Are people interested in embroidered replicas of famous art?

I would like to make embroidered versions of some selected famous oil
paintings but I have no idea weather people like this kind of art
style or not. Does anyone have any ideas about it? We did make some
of silk embroidery paintings that you can view them at
http://EmbroideryArtwork.com.
Thanks.

George wrote:
I would like to make embroidered versions of some selected famous oil
paintings but I have no idea weather people like this kind of art
style or not. Does anyone have any ideas about it? We did make some
of silk embroidery paintings that you can view them at
http://EmbroideryArtwork.com.
Thanks.

Make anything you want to make.

I'm not understanding what you are talking about. We don't buy and sell
finished works in this newsgroup.

-georg

I think that is an extremely difficult question to answer. For every
ten people who would like a Monet or Rembrandt, another ten would like
an abstract. For every 20 that would love kittens, another 20 would
prefer a cottage in the woods.

There just isn't a concensus when it comes to art. My own opinion is
that people enjoy designs that are indicative of the culture from whence
they came. So your works of cranes, tigers, lotus, villages, are
appreciated because they are unique. To "Westernize" it, (to me) is to
lessen its importance.

Remember, that's just my "opinion". As I looked at your finished
embroideries, the ones I was drawn to are the ones unique to your
culture. I don't have the dollars to purchase one of your designs, but
if I did, that is what I would purchase . . . not a fad piece that will
have no lasting value.

Dianne

George wrote:

I would like to make embroidered versions of some selected famous oil
paintings but I have no idea weather people like this kind of art
style or not. Does anyone have any ideas about it? We did make some
of silk embroidery paintings that you can view them at
http://EmbroideryArtwork.com.
Thanks.

I agree with what Dianne wrote - see, it happens ;^)

However, just a note, that reproducing famous works of art usually requires
expensive licensing from the estate or the museum which owns that piece.
Just a thought.

Ellice
On 11/21/03 9:31 AM,"Dianne Lewandowski" posted:

I think that is an extremely difficult question to answer. For every
ten people who would like a Monet or Rembrandt, another ten would like
an abstract. For every 20 that would love kittens, another 20 would
prefer a cottage in the woods.

There just isn't a concensus when it comes to art. My own opinion is
that people enjoy designs that are indicative of the culture from whence
they came. So your works of cranes, tigers, lotus, villages, are
appreciated because they are unique. To "Westernize" it, (to me) is to
lessen its importance.

Remember, that's just my "opinion". As I looked at your finished
embroideries, the ones I was drawn to are the ones unique to your
culture. I don't have the dollars to purchase one of your designs, but
if I did, that is what I would purchase . . . not a fad piece that will
have no lasting value.

Dianne

George wrote:

I would like to make embroidered versions of some selected famous oil
paintings but I have no idea weather people like this kind of art
style or not. Does anyone have any ideas about it? We did make some
of silk embroidery paintings that you can view them at
http://EmbroideryArtwork.com.
Thanks.

Ellice wrote:

I agree with what Dianne wrote - see, it happens ;^)

Gee, I didn't know we disagreed! That's how much I pay attention to
comments. I'm as likely think your nuts one moment and hug you the
next. g I wouldn't want a world filled with people like me. The mix
is much more fun, valuable, and interesting.

Seriously earnest Dianne or was that
Earnestly serious Dianne huge grin

"Ellice" skrev i meddelandet
...
I agree with what Dianne wrote - see, it happens ;^)

However, just a note, that reproducing famous works of art usually
requires
expensive licensing from the estate or the museum which owns that piece.
Just a thought.

Are you implying that the copyright is held by the owner although the artist
has been dead for a long time? Are you sure about this?

On 11/21/03 8:36 PM,"Anders" posted:


"Ellice" skrev i meddelandet
...
I agree with what Dianne wrote - see, it happens ;^)

However, just a note, that reproducing famous works of art usually
requires
expensive licensing from the estate or the museum which owns that piece.
Just a thought.

Are you implying that the copyright is held by the owner although the artist
has been dead for a long time? Are you sure about this?

Maybe. 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". Similarly, a long dead artist may
have passed down their artwork in the family, and it's still a work owned by
the great-great-whatever, or family friend, or guy who found it in the
street, or the local butcher from 1789's great-great-great-great.. The piece
may be on public display, but the rights to its commercial use might still
be retained by the owner. At least here in the US.

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.

The copyrights on works of art, are a little different than published works
of literature. And, there are people who indeed own a painting, or an
antique sampler, and therefore have the rights to use of that image. I know
several designers that do reproduction samplers, or other needlework. They
are extremely careful to license the use of the original image - in some
cases from a private collection. You can look at samplers done by Of Female
Worth, or Handwork amongst others, and see the attribution "original sampler
from the collection of XXXXX" . There is a fee paid (usually) and at the
least a signed agreement permitting the use of the original sampler to be
copied. The designs taken from the Winterthur Museum collection of
needlework are all licensed to a specific designer who has the rights to do
the reproduction needlework kits/charts - of those authentic pieces.

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.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty darn sure about this. It's about commercial
use of someone's property vs private use - fair use - of a public image. If
you just want to make an interpretative sketch, or take a photo, and stitch
it for yourself - that may be considered fair use. But, if you then want to
take your chart and sell it, that's a different story. Of course, the rules
are different in different countries, and international copyright law is a
whole different thing. Of course, in Paris, how many places can you see
pictures on t-shirts, or scarves, of some painting from the Louvre, etc.
Just depends on what is in the public "ownership" , public domain, where you
are, how you intend to use it.

TNNA, the National Needlework Association, just issued to its members a
brochure on copyright. It's free for us to photocopy, and distribute. Lots
of information - particularly about issues in needlework. If you have a LNS
that is a member, they may have it for reading, or to give out. I don't want
to go into the copy business, but if anyone is really wanting it, I could
scan it, and make a PDF that people can get. Just LMK.

Ellice - not a lawyer ;^)

"Ellice" skrev i meddelandet
...
On 11/21/03 8:36 PM,"Anders" posted:


"Ellice" skrev i meddelandet
...
I agree with what Dianne wrote - see, it happens ;^)

However, just a note, that reproducing famous works of art usually
requires
expensive licensing from the estate or the museum which owns that
piece.
Just a thought.

Are you implying that the copyright is held by the owner although the
artist
has been dead for a long time? Are you sure about this?

Maybe. 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". Similarly, a long dead artist may
have passed down their artwork in the family, and it's still a work owned
by
the great-great-whatever, or family friend, or guy who found it in the
street, or the local butcher from 1789's great-great-great-great.. The
piece
may be on public display, but the rights to its commercial use might still
be retained by the owner. At least here in the US.

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.

The copyrights on works of art, are a little different than published
works
of literature. And, there are people who indeed own a painting, or an
antique sampler, and therefore have the rights to use of that image. I
know
several designers that do reproduction samplers, or other needlework. They
are extremely careful to license the use of the original image - in some
cases from a private collection. You can look at samplers done by Of
Female
Worth, or Handwork amongst others, and see the attribution "original
sampler
from the collection of XXXXX" . There is a fee paid (usually) and at the
least a signed agreement permitting the use of the original sampler to be
copied. The designs taken from the Winterthur Museum collection of
needlework are all licensed to a specific designer who has the rights to
do
the reproduction needlework kits/charts - of those authentic pieces.

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.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty darn sure about this. It's about
commercial
use of someone's property vs private use - fair use - of a public image.
If
you just want to make an interpretative sketch, or take a photo, and
stitch
it for yourself - that may be considered fair use. But, if you then want
to
take your chart and sell it, that's a different story. Of course, the
rules
are different in different countries, and international copyright law is a
whole different thing. Of course, in Paris, how many places can you see
pictures on t-shirts, or scarves, of some painting from the Louvre, etc.
Just depends on what is in the public "ownership" , public domain, where
you
are, how you intend to use it.

TNNA, the National Needlework Association, just issued to its members a
brochure on copyright. It's free for us to photocopy, and distribute. Lots
of information - particularly about issues in needlework. If you have a
LNS
that is a member, they may have it for reading, or to give out. I don't
want
to go into the copy business, but if anyone is really wanting it, I could
scan it, and make a PDF that people can get. Just LMK.

Ellice - not a lawyer ;^)

Hi Ellice.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm very interested in the subject and I'd like
to get this sorted out ones and for all.

I see your point, that the owner of a piece of art should be protected in
some way. I'm not sure, however, if such a protection is regulated by the
U.S. law.

In fact, most of the major nations have signed the Berne Copyright
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html) and hence since
1978 most countries have very similar Copyright Laws.
The Convention appears to allow some national variations, whereas the U.S.
Copyright Office(http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/) should be the source to be
relied on.

According to the U.S. Copyright Office (in short and as I understand it):
- 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 I see this, copyright may be transferred to a museum or, of course, an
inheritor, but the copyright duration is independent of such a transfer. The
duration is a certain amount of time after the creation or publishing of the
work or after the death of the author(s).

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.

For the example with the guy finding a piece of art in the street, I
interpret the law as if this guy will never be the copyright holder.
Transfer of copyright seems to be possible only by a contract, signed by the
author, or by inheritance.

For the example when the painting was created in 1789, the law clearly
judges it to be in the public domain.

As I initially said, I'm not a lawyer and since TNNA has issued to its
members a brochure on copyright that seems to state differently than my
interpretation of the law, I'd very much like to continue this discussion.

Ellice, I'd be much obliged could you make the TNNA copyright brochure
available.

Best regards,
/Anders

On 11/22/03 10:43 AM,"Anders" posted:


"Ellice" skrev i meddelandet
...
On 11/21/03 8:36 PM,"Anders" posted:


"Ellice" skrev i meddelandet
...
I agree with what Dianne wrote - see, it happens ;^)

However, just a note, that reproducing famous works of art usually
requires
expensive licensing from the estate or the museum which owns that
piece.
Just a thought.

Are you implying that the copyright is held by the owner although the
artist
has been dead for a long time? Are you sure about this?

Maybe. 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". Similarly, a long dead artist may
have passed down their artwork in the family, and it's still a work owned
by
the great-great-whatever, or family friend, or guy who found it in the
street, or the local butcher from 1789's great-great-great-great.. The
piece
may be on public display, but the rights to its commercial use might still
be retained by the owner. At least here in the US.

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.

The copyrights on works of art, are a little different than published
works
of literature. And, there are people who indeed own a painting, or an
antique sampler, and therefore have the rights to use of that image. I
know
several designers that do reproduction samplers, or other needlework. They
are extremely careful to license the use of the original image - in some
cases from a private collection. You can look at samplers done by Of
Female
Worth, or Handwork amongst others, and see the attribution "original
sampler
from the collection of XXXXX" . There is a fee paid (usually) and at the
least a signed agreement permitting the use of the original sampler to be
copied. The designs taken from the Winterthur Museum collection of
needlework are all licensed to a specific designer who has the rights to
do
the reproduction needlework kits/charts - of those authentic pieces.

*snip*
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty darn sure about this. It's about
commercial
use of someone's property vs private use - fair use - of a public image.
If
you just want to make an interpretative sketch, or take a photo, and
stitch
it for yourself - that may be considered fair use. But, if you then want
to
take your chart and sell it, that's a different story. Of course, the
rules
are different in different countries, and international copyright law is a
whole different thing. Of course, in Paris, how many places can you see
pictures on t-shirts, or scarves, of some painting from the Louvre, etc.
Just depends on what is in the public "ownership" , public domain, where
you
are, how you intend to use it.

TNNA, the National Needlework Association, just issued to its members a
brochure on copyright. It's free for us to photocopy, and distribute. Lots
of information - particularly about issues in needlework. If you have a
LNS
that is a member, they may have it for reading, or to give out. I don't
want
to go into the copy business, but if anyone is really wanting it, I could
scan it, and make a PDF that people can get. Just LMK.

Ellice - not a lawyer ;^)

Hi Ellice.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm very interested in the subject and I'd like
to get this sorted out ones and for all.

I see your point, that the owner of a piece of art should be protected in
some way. I'm not sure, however, if such a protection is regulated by the
U.S. law.

In fact, most of the major nations have signed the Berne Copyright
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html) and hence since
1978 most countries have very similar Copyright Laws.
The Convention appears to allow some national variations, whereas the U.S.
Copyright Office(http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/) should be the source to be
relied on.

According to the U.S. Copyright Office (in short and as I understand it):
- 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 I see this, copyright may be transferred to a museum or, of course, an
inheritor, but the copyright duration is independent of such a transfer. The
duration is a certain amount of time after the creation or publishing of the
work or after the death of the author(s).

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.

But, in this case, the rights to use of the image are resting with the
owner, not the creator at this point. In the art world I think there is more
to it than just the you published it, it's been X years, now anyone can use
the image for any reason.

*snip*

As I initially said, I'm not a lawyer and since TNNA has issued to its
members a brochure on copyright that seems to state differently than my
interpretation of the law, I'd very much like to continue this discussion.

Ellice, I'd be much obliged could you make the TNNA copyright brochure
available.

I'll ask if they're planning to make it available on the web-site. If not,
I'll scan it and make a PDF. Maybe I can get them to send me a PDF. Who
knows. But, I will talk about this with one of our lawyer friends,
relatives. It is pretty interesting. I just know that Museums in the US are
very protective of any commercial use of an image of a piece of art that
they own. It is interesting.

ellice

"Ellice" skrev i meddelandet
...
On 11/22/03 10:43 AM,"Anders" posted:


snip


Hi Ellice.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm very interested in the subject and I'd
like
to get this sorted out ones and for all.

I see your point, that the owner of a piece of art should be protected
in
some way. I'm not sure, however, if such a protection is regulated by
the
U.S. law.

In fact, most of the major nations have signed the Berne Copyright
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html) and hence
since
1978 most countries have very similar Copyright Laws.
The Convention appears to allow some national variations, whereas the
U.S.
Copyright Office(http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/) should be the source
to be
relied on.

According to the U.S. Copyright Office (in short and as I understand
it):
- 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 I see this, copyright may be transferred to a museum or, of course,
an
inheritor, but the copyright duration is independent of such a transfer.
The
duration is a certain amount of time after the creation or publishing of
the
work or after the death of the author(s).

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.

But, in this case, the rights to use of the image are resting with the
owner, not the creator at this point.

I'm not sure I understand this. Could you please elaborate? English isn't my
native tongue so please bear with me...

In the art world I think there is more
to it than just the you published it, it's been X years, now anyone can
use
the image for any reason.

According to the U.S. Copyright Office this seems to be the case, though.
Any work, created or published before 1908, now belongs to the public
domain.


*snip*

As I initially said, I'm not a lawyer and since TNNA has issued to its
members a brochure on copyright that seems to state differently than my
interpretation of the law, I'd very much like to continue this
discussion.

Ellice, I'd be much obliged could you make the TNNA copyright brochure
available.

I'll ask if they're planning to make it available on the web-site. If not,
I'll scan it and make a PDF. Maybe I can get them to send me a PDF. Who
knows. But, I will talk about this with one of our lawyer friends,
relatives. It is pretty interesting. I just know that Museums in the US
are
very protective of any commercial use of an image of a piece of art that
they own. It is interesting.

Talking to a lawyer in person is probably more useful than trying to
interpret the law on your own, I guess...
Please let us know what you learn from that conversation.

Best Regards,
/Anders