Copyright

[Perfection]

We've just bought an original piece of art from a local artist. We like it so much we believe it's worthy of a limited edition print run. I know that title to the actual goods has passed to us with the purchase, but what about copyright? I have the technology to produce the prints but do I have the right? I know if I buy software, I am only acquiring the right to use it, not title to it. I guess the artist might settle for a royalty payment, but as the work is now mine, where do I stand - any ideas?

Paul

[pinkybanks]

I dont have the answer, but if no resident experts come forward i will ask my legal beagle as Im facinated in this topic, my guess would be you would indeed have to get permission and then pay a royalty...but lets find out.

[pinkybanks]

I lift from another forum:

Purchasing a painting does not mean that you have purchased the copyright. The reproduction of art that is not your own requires the expressed permission of the artist (copyright holder). It is they who set the framework within which you must operate so a little negotiation can go a long way.

If you do not seek the permission of the artist then you are in sailing up a legal creek without a paddle. Should the artist find out and wish to pursue the matter then the weight of the law will be on their side.
So basically, the artist still owns the copyright, and you will need express permission to reproduce or alter that image...
http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=35155

[Perfection]

Nice response Pinky, having been a pro photographer for more years than I care to admit, it's pretty much the same. Just because someone buys £2000 worth of wedding photos, doesn't give them the right to copy them - I guess I'll be contacting the artist tomorrow!
P

[Steve N]

Apart from the copyright issue, it would be good to build a relationship with the artist, ask them if you can produce it as a limited edition, pay them a royalty, also you can get them to sign the prints as well, I believe a limited print is worth more (appears more valued ) if signed by the artist as well as numbered. If you build up a relationship with the artist, you can them maybe do a range of their prints as limited editions and also they will recommend you to other artists for framing and printing. In other words play it straight.

Steve

[Bill Henry]

Yeah, like Pinky said …

Try to reproduce a picture of Mickey Mouse and the Disney attorneys will be all over you like fleas on a ferret.

[Perfection]

Hi all, I spoke to the artist today - she was a little taken aback and is now "thinking about it". I wonder how long that will take? I'll let you all know the outcome.

[WelshFramer]

As has been said, copyright remains with the artist unless specifically reassigned. Any reassignment should always be in writing.

Possibly more important are Intellectual Property Rights. These remain with the artist or author and cannot be reassigned. This means that if you reproduce an artist's work then you should always get their approval of the reproductions.

If you make inferior reproductions then the artist can claim that their work has been brought into disrepute and has damaged their reputation. Damages for infringement of IPR are generally far higher than those for infringement of copyright.

So: (a) get permission to use the image, in writing, with a clear statement as to how it might be used; and (b) get the artist's approval of any prints made. If they are to be a limited edition then you'll need to get the artist to sign and number the editions in any case. If they are to be limited editions then you will need to get the artist to agree that the image will never be used to create any other prints*.

Some people maintain that's it's OK to republish images in a different form - greetings cards or coffee mugs, for example, but this is a modern interpretation of 'limited edition' driven by the larger print publishers' greed. Traditionally a limited edition would be used to print the edition and then the plates or screens (etc) would be destroyed. Many people believe that modern limited editions should be treated the same way. Whichever view you take it's important that artist, publisher (and customer) understand the rules.

I've had problems with and artist who commissioned a limited edition print from me and then said they had a customer who wanted one printed in a different size. She obviously hadn't thought through the implications of making an image into a limited edition.

[Perfection]

Thanks everyone for the info and advice - as ever you guys are invaluable. The artist called me back at 09.01am today, leading me to anticipate a very big positive. Unfortunately, all she had to say was that she wasn't interested. Maybe that's genuine or maybe she copied her painting from a book and it looks too much like someone else's work (I believe this is a common issue among artists). However, we'll never know but at least we're now armed with valuable information if & when this comes up again.

Paul

[mikeysaling]

could be she copied it from a photograph (maybe not her own) but i know a lot of artists that use photoraphs - not sure about the copyright thing in this case? how about copying hubble deep space images as watercolours etc?

[kev@frames]

If you were looking for authority UK links on Copyright and APR:
http://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/200174/ ... ht_and_ipr
this covers it all.

[Perfection]

On Hahnemuhle Torchon paper, they'd look Bl**dy awesome! I print some of my landscapes onto fine art paper. people can't tell if they're photos or paintings - ahh well, we digress.