Moose, be careful. An artist does NOT have to register the copyright to
sue you and win. Its necessary only for punative damages, but he can still
sue you for economic loss even if not registered, and he would win and get
paid. I would not claim that you copied an artist's signature, that will
land you in prison for forgery, a felony. Virtually all artists have
photographs of their work for their portfolios and websites and a good
many sell giclee prints from those photos. You do NOT own the copyright
unless it was explicitly transferred to you in a written contract that
says so. You're thinking 1970s era copyrights, things have changed GREATLY.
--
Chris Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana
260-437-8990
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio
http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Christopher-Crawford/48229272798
Become a fan on Facebook
On 1/28/12 5:27 AM, "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 1/27/2012 8:46 PM, Chris Crawford wrote:
>> I've spoken to an attorney about it because of something a client wanted
>> to do. I would not bet my financial future on your interpretation. The
>> painter and his descendants own the copyright to the painting. NOT,
>>repeat
>> NOT NOT NOT the buyer of the physical work of art. Trust me, I do this
>>for
>> a living and MY business depends on knowing copyright law, and talking
>>to
>> someone who does in cases where I don't.
>
>
>I've just been reading some stuff about this. Clearly, if one wishes to
>have clear ownership of the copyright to a work
>of art one purchases, the bill of sale should include sale of the
>copyright. If from a gallery, the gallery should have
>the right from the artist to sell the copyright, as well
>
>On the other hand, there appears to be a catch 22. If, as I have done on
>occasion:
>
>- I buy a painting from the original artist.
>
>- The artist has neither registered the copyright nor kept any copy of
>the painting.
>
>- I use that work of art in some way as though I owned the copyright.
>
>- In order to assert a claim against me, the artist must register the
>artwork. It need not be registered prior to the
>sale to me nor to the protected use I have made of it, but it must be
>registered before a claim may be made.
>
>- In order to register it, the artist must must deposit with the US
>Copyright Office copies of the work for which
>protection is sought. This is to prove that the material that is
>infringed is exactly the same material for which the
>owner has secured a registration.
>
>- As the artist has no copies of the original, other than those that may
>have later derived from the work while in my
>ownership and possession, The artist has no way to prove that the work
>intended to be registered was originally made by
>that artist. Thus, a valid registration may not be made.
>
>- What appears to be the artist's signature on the work will almost
>certainly not be proof. I could have copied it,
>which may raise separate copyright and or other legal issues. Someone
>else may have copied it on a work similar to the
>work of the artist. On the other hand, I may have removed it for my use
>subsequent to purchase. Without registration,
>the artist likely could not obtain a warrant to see the original work, as
>their would be no legal claim on which to base
>a warrant.
>
>There is clearly legal ambiguity in the law in this situation. I don't
>know if this issue has been adjudicated. Clearly,
>many ordinary galleries, artists and buyers are not generally aware of
>this as yet.
>
>[Yes, I worked closely with lawyers in a different area of the law. There
>are probably still several hundred commercial
>leases in effect with a long, complicated page, in small print, in them
>entirely written by yours truly. When there are
>logical ambiguities in the law, they may only be resolved by the courts.
>I worked with one very clever fellow whose
>contract handiwork went to a state Supreme Court, based on the placement
>of a comma. That court ruled, in effect "OK,
>you win, but stop doing that, 'cause if any future instances come to us,
>you will lose."]
>
>Adjudicating Moose
>
>--
>What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
>--
>_________________________________________________________________
>Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|