Can I use a painting from 1562 as the cover art for a novel?

[BoxoJesus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

 

[quincy]

Works created before 1923 are in the public domain and free for anyone to use for any purpose (although one must be sure that the work used is an original copy and not an altered or modified copy that could be rights-protected).

Therefore, a painting created in 1562 can be used as cover art for a novel.

 

[FlyingRon]

If it's an American painter, the above is correct. Copyright durations vary with country, though I doubt that anything from the 16th century is going to be subject to such. I even doubt that you'll have any pesky heirs claiming trademark rights.

 

[single317dad]

If you use a photograph of said painting for the cover art, then that photo itself may be copyright protected. If the intent of the photographer was simply to reproduce an image of the original work, than probably not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.

 

[quincy]

If you use a photograph of said painting for the cover art, then that photo itself may be copyright protected. If the intent of the photographer was simply to reproduce an image of the original work, than probably not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.

The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd v Corel Corporation, 97 Civ 6232 (LAK); 36 F.Supp 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), is the defining case. Here is a link: http://www.constitution.org/1ll/court/fed/bridgman.html

Photographs of art work can generally be used if there is nothing creative or original added to the photograph of the artwork that makes the additions copyrightable. Several museums prevent visitors from photographing the artworks on display, however, because they make money on reproductions of the works (in the form of museum-sponsored books or postcards, for example).

Original artwork from 1562 is not going to be subject to copyrights or estate rights but those who own or have control over the works of art can limit access, and type of access, to the works.

Here is a link to a thread from 2011, where the Bridgeman case was discussed a little more thoroughly: https://forum.freeadvice.com/copyrights-trademarks-39/historical-emblems-legal-use-publications-553589.html

 

[Silverplum]

Thank you, Gentlemen, for including "museum rights" in this discussion.

 

[quincy]

Thank you, Gentlemen, for including "museum rights" in this discussion.

single317dad's addition was a good one.

It is not only museums that are protective of their rights but also protective are private owners of famous works of art. While some private owners will cooperate with those writing educational texts and allow for private showings and photographing of the works in their possession (often for nothing more than attribution of the source in a book's credits), most are shy about allowing for commercial uses of any kind (because this can work to cheapen the value of the art).