copyright question

[CanvasChris]

I have been asked to print a couple of images that are by the artist John Bauer. He is the Trolls and Fairy's artist.

They appear to be scans of prints due to the moire. He died 1918

Done a search and came across this http://inventors.about.com/od/copyright ... ration.htm which says that if it was published prior to 1923 then it's in the public domain.

What is your opinion....am I in the clear?

Not much profit in it so wouldn't matter if I didn't.

Thanks in advance...

Chris

[CanvasChris]

Think I might have answered my own question...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Bauer_1915.jpg

See the bottom of this page.

[Steve Goodall]

This is a "perfect subject" for one of those FATG members who have joined the forum recently to help a "fellow" forum member with.

So let's have some professional advice on copyright - from the experts - please - pretty please - pretty please with ribbons on....

Thanks in advance

[Framerpicture]

I am aware that images are copyright free 70 years after the artist's death but is it ok to copy from a print that may have beeen published subsequently to that or must you always copy from an original?
For example, Cecil Aldin died in 1935. More than 70 years ago so you would assume he is copyright free, but if a print was copied that was published in 1960 by a publishing company ,(bearing in mind the copyright for the image is automatically retained by the artist unless otherwise agreed), would that be ok?

[Max Roberts]

I don't have any definitive answer, but you're right about the 70 year rule after the death of the artist. Does the publishing company still exist because they might have entered in to some separate copyright arrangement? I'm not quite sure what is meant by all the inverted commas in Steve's contributuion, but if you want a guild angle on the subject, go to www.fineart.co.uk. If you're a member, sign in and type in "Copyright". You'll find a load of relevant pdfs. I think you can see the same articles as a none member, but the search facility is probably more consumer relevant. I expect it's one of the bonuses of being a member!

[JFeig]

Here in the States, thank you Mr. Walt Disney for having set 1923 as a copyright date for everything. He started his business about that time.

HOWEVER, if an image was purchased by a museum they have copyrights to the images they take of a work of art.

[Steve Goodall]

Thanks Max - nothing "sinister" in the inverted commas - I just "love" them - in an "eighties" kind if way...

[Graysalchemy]

Surely if it was taken from a print or reproduction then the publisher will hold some form of copyright on that reproduction as they will have entered a financial agreement for reproduction rights so you will be infringing that copyright.

[CanvasChris]

The image is tagged as 'in the public domain' here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Bauer_1915.jpg

so would that be Ok?

[Not your average framer]

If the artist sold a liecence, or the reproduction rights to a publisher, then it would depend upon a number of factors and conditions. This would include the terms and conditions of the original agreement between the artist and the publisher, such as if the publishers rights included ongoing exclusive rights and these were secured by payment they would still be legally enforcable. Publishers often exercise the option to re-new and re-assert their contract rights.

Attempting to re-publish an artwork from a printed image is also another way of getting into trouble, because the colour separation and lithography work was paid for by the publisher, this is their rightful property and I can't see how this can ever be argued to be in the public domain.

The only honest and legal way of doing something like this is to purchase a liecence to publish from whoever has the legal right to offer such a liecence. If you are not permitted to have access to the original for the express purpose of photographically taking a copy for the purposes of origination and reproduction, then you are stealing someone elses rights, either directly, or by implication.

[CanvasChris]

Many thanks for all your feedback.

It certainly is a grey area and to be on the safe side I have told the client that I cannot print this.

Chris

[Graysalchemy]

Best option I think Chris, better losing out on a small order than loosing your reputation and integrity.

[IFGL]

In the UK you can not copy someone's copy as the secondary copy has a copyright regardless of the original being public domain . hope that makes sense .
Unless the copy is now public domain.
Also anything you scan or photograph you hold the copyright. but only in the UK

[misterdiy]

So hypothetically then, if I scan and print a few copies for an artist who subsequently dies and his work becomes famous - does that mean that I have the copyright on the images I have scanned or his estate?

[IFGL]

Lol no. you can only print them for the artist or whoever owns his copyright . but if you kept the original for 70 years then scanned it you would own the copyright on the scan . again this is only law in the UK .In American law you would not own the copyright on a scan of a public domain image .

[Ryan Montgomery]

Hiya,

If you owned the original for 70 years after the artists death you could copy away, the copyright then passes to you or whoever happens to own it at that point.

In short, you can't print it without breaking copyright laws.

[IFGL]

The point is , op asked if he could copy a print of a now public domain image that was done in 1965 .the answer is no,not in the UK . as the act of copying the image holds its own copyright .I believe the UK is unique in this rulethe act of pressing a button on any piece of equipment holds a artistic license no matter what the skill or intention of the pressor .

An example of this is :-
N
At a wedding the couple to be married leaves disposable cameras on the tables, anyone who pics one of these up and takes a snap holds the copyright to that image .not the owner of the cameras .

[IFGL]

To mrdiy unless there is a contract to say otherwise,you would own a limited copyright meaning you can't print without the estates permission but they can't use your copy without your permission,so long as you had permission to copy it in the first place .b
Sorry for my lack of clarification in previous posts. VI usually can't be bothered willing answers

[IFGL]

Re checking where did i get 1965 from? I think it was roboframers post about menus. I think I should lay off the beer .