marina1972
Junior Member
Question:
1. Can I post on a web-site (it is yet to be developed) images of works by living artists that are "for sale" by various galleries and auction houses? Note: I would not be selling anything, just aggregating the information that's available out there. Similar web sites already exist (e.g., artnet.com, artinfo.com, and so on) and I don't see any copyright or licencing notices on these sites. What size (in pixels) can the images be? (again, my web site would not be selling anything, and the images would be too low resolution to print them and turn into a poster, but I'd like to display at least 300x300pix).
2. Once the work was sold can I continue to display the images on my web site? What size can they be?
3. If the work "did not sell" at auction, can I continue to display the images on my web site? What size can they be?
4. Can I charge for access to my web site? If not, can I charge for access to parts of my web site (e.g., where works for 15th century artists are shown?)
5. Does Ariba rulling or google image thumbnail rulling apply here (e.g., how does one define "tranformative" in my case (or artnet.com's case)?)
Stanford Copyright & Fair Use - Summaries of Fair Use Cases
("Fair use. A Google search engine's thumbnail display of photos from a subscription-only website (featuring nude models) was a fair use. Important factors: The Ninth Circuit considered Google's use of thumbnails as "highly transformative" noting that a search engine transforms the image into a pointer directing a user to a source of information (versus the image's original purpose: entertainment, aesthetics, or information). This transformative use outweighs any commercial factors regarding Google's ability to earn money from placement of ads on the search results page. The court's reasoning -- that "a search engine provides an entirely new use for the original work," -- re-affirmed the principles established in the Ninth Circuit's decision in Kelly v. Arriba Soft")
If you could qoute specific law or case pertaining to the above...it would be great.
I have found and older post on this web site (from divgradcurl and quincy ) that state
it's ok to take a photo of a copyrighted work that you own and wish to sell, as a way to show what it is you are selling. However it is important to note what else divgradcurl said: you CANNOT take a picture of the copyrighted artwork and then try to sell the PHOTO of the copyrighted artwork - without infringing on the rights of the artist. The first photo merely represents the item you wish to sell, while the other photo would be considered a "derivative" of the original work - and making derivatives of a copyrighted work is one of the rights held exclusively by the copyright holder.
1. Can I post on a web-site (it is yet to be developed) images of works by living artists that are "for sale" by various galleries and auction houses? Note: I would not be selling anything, just aggregating the information that's available out there. Similar web sites already exist (e.g., artnet.com, artinfo.com, and so on) and I don't see any copyright or licencing notices on these sites. What size (in pixels) can the images be? (again, my web site would not be selling anything, and the images would be too low resolution to print them and turn into a poster, but I'd like to display at least 300x300pix).
2. Once the work was sold can I continue to display the images on my web site? What size can they be?
3. If the work "did not sell" at auction, can I continue to display the images on my web site? What size can they be?
4. Can I charge for access to my web site? If not, can I charge for access to parts of my web site (e.g., where works for 15th century artists are shown?)
5. Does Ariba rulling or google image thumbnail rulling apply here (e.g., how does one define "tranformative" in my case (or artnet.com's case)?)
Stanford Copyright & Fair Use - Summaries of Fair Use Cases
("Fair use. A Google search engine's thumbnail display of photos from a subscription-only website (featuring nude models) was a fair use. Important factors: The Ninth Circuit considered Google's use of thumbnails as "highly transformative" noting that a search engine transforms the image into a pointer directing a user to a source of information (versus the image's original purpose: entertainment, aesthetics, or information). This transformative use outweighs any commercial factors regarding Google's ability to earn money from placement of ads on the search results page. The court's reasoning -- that "a search engine provides an entirely new use for the original work," -- re-affirmed the principles established in the Ninth Circuit's decision in Kelly v. Arriba Soft")
If you could qoute specific law or case pertaining to the above...it would be great.
I have found and older post on this web site (from divgradcurl and quincy ) that state
it's ok to take a photo of a copyrighted work that you own and wish to sell, as a way to show what it is you are selling. However it is important to note what else divgradcurl said: you CANNOT take a picture of the copyrighted artwork and then try to sell the PHOTO of the copyrighted artwork - without infringing on the rights of the artist. The first photo merely represents the item you wish to sell, while the other photo would be considered a "derivative" of the original work - and making derivatives of a copyrighted work is one of the rights held exclusively by the copyright holder.
