do not require a "writing," and also may be implied or granted orally. Exclusive licenses and assignment of copyright must always be done in writing.
The US skirts article 6bis of the Berne Convention (moral rights) with VARA, noted above, and a combination of unfair competition and other tort laws. Moreover, many states have VARA like statutes that often grant greater "moral rights-like" protections to artists. VARA itself is actually not even close to a right of publicity, but that is an issue for another day.
Ownership of copyright is always distinct from ownership of material object
posted by anathema at 9:26 PM on April 8, 2004
Not to be picky, but it's technically not the "original artist," it is the copyright owner. It's actually an important distinction. The artist could have assigned the copyright, or even just exclusive administration rights to a collecting society, for example. Except for VARA, copyright law in the US is very much an economic property right as opposed to a personal right.
What's interesting is how the convention of whether the copyright is transferred or not varies across media.
Nonexclusive licenses do not require a "writing," and also may be implied or granted orally. Exclusive licenses and assignment of copyright must always be done in writing.
The US skirts article 6bis of the Berne Convention (moral rights) with VARA, noted above, and a combination of unfair competition and other tort laws. Moreover, many states have VARA like statutes that often grant greater "moral rights-like" protections to artists. VARA itself is actually not even close to a right of publicity, but that is an issue for another day.
Ownership of copyright is always distinct from ownership of material object
posted by anathema at 9:26 PM on April 8, 2004
Of course, this only applies to artwork that was created recently enough to fall under copyright protection. If there is no artist (or artist's estate) to hold copyright, then the copyright is (I believe) yours to do with as you wish.
Very risky assumptions.
posted by anathema at 9:27 PM on April 8, 2004
Very risky assumptions.
posted by anathema at 9:27 PM on April 8, 2004
That's what copyright protects -- your ability to make copies of the original...
Well, that's one thing it protects. It also protects the other five exclusive rights listed in ยง106, above.
posted by anathema at 9:30 PM on April 8, 2004
Well, that's one thing it protects. It also protects the other five exclusive rights listed in ยง106, above.
posted by anathema at 9:30 PM on April 8, 2004
I'd be willing to bet a lunch that while the image itself is probably in the public domain, particular images of the image -- particular photographs of the Mona Lisa, say -- remain copyrighted by either whoever took them, or by the relevant owners if they were works-for-hire.
Only if the image has sufficient originality for independent copyright protection. Even then, the public domain portion is not protected, only the new, original portion could possibly be protected. The concept is called "thin" copyright. This has been litigated, but it's late and I don't want to look for the cites. Along these lines, it will be very interesting to watch the development of database protection law in the US and how it could easily effect the protection of uncopyrightable subject matter.
posted by anathema at 9:45 PM on April 8, 2004
Only if the image has sufficient originality for independent copyright protection. Even then, the public domain portion is not protected, only the new, original portion could possibly be protected. The concept is called "thin" copyright. This has been litigated, but it's late and I don't want to look for the cites. Along these lines, it will be very interesting to watch the development of database protection law in the US and how it could easily effect the protection of uncopyrightable subject matter.
posted by anathema at 9:45 PM on April 8, 2004
the photographer of a copyrighted work (or anything, for that matter) owns the copyright in the photo, as the act of taking the picture is considered to provide the requisite "originality" in which the copyright vests.
This gets to the metaphysical discussion of copyright. Not entirely accurate, show me a court that has held protectible a slavish photo reproduction of a work in the public domain and I'll send you some PMBR CDs. Further, if you take a photo of a copyrighted work and don't have permission from the copyright owner, then you would have a valid copyright in your photo excluding the portion of the photo containing the previously copyrighted work reproduced in the photo without clearance. Phew.
posted by anathema at 10:00 PM on April 8, 2004
This gets to the metaphysical discussion of copyright. Not entirely accurate, show me a court that has held protectible a slavish photo reproduction of a work in the public domain and I'll send you some PMBR CDs. Further, if you take a photo of a copyrighted work and don't have permission from the copyright owner, then you would have a valid copyright in your photo excluding the portion of the photo containing the previously copyrighted work reproduced in the photo without clearance. Phew.
posted by anathema at 10:00 PM on April 8, 2004
Only if the image has sufficient originality for independent copyright protection. Even then, the public domain portion is not protected, only the new, original portion could possibly be protected. The concept is called "thin" copyright. This has been litigated, but it's late and I don't want to look for the cites.
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel is similar.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 10:36 PM on April 8, 2004
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel is similar.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 10:36 PM on April 8, 2004
the photographer of a copyrighted work (or anything, for that matter) owns the copyright in the photo, as the act of taking the picture is considered to provide the requisite "originality" in which the copyright vests.
anathema:This gets to the metaphysical discussion of copyright
Right- sloppy wording on my part- the point I was trying to make is that when it comes to taking a picture, the court generally views what could be "incidental" elements of a picture (say, the natural lighting that a photographer may have given no thought to whatsoever) as elements of originality. A sort of adoption of "the camera makes everyone an artist" notion.
Here's the link for Bridgeman Art Library, mentioned above, which does have a good discussion of all this, especially once you scroll down past the "choice of law" section to "originality and copyright."
posted by Harvey Birdman at 1:50 PM on April 9, 2004
anathema:This gets to the metaphysical discussion of copyright
Right- sloppy wording on my part- the point I was trying to make is that when it comes to taking a picture, the court generally views what could be "incidental" elements of a picture (say, the natural lighting that a photographer may have given no thought to whatsoever) as elements of originality. A sort of adoption of "the camera makes everyone an artist" notion.
Here's the link for Bridgeman Art Library, mentioned above, which does have a good discussion of all this, especially once you scroll down past the "choice of law" section to "originality and copyright."
posted by Harvey Birdman at 1:50 PM on April 9, 2004
Absolutely. Now lets talk about copyrightability of complaints filed by law firms!
posted by anathema at 2:38 PM on April 9, 2004
posted by anathema at 2:38 PM on April 9, 2004
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 2:11 PM on April 8, 2004