Question about copyrights

[Jaga]

Dear All,

if I would like to post the article about somebody famous - king, historical figure etc - and then there is only a classical portrait available somewhere in Versaille or other famous museum. Does only Versaille have a copyrights for this portrait or everybody can use a copy since it is so old and so... common everywhere and available in the reprints in many books?

[Jaga]

Here is the example:
culture.polishsite.us/articles/art187.html
Józef Poniatowski

this article was written by somebody else and delivered with the picture

[nancy]

Jaga,

I have some info about this ....somewhere. I will look for it.

At the very least, the picture should not be included without saying where the image came from - in the example, there is no attribution as to who did the painting, etc.

[pieter]

Jaga,

That is a very good question and lies in the field of art jurisdiction, intellectual ownership. But many artist died and so I do not know who exactly owns their rights, I do not even know if for instance Versaille has the Copyright of all the paintings they have, I would like to think so.
And what if you take your own picture of a piece.
In practice nobody can check whole the WWW, so many copies circulate, like many illegal coppies of music and etc, and Master falsifiers, real artists who can copy exactly real old paintings with a special technigque.
Sometimes a Museum or a big private collectioner had false paintings whuch had certificates of art experts of Sotheby's or Christie's, and even they were fooled.
So some pieces of art who weren't original hang in Museums or galleries before they were disguised bhy modern techniques as fakes.
Sometimes the fakes are so well made and original, painted in the stile of an
old master, but not a copy of an exsisting piece, that it can be really a good painting. However I stil did not answered your question, because I do not know the answer. Making art is differant from being an art expert, critic or collectioner. You are bussy with making it will others qualify themselves in studying art theoretically. This question is linked to legislation.

Pieter

[Jaga]

pieter said:

Jaga,

That is a very good question and lies in the field of art jurisdiction, intellectual ownership. But many artist died and so I do not know who exactly owns their rights, I do not even know if for instance Versaille has the Copyright of all the paintings they have, I would like to think so.
And what if you take your own picture of a piece.
In practice nobody can check whole the WWW, so many copies circulate, like many illegal coppies of music and etc, and Master falsifiers, real artists who can copy exactly real old paintings with a special technigque.
Sometimes a Museum or a big private collectioner had false paintings whuch had certificates of art experts of Sotheby's or Christie's, and even they were fooled.
So some pieces of art who weren't original hang in Museums or galleries before they were disguised bhy modern techniques as fakes.
Sometimes the fakes are so well made and original, painted in the stile of an
old master, but not a copy of an exsisting piece, that it can be really a good painting. However I stil did not answered your question, because I do not know the answer. Making art is differant from being an art expert, critic or collectioner. You are bussy with making it will others qualify themselves in studying art theoretically. This question is linked to legislation.

Pieter

So, what do you think Pieter? Can we post in the articles some jpg pictures of the famous paintings or not? I really do not know exactly the rules.

I agree with you that the copies are sometimes better than originals!

[nancy]

I finally found the information I mentioned earlier, and I believe that it will be OK for Jaga to use the images of famous paintings in articles she puts on her website.

• Creative work such as a painting eventually becomes public domain (laws vary by country).
  
  
• In cases where museums own such a painting, they want to control reproductions of it - so that they can make money from items that carry the image.
  
  
• Sometimes museums or other art collections make photographs or other images of the original painting. Their purpose is to reproduce the original exactly.
  
  
• Fair use - for educational and non-profit reasons - allows some use of copyrighted images.

The question is whether a reproduction of a work of art that is in the public domain carries a copyright.

Now I have to quote from my "sources"

Quote from englishhistory.net/tudor/art.html

For a long time, the FAIR USE doctrine occupied a grey area of law, usually decided on a case-by-case basis. Typically, if someone were profiting from another person's work which was not in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, it was not considered fair use. Museums typically did not sue non-profit websites which reproduced images for educational purposes. If they had, the court would have forced them to prove a substantial loss of profit from the use. Understandably, such proof would not exist and the court would not look favorably upon such a vindictive case, particularly since the images were already in the public domain.

However, on 18th February 1999, the grey area was cleared considerably. Fair Use was no longer a murky legal issue to be debated by webmasters and museums. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York decided the following case -

The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd., Plaintiff, - versus - Corel Corporation, et ano., Defendants.
97 Civ. 6232 (LAK)

Their decision was one of the most important copyright decision affecting museums ever filed. The decision was based on both US and UK copyright law.

The Bridgeman Art Library had made photographic reproductions of famous works of art from museums around the world (works already in the public domain.) The Corel Corporation used those reproductions for an educational CD-ROM without paying Bridgeman. Bridgeman claimed copyright infringement.

The Court ruled that reproductions of images in the public domain are not protected by copyright if the reproductions are slavish or lacking in originality.

In their opinion, the Court noted: ''There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection.... But 'slavish copying', although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify.''

In other words, an exact reproduction of an image in the public domain does not possess creativity itself. Therefore, the reproduction is not protected under copyright law.

An easy-to-read discussion is found here:
www.funnystrange.com/copyright/bridgeman.htm

The original court case is discussed here:
www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm

[pieter]

Thank you Nancy!

[rdywenur]

I think the people that truly do not want anyone to copy will copy protect them so you aren't able to...otherwise fair go. I copy fotos but would not put on my personal webpages only to post may be such as here. (maybe with a note ...shamefully stolen from....etc)

[Jaga]

Nancy,

thanks for checking this out. Actually, somebody wanted to posted the article about a Polish historical figure - and then this person added the picture and I asked the question about the author rights for the picture - and this person asked me the question whether it is necessary - so this explanation has much sense. If only museums or owners were able to distribute the copies of the paintings.... we could not learn about famous pictures or historical figures as we can do it when the copies are shared with the public!

[rdywenur]

It almost goes along with the issues of downloading music files. No one has a problem with taping a song off the radio but try off the Internet. Same thing , different vechicle.

[nancy]

rdy, one difference is that the music in question is not in the public domain - it is from artists trying to make a living from their work. To them, it is stolen.

[kaima]

rdy & ncy,

The intellectual work is well worth protecting to reward the creation and encourage more of the same. Where the protection begins and ends is quite arbitrary and changes as congress arbitrarily changes the law. I grew up with what I remember to be the 17 year law for the initial copyright (or am I confusing it with patent?) and one renewal. Recently I believe it was substantially prolonged to keep songs and products (movies, imaginary characters, think Disney & Superman) out of the public domain.

Now I like the protection and the profit they should make as reward. Of course I don't like paying inflated prices either, so I have the same conflicts Congress does, I just don't have lobbyists buying my vote (what a shame). While we criticize China and Russia for violating intellectual rights, we did the same thing when our country was young.

Charles Dickens came to America in the early 1800's and was treated like today's rock stars, fed, feted and highly celebrated. He was quite thrilled with it all because he was not so wildly popular in England. Then his bubble burst when he discovered that 90% of his books sold in the USA were pirate editions and he did not get a penny from their sales. That was entirely legal under US law and the popular attitude was "of course!, this is free enterprise!" So now the USA is on the other end of the stick.

At one time I wanted to download "Hi ho, hi ho, off to work we go" to put on my computer at work to start the day... and it is no where to be found (at least for an amateur such as I am).

K
(short for Kai)

[kaima]

I wanted this topic to stand out and not be lost in my previous posting.

With the laws as they are today and the general pro-business attitude of both the politicians and the American people today, I firmly believe we could not invent free lending public libraries today, if they did not already exist.

The pressure against loaning books for free would be too great, and support for creating such a system with public dollars would never sell today. I am quite happy the free lending libraries were invented a long time ago and are such a part of American tradition that business cannot shut them down. Now in 40 years, perhaps we can shut down libraries... today, not. Hmm.. but perhaps we should privatize!

Kai

Kai

[nancy]

kaima said:

I grew up with what I remember to be the 17 year law for the initial copyright (or am I confusing it with patent?) and one renewal. Recently I believe it was substantially prolonged to keep songs and products (movies, imaginary characters, think Disney & Superman) out of the public domain.
...
At one time I wanted to download "Hi ho, hi ho, off to work we go" to put on my computer at work to start the day... and it is no where to be found (at least for an amateur such as I am).

I am not sure about the original amount of time the old copyright law provided - I think it was 25 or 28 years plus one renewal. But you are right that the change in the law extended it - and it is longer for corporate entities than for individuals.

I doubt you will ever find "hi ho" or" zippideedooda" or "when you wish upon a star" on line ...

Disney is really fierce in protecting their trademarked characters - they never give permission for anyone to use them (apart from licensed products) and they sue anyone who does. Remember the live duet between Rob Lowe and Snow White during the 1989 Oscarcast? Disney brought a lawsuit for copyright infringement citing "unauthorized and unflattering" use of Snow White's character.

Disney has even been known to chase down little old ladies who dared to applique or embroider Mickey Mouse on a quilt for a little kid (of course, now they are making more money be selling fabric with some of the characters on it).

[nancy]

kaima said:

With the laws as they are today and the general pro-business attitude of both the politicians and the American people today, I firmly believe we could not invent free lending public libraries today, if they did not already exist.

The pressure against loaning books for free would be too great, and support for creating such a system with public dollars would never sell today. I am quite happy the free lending libraries were invented a long time ago and are such a part of American tradition that business cannot shut them down. Now in 40 years, perhaps we can shut down libraries... today, not. Hmm.. but perhaps we should privatize!
Kai

I think you are correct, Kai.

When I owned a bookstore I read a lot about how authors were being deprived of royalties if people just loaned each other books, never mind multiple borrowings from a library. Of course, the publishers were the ones framing that argument (that the authors were the ones being cheated). Most authors just want people to read their books - of course, the more they sell, the better chance they have of getting another book published. Usually the percentage of royalties that goes to an author is a minimal part of the deal.

Publishers themselves are in a world of hurt these days, anyway. In the 1990s, many small publishing houses went out of business and others were swallowed up by bigger houses - then they mostly all got bought out by Giants. You'd be surprised at how many houses are owned by these Giant corporations - and not necessarily American at that (think - German).