• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

using old paintings in new artwork

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

D

digitalartist

Guest
What is the name of your state?CA
I am a digital artist and I make artwork with composites of digital images. Can I use an old painting done by Maxfield Parrish in 1922 as a background for one of my artworks to sell or advertise my artwork, or is that copyright infringement?
 


BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
All of Maxfield Parrish's copyrights are held by:

Visual Artists and Galleries Association (VAGA)
350 Fifth Ave., Suite 2820, New York, NY 10118-2820
phone: (212)736-6666 email: [email protected]

So yes, if you used this particular artist's work in a reproduction without the above's release, it would be infringement.

Notwithstanding the wrong answer you received before.

Even Lambert Marshall (son of Ben Marshall whose painting hang in the National Museum of London) is covered by copyright although he last painted in 1785. The subject of that painting was 'Snowden and rider' showing the horse in the practice field of Lord Snowden, the grandson of the first prime minister of England.

And it looks just wonderful haning above the fireplace in the Hunt room.
 
D

digitalartist

Guest
Thanks. That's what I thought. What about the following:

1. Using portions of old paintings

2. Using paintings by old masters, like Michaelangelo, Caravaggio etc.

I mainly want to use the skies with clouds.

Also, how do I find out if someone does have a copyright on old paintings? Is there a time limit?

Thanks.
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
You can query the USTPO website or find where the original painting is held and contact them. I know certain genres of art but would be lying if I told you I was an art expert.

I know Hunt and wildlife and some abstract and the only reason I knew what you were looking for specifically was because I purchased one of his paintings recently.

You also might do a google search with the terms 'artist name copyright'.

It will be a start.

By the way, copyright is not the issue with what you are wanting to do. The estate or holder of the masters (i.e. Guggenheim) do not let their paintings be used in commercial enterprises simply because they view it as degrading the original.

Good Luck.
 
J

J. Michael

Guest
"You can query the USTPO website"
Huh? What the Hell does the PTO have to do with copyright?

I'm not giving an opinion whether or not the artwork in question was published before 1923 as defined by U.S. law. BUT if it was published before before 1923, you can do whatever you want with it. I suggest you reseach the legal definition of "publication."

Also added: A Bridgeman v Corel article in plainspeak:
http://www.panix.com/~squigle/rarin/corel2.html

"By the way, copyright is not the issue with what you are wanting to do. The estate or holder of the masters (i.e. Guggenheim) do not let their paintings be used in commercial enterprises simply because they view it as degrading the original."
Totally wrong, "moral rights" DO NOT apply in the U.S. to deceased authors. I suggest you look up VARA:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106A.html

Did you read the links I gave? Did you understand them? What a moron. I give up on you. Believe what you want. (Yes your profound arrogance and ignorance has me even name calling.)
 
Last edited:

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
I will not respond to such an idiot. When you've been buying art and antiques for 30 years and dealing with Christies and other auction houses around the world then come back and talk to me.

It's obvious you have not read the post where I listed the legal copyright holder of the works of this particular artist. Or are you telling this poster to ignore any claim to copyright, go ahead a 'publish' then worry about it when a summons appears in the mail suing him for everything he'll ever hope to own?

You sir, have yet to give a cogent, right answer since trolling these forums. And I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for one.
 

divgradcurl

Senior Member
Hey Breezy,

you fight the good fight! I'll be back in three or four weeks or so -- I need a vacation!

Also, how do I find out if someone does have a copyright on old paintings? Is there a time limit?
Registered copyrights can be searched at www.copyright.gov. However, just because a particular picutre doesn't have a registered copyright doesn't mean that it is public domain -- it could still be covered by copyright. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to search if the copyright isn't registered.

As far as a time limt: anything published prior to 1923 is in the public domain. Anything published after that may still be covered by copyright. Anything published after 1935 is almost certainly still covered by copyright.
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
divgradcurl said:
Hey Breezy,

you fight the good fight! I'll be back in three or four weeks or so -- I need a vacation!



Registered copyrights can be searched at www.copyright.gov. However, just because a particular picutre doesn't have a registered copyright doesn't mean that it is public domain -- it could still be covered by copyright. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to search if the copyright isn't registered.

As far as a time limt: anything published prior to 1923 is in the public domain. Anything published after that may still be covered by copyright. Anything published after 1935 is almost certainly still covered by copyright.
Have a good time DIV....next time I'll join you. There's got to be intelligent life somewhere :rolleyes:
 
J

J. Michael

Guest
Although people are free to claim copyright to anything, it is actually ILLEGAL to claim copyright to a public domain work. Museums have to consider this after the Bridgeman v Corel ruling.

All you do is respond with rantings rather than prove me wrong by citing case law or statutes.

As I wrote, I am not taking a position on whether or not the art in question is PD or not.

All I'm saying (and a legal fact) is that:

Regardless of the author's lifespan, if the art was published before 1923, it is PD. (published means published in a magazine, book, review, etc. or exhibited before 1923 in an area accessible by the public.)

If the artist died before 1934, it is also PD.

Moral rights do not apply in the U.S. unless the artist is alive. Even then, the law does not afford as much protection as Berne. And I believe the U.S. didn't sign that part of Berne. Even if it had, U.S. title 17 trumps Berne.

"When you've been buying art and antiques for 30 years and dealing with Christies and other auction houses around the world then come back and talk to me."
Irrelevant. They, nor you, make the law. If the poster can prove that the artist died before 1934, or the art was published before 1923, it is PD. Moral rights won't apply either. Copyright in a slavish reproduction won't hold up either and they would be ill advised to sue over it anyway.

"you fight the good fight! I'll be back in three or four weeks or so -- I need a vacation!"
What fight? Practising law without a license? Giving everybody the false impression that nothing is PD? What a forum this is. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
J

J. Michael

Guest
"Anything published after 1935 is almost certainly still covered by copyright."

That's pure nonsense too. The majority of material was not renewed. Maybe you should have written:

Anything published after 1935 [that was popular or worth anything] is almost certainly still covered by copyright.

I won't bother telling you all where to find a partial list. There were even a couple notable films.
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
Moral rights do not apply in the U.S. unless the artist is alive. Even then, the law does not afford as much protection as Berne. And I believe the U.S. didn't sign that part of Berne. Even if it had, U.S. title 17 trumps Berne.
Bull$it. Or are you telling this forum that you are not an international law expert? Have you studied the European Union treaty on trademark and copyright? Your general statement is so full of crap that I'm done with you.

Also, in reference to your last statment, if you don't like it leave. The door will probably hit you in the ass on the way out, but then you're all ass.

Now, got any more generalities or would you like to specifically refute the information on this particular post, this particular artist or this particular issue? Because that is what I addressed. Not your lame excuse for generalities.
 
J

J. Michael

Guest
Replace your signature line with this excerpt from the freeadvice.com disclaimer. It should be on every single one of your replies.

"The FreeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues. FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting or the qualifications of any person responding."
 

gryndor

Member
Ohhh, Ouch! Got Breezy with that one... :rolleyes:

Quit stamping your feet and cluttering up the OP's post with your petty presumptions.

Geez
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top