Are people interested in embroidered replicas of famous art?

Are Van Gogh/famous art still under copyright? This has been a very
interesting and good discussion. But it is still in puzzle in terms
of those opinions in summary below. In fact, I consulted a lawyer
about it trying to get answers, but unfortunately it did not help.

Here is the scenario we discuss:
Will that infringe copyright if one get a Van Gogh's work embroidered
for commercial purpose given the piece is in public domain already,
according to US law, but it is owned by a museum or estate in US or
foreign country? Yes or no?

Below is summary of the discussion (true or false?):

"Reproducing famous works of art usually requires expensive licensing
from the estate or the museum which owns that piece."

"The copyright is still held by the owner/museum/artist's estate
although the artist has been dead for a long time such as 100 yeas and
the item is in public domain already as the present laws gives
copyright in seventy years from the death of the artist."

"An embroidered version of an original work MIGHT be considered
different enough from the original to avoid copyright infringement.
Or, a change in medium
(embroidery v. oils) MIGHT NOT be considered enough of a modification,
particularly if there were no changes in color, texture or
composition."

"I'm pretty sure these artist's works are not protected by copyright
any more, if they ever were."

"If you were going to render a classic image of GREAT WORLD ART in
embroidery, I would think that it would be okay."

"There is no clear answer to your question. In the end, the decision
could swing either way depending on the interpretation of a particular
federal judge or jury."

"If a museum owns a piece of art, generally they own the legal right
to use it's image. That is why when you see stationery, or other
things done
in with reproductions of a painting, and it's labelled "Monet's
Waterlillies" it also says "Museum X"."

"If you, as an artist, choose to do a painting in the style of Monet's
Waterlillies, and sell it, use if for commercial purposes, then you
say
"After Monet's Waterlillies" - therefore making it clear that this is
a painting done by you in the style of."

"If you want to go into the National Gallery of art here (as I'm sure
Lula,
or Caryn, and other locals such as myself do) and sit and sketch -
that's
fine. But, if you want to then commercially reproduce your exact copy
of
Girl with a Watering Can - well, you're in trouble. And if you want to
make
a commercially sold embroidery of that painting, you're violating the
ownership rights of the museum."

"All works for which the statutory copyright period has expired
belongs to
the public domain.
- The copyright may be transferred to a new copyright owner, but this
transfer is not automated by the transfer of the ownership of the
actual
work. So, the owner of a work may or may not be the copyright holder.
- The duration of copyright for works first published prior to 1978
is, at
most, 95 years after the creation of the work.
- The duration of copyright for works created after Jan. 1, 1978 is,
at
most, 120 years from the year of its creation."

"As for your example with Monet's Waterlillies you may be right or you
may
not. Had Monet been a U.S. artist this would probably have been a
borderline
case based on when the copyright had been renewed. I'd say that it
would
probably belong to the public domain from this year, 2003. Since Monet
is
French, the U.S. law does, however, not apply."

"Museums in the US are very protective of any commercial use of an
image of a piece of art that they own."

"George" skrev i meddelandet
m...
Are Van Gogh/famous art still under copyright? This has been a very
interesting and good discussion. But it is still in puzzle in terms
of those opinions in summary below. In fact, I consulted a lawyer
about it trying to get answers, but unfortunately it did not help.

Here is the scenario we discuss:
Will that infringe copyright if one get a Van Gogh's work embroidered
for commercial purpose given the piece is in public domain already,
according to US law, but it is owned by a museum or estate in US or
foreign country? Yes or no?

The simple answer (which I believe in) is no, it will not infringe copyright
since van Gogh has been dead for more than 110 years by now.

The somewhat more involved answer is based on the fact that van Gogh was not
a U.S. citizen but a Dutchman. To be certain you have to consult Dutch law,
but I'd be much surprised if it is more rigorous than the U.S. one. The fact
that the piece of art is owned by a museum or estate is probably of minor
significance regarding copyright. However, if you'd like to take a picture
of the piece at the museum or what ever, the owner could of course prohibit
you from doing so.

Below is summary of the discussion (true or false?):

Since I'm not a lawyer this is of course just my interpretation of the U.S.
law (See U.S. Copyright Office(http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/))


"Reproducing famous works of art usually requires expensive licensing
from the estate or the museum which owns that piece."

False or true depending on how old the work is.


"The copyright is still held by the owner/museum/artist's estate
although the artist has been dead for a long time such as 100 yeas and
the item is in public domain already as the present laws gives
copyright in seventy years from the death of the artist."

Sorry. This I do not understand.


"An embroidered version of an original work MIGHT be considered
different enough from the original to avoid copyright infringement.
Or, a change in medium
(embroidery v. oils) MIGHT NOT be considered enough of a modification,
particularly if there were no changes in color, texture or
composition."

This is probably false. If the copyright duration has not yet expired, you
are not allowed to use another person's work if it cannot be considered as
satire. (This is how I remember it, but you should refer to my link on this)


"I'm pretty sure these artist's works are not protected by copyright
any more, if they ever were."

I'm not sure of to what work you refer. Way back in time there where
probably no such thing as copyright. Is that applicable?

"If you were going to render a classic image of GREAT WORLD ART in
embroidery, I would think that it would be okay."

True if the copyright has expired. False if it hasn't.


"There is no clear answer to your question. In the end, the decision
could swing either way depending on the interpretation of a particular
federal judge or jury."

The law in this matter seems rather unambiguous.

"If a museum owns a piece of art, generally they own the legal right
to use it's image. That is why when you see stationery, or other
things done
in with reproductions of a painting, and it's labelled "Monet's
Waterlillies" it also says "Museum X"."

They own the physical piece which means you cannot take it with you when you
go home. Has the artist been dead for long enough, the copyright has
expired, however.


"If you, as an artist, choose to do a painting in the style of Monet's
Waterlillies, and sell it, use if for commercial purposes, then you
say
"After Monet's Waterlillies" - therefore making it clear that this is
a painting done by you in the style of."

There is probably no way of escaping from the copyright law by such a
statement. If your piece shows too much likeness to the original and it's
still copyrighted, you may have to pay...


"If you want to go into the National Gallery of art here (as I'm sure
Lula,
or Caryn, and other locals such as myself do) and sit and sketch -
that's
fine. But, if you want to then commercially reproduce your exact copy
of
Girl with a Watering Can - well, you're in trouble. And if you want to
make
a commercially sold embroidery of that painting, you're violating the
ownership rights of the museum."

If the museum allows the sketching in the first place and the painting is
old enough, you may probably sell as many copies you'd like.


"All works for which the statutory copyright period has expired
belongs to
the public domain.
- The copyright may be transferred to a new copyright owner, but this
transfer is not automated by the transfer of the ownership of the
actual
work. So, the owner of a work may or may not be the copyright holder.
- The duration of copyright for works first published prior to 1978
is, at
most, 95 years after the creation of the work.
- The duration of copyright for works created after Jan. 1, 1978 is,
at
most, 120 years from the year of its creation."

"As for your example with Monet's Waterlillies you may be right or you
may
not. Had Monet been a U.S. artist this would probably have been a
borderline
case based on when the copyright had been renewed. I'd say that it
would
probably belong to the public domain from this year, 2003. Since Monet
is
French, the U.S. law does, however, not apply."

These are my own comments and I still think they are valid :-)


"Museums in the US are very protective of any commercial use of an
image of a piece of art that they own."

True, without any doubt. Why shouldn't they? It's no law against being
protective, but they won't get paid for that... ;-)


Take my comments for what they are. I'm not a lawyer, but the U.S. law is
pretty straightforward on this. Take a look and make your own decision.

Regards,
/Anders

http://www.metmuseum.org/visitor/index.asp#Policy
This is a link to the photography and sketching policies for the
Metropolitan Museum of Art. The basic theme is they own the original
works and have to right to decide who may copy them and in what format.
They also have to right to tell you whether or not you may reproduce
your copies in any media. Since one of the ways they raise funds is
through sales of their prints and items based on gallery images, I'm
sure they would frown on someone else commercially exploiting their
property.

Darn, they sucked me in. I'm just going to go stare at the Tiffany
items in the Met Store...

Anders wrote:
"George" skrev i meddelandet
m...

Are Van Gogh/famous art still under copyright? This has been a very
interesting and good discussion. But it is still in puzzle in terms
of those opinions in summary below. In fact, I consulted a lawyer
about it trying to get answers, but unfortunately it did not help.

Here is the scenario we discuss:
Will that infringe copyright if one get a Van Gogh's work embroidered
for commercial purpose given the piece is in public domain already,
according to US law, but it is owned by a museum or estate in US or
foreign country? Yes or no?


The simple answer (which I believe in) is no, it will not infringe copyright
since van Gogh has been dead for more than 110 years by now.

The somewhat more involved answer is based on the fact that van Gogh was not
a U.S. citizen but a Dutchman. To be certain you have to consult Dutch law,
but I'd be much surprised if it is more rigorous than the U.S. one. The fact
that the piece of art is owned by a museum or estate is probably of minor
significance regarding copyright. However, if you'd like to take a picture
of the piece at the museum or what ever, the owner could of course prohibit
you from doing so.


Below is summary of the discussion (true or false?):


Since I'm not a lawyer this is of course just my interpretation of the U.S.
law (See U.S. Copyright Office(http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/))


"Reproducing famous works of art usually requires expensive licensing
from the estate or the museum which owns that piece."


False or true depending on how old the work is.


"The copyright is still held by the owner/museum/artist's estate
although the artist has been dead for a long time such as 100 yeas and
the item is in public domain already as the present laws gives
copyright in seventy years from the death of the artist."


Sorry. This I do not understand.


"An embroidered version of an original work MIGHT be considered
different enough from the original to avoid copyright infringement.
Or, a change in medium
(embroidery v. oils) MIGHT NOT be considered enough of a modification,
particularly if there were no changes in color, texture or
composition."


This is probably false. If the copyright duration has not yet expired, you
are not allowed to use another person's work if it cannot be considered as
satire. (This is how I remember it, but you should refer to my link on this)


"I'm pretty sure these artist's works are not protected by copyright
any more, if they ever were."


I'm not sure of to what work you refer. Way back in time there where
probably no such thing as copyright. Is that applicable?


"If you were going to render a classic image of GREAT WORLD ART in
embroidery, I would think that it would be okay."


True if the copyright has expired. False if it hasn't.


"There is no clear answer to your question. In the end, the decision
could swing either way depending on the interpretation of a particular
federal judge or jury."


The law in this matter seems rather unambiguous.


"If a museum owns a piece of art, generally they own the legal right
to use it's image. That is why when you see stationery, or other
things done
in with reproductions of a painting, and it's labelled "Monet's
Waterlillies" it also says "Museum X"."


They own the physical piece which means you cannot take it with you when you
go home. Has the artist been dead for long enough, the copyright has
expired, however.


"If you, as an artist, choose to do a painting in the style of Monet's
Waterlillies, and sell it, use if for commercial purposes, then you
say
"After Monet's Waterlillies" - therefore making it clear that this is
a painting done by you in the style of."


There is probably no way of escaping from the copyright law by such a
statement. If your piece shows too much likeness to the original and it's
still copyrighted, you may have to pay...


"If you want to go into the National Gallery of art here (as I'm sure
Lula,
or Caryn, and other locals such as myself do) and sit and sketch -
that's
fine. But, if you want to then commercially reproduce your exact copy
of
Girl with a Watering Can - well, you're in trouble. And if you want to
make
a commercially sold embroidery of that painting, you're violating the
ownership rights of the museum."


If the museum allows the sketching in the first place and the painting is
old enough, you may probably sell as many copies you'd like.


"All works for which the statutory copyright period has expired
belongs to
the public domain.
- The copyright may be transferred to a new copyright owner, but this
transfer is not automated by the transfer of the ownership of the
actual
work. So, the owner of a work may or may not be the copyright holder.
- The duration of copyright for works first published prior to 1978
is, at
most, 95 years after the creation of the work.
- The duration of copyright for works created after Jan. 1, 1978 is,
at
most, 120 years from the year of its creation."

"As for your example with Monet's Waterlillies you may be right or you
may
not. Had Monet been a U.S. artist this would probably have been a
borderline
case based on when the copyright had been renewed. I'd say that it
would
probably belong to the public domain from this year, 2003. Since Monet
is
French, the U.S. law does, however, not apply."


These are my own comments and I still think they are valid :-)


"Museums in the US are very protective of any commercial use of an
image of a piece of art that they own."


True, without any doubt. Why shouldn't they? It's no law against being
protective, but they won't get paid for that... ;-)


Take my comments for what they are. I'm not a lawyer, but the U.S. law is
pretty straightforward on this. Take a look and make your own decision.

Regards,
/Anders




--
Brenda Lewis
WIP: "Pink Baby" photo frame, Candamar

This may also have to do with fraudulent copying of masterworks. The
"duplication" of an original for fraudulent sale as an "original".
Dianne

Brenda Lewis wrote:

http://www.metmuseum.org/visitor/index.asp#Policy
This is a link to the photography and sketching policies for the
Metropolitan Museum of Art. The basic theme is they own the original
works and have to right to decide who may copy them and in what format.
They also have to right to tell you whether or not you may reproduce
your copies in any media. Since one of the ways they raise funds is
through sales of their prints and items based on gallery images, I'm
sure they would frown on someone else commercially exploiting their
property.

Darn, they sucked me in. I'm just going to go stare at the Tiffany
items in the Met Store...

"Brenda Lewis" skrev i meddelandet
...
http://www.metmuseum.org/visitor/index.asp#Policy
This is a link to the photography and sketching policies for the
Metropolitan Museum of Art. The basic theme is they own the original
works and have to right to decide who may copy them and in what format.
They also have to right to tell you whether or not you may reproduce
your copies in any media. Since one of the ways they raise funds is
through sales of their prints and items based on gallery images, I'm
sure they would frown on someone else commercially exploiting their
property.

Their policy is in no conflict with what I wrote, but it probably has
nothing to do with the copyright law. The owner may prevent you from taking
at picture of the work. They may also force you into a contract of not using
the photograph commercially to be allowed taking the picture. They may even
stop you from even looking at the work...
However, has the copyright duration expired and you are able to produce a
cross stitch chart from a different source than a particular photograph
taken at this particular museum, you are probably not breaking any law. Is
it a very famous piece of art, it shouldn't be to hard to find a different
(and legal) source either.

Anders wrote:
"George" skrev i meddelandet
m...

Are Van Gogh/famous art still under copyright? This has been a very
interesting and good discussion. But it is still in puzzle in terms
of those opinions in summary below. In fact, I consulted a lawyer
about it trying to get answers, but unfortunately it did not help.

Here is the scenario we discuss:
Will that infringe copyright if one get a Van Gogh's work embroidered
for commercial purpose given the piece is in public domain already,
according to US law, but it is owned by a museum or estate in US or
foreign country? Yes or no?


The simple answer (which I believe in) is no, it will not infringe
copyright
since van Gogh has been dead for more than 110 years by now.

The somewhat more involved answer is based on the fact that van Gogh was
not
a U.S. citizen but a Dutchman. To be certain you have to consult Dutch
law,
but I'd be much surprised if it is more rigorous than the U.S. one. The
fact
that the piece of art is owned by a museum or estate is probably of
minor
significance regarding copyright. However, if you'd like to take a
picture
of the piece at the museum or what ever, the owner could of course
prohibit
you from doing so.


Below is summary of the discussion (true or false?):


Since I'm not a lawyer this is of course just my interpretation of the
U.S.
law (See U.S. Copyright Office(http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/))


"Reproducing famous works of art usually requires expensive licensing
from the estate or the museum which owns that piece."


False or true depending on how old the work is.


"The copyright is still held by the owner/museum/artist's estate
although the artist has been dead for a long time such as 100 yeas and
the item is in public domain already as the present laws gives
copyright in seventy years from the death of the artist."


Sorry. This I do not understand.


"An embroidered version of an original work MIGHT be considered
different enough from the original to avoid copyright infringement.
Or, a change in medium
(embroidery v. oils) MIGHT NOT be considered enough of a modification,
particularly if there were no changes in color, texture or
composition."


This is probably false. If the copyright duration has not yet expired,
you
are not allowed to use another person's work if it cannot be considered
as
satire. (This is how I remember it, but you should refer to my link on
this)


"I'm pretty sure these artist's works are not protected by copyright
any more, if they ever were."


I'm not sure of to what work you refer. Way back in time there where
probably no such thing as copyright. Is that applicable?


"If you were going to render a classic image of GREAT WORLD ART in
embroidery, I would think that it would be okay."


True if the copyright has expired. False if it hasn't.


"There is no clear answer to your question. In the end, the decision
could swing either way depending on the interpretation of a particular
federal judge or jury."


The law in this matter seems rather unambiguous.


"If a museum owns a piece of art, generally they own the legal right
to use it's image. That is why when you see stationery, or other
things done
in with reproductions of a painting, and it's labelled "Monet's
Waterlillies" it also says "Museum X"."


They own the physical piece which means you cannot take it with you when
you
go home. Has the artist been dead for long enough, the copyright has
expired, however.


"If you, as an artist, choose to do a painting in the style of Monet's
Waterlillies, and sell it, use if for commercial purposes, then you
say
"After Monet's Waterlillies" - therefore making it clear that this is
a painting done by you in the style of."


There is probably no way of escaping from the copyright law by such a
statement. If your piece shows too much likeness to the original and
it's
still copyrighted, you may have to pay...


"If you want to go into the National Gallery of art here (as I'm sure
Lula,
or Caryn, and other locals such as myself do) and sit and sketch -
that's
fine. But, if you want to then commercially reproduce your exact copy
of
Girl with a Watering Can - well, you're in trouble. And if you want to
make
a commercially sold embroidery of that painting, you're violating the
ownership rights of the museum."


If the museum allows the sketching in the first place and the painting
is
old enough, you may probably sell as many copies you'd like.


"All works for which the statutory copyright period has expired
belongs to
the public domain.
- The copyright may be transferred to a new copyright owner, but this
transfer is not automated by the transfer of the ownership of the
actual
work. So, the owner of a work may or may not be the copyright holder.
- The duration of copyright for works first published prior to 1978
is, at
most, 95 years after the creation of the work.
- The duration of copyright for works created after Jan. 1, 1978 is,
at
most, 120 years from the year of its creation."

"As for your example with Monet's Waterlillies you may be right or you
may
not. Had Monet been a U.S. artist this would probably have been a
borderline
case based on when the copyright had been renewed. I'd say that it
would
probably belong to the public domain from this year, 2003. Since Monet
is
French, the U.S. law does, however, not apply."


These are my own comments and I still think they are valid :-)


"Museums in the US are very protective of any commercial use of an
image of a piece of art that they own."


True, without any doubt. Why shouldn't they? It's no law against being
protective, but they won't get paid for that... ;-)


Take my comments for what they are. I'm not a lawyer, but the U.S. law
is
pretty straightforward on this. Take a look and make your own decision.

Regards,
/Anders




--
Brenda Lewis
WIP: "Pink Baby" photo frame, Candamar