Public Domain Problems

[Windy]

So much for using any masterpieces of Italian origin. The law seems to be changing. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ravensburger-da-vinci-vitruvian-man-puzzle-ruling-gallerie-dell-ac...

At the heart of the case is Italy’s Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code, which grants public institutions in the country the ability to request concession fees for—or outright bar—commercial reproductions of important artworks, regardless of their copyright status.  

[Barbara]

It appears to be just one specific museum in Italy going after a company in Italy, but we all know that such things have a way of spreading. I guess those who do a lot of fine art posters should take a look at the museum's holdings and then stay away from them.

Colorwash's Home

[Windy]

It's the "spreading" which worries me. This could become all-encompassing within a matter of years. I don't use that kind of material very much at all, but I really don't want to see this kind of "ownership" expanding. 

[ievajen]

no, it's not the only one, others going too, there's another article under that one; they claim under cultural heritage law; I think will be appeals, as laws contradicting each other 

[Bert]

Well, that particular museum does own that piece of art. Preventing taking pictures at a museum is difficult to enforce, but no doubt that when entering a museum with a camera you implicitly agree with a license on any picture you take. And that most likely entails something as "not for commercial use". Either the photographer didn't disclose fully the license or Ravensburger just ignored it.

Frankly, if I would run a museum I would do the same. Just to help covering the cost of maintaining the art. The rules per museum may differ, but if you're going to take high-res pictures of famous art you better read them on forehand.

[Barbara]

The particular image in question is famous and has been reproduced all over the world, so the museum has an endless road ahead of it in trying to stop the use of it. Who's next? Michelangelo?

Having experienced the real thing as opposed to a reproduction, the latter never brings out the organic beauty of the original. People go to museums for that reason. They buy a puzzle for some hours of fitting together pieces. On the other hand, if the museum sells puzzles of the work in question, I can understand the lawsuit.

Colorwash's Home

[Bert]

Apparently the judge thought differently. The inability of the Italian museum to stop any commercial use of reproductions of the art they own, doesn't make that commercial use suddenly legal. It's the commercial use that is the offending part. For instance, you can download high-res images of art from the Victoria and Albert museum, but only after accepting the license (no commercial use!).

[Barbara]

On the other hand, the Smithsonian has all kinds of public domain downloads. I guess it depends on what it is and, apparently, where it is. Great if you live in England or Italy, not so great for the rest of the world. Just my unchangeable opinion.

Colorwash's Home

[Windy]

The museum may own the piece of paper the art is on. But the question a lot of us have, is whether the museum really owns the art on the paper.

Would your idea of art ownership also apply to a poster someone buys from Zazzle? Someone buys a Zazzle poster, and now owns the art and can sell that art on other products?

[Bert]

If I buy a Zazzle poster with a Mickey Mouse picture, I don't become the owner of the art (as in " IP" ). That is still Disney Inc. They own the IP.

if I own a unique piece of art of which the copyright of the artist has ended, let's say a Rembrandt (in his days there even wasn't copyright law), I can restrict any creation of reproductions of the Rembrandt painting after I've bought it. I'll make sure that any reproduction comes with a license. For instance the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam (1 hour from where I live) explicitly says that a visitor may take a picture of a painting (without flash or lighting), but cannot use it for commercial purposes. If I want to sell reproductions I'll have to pay the museum a royalty.

Now, I'm totally free to make my own oil painted copy of a Van Gogh painting, put my own name on it, and sell it explicitly as a copy. I believe it's a cottage industry in some town in China.

[Windy]

This is very interesting! Sometimes paintings come to the museum near me, on loan. (North Carolina Museum of Art). And the museum will explicitly say patrons are not allowed to take photos of those traveling exhibits. But with regard to the art the museum OWNS, that art is all fair game, due to the fact that in North Carolina, state property is owned by the public. 

[Barbara]

I grew up in a home where there was an astounding copy of "The Horse Fair" by Rosa Bonheur. The telltale sign was that it wasn't quite as large as the original. There are many such copies for sale and many are signed by the people who painted the copies except for the one I grew up with. It was signed by Bonheur. Forgery or an artist who wanted the painting to be exact right down to the signature? Regardless, I haven't heard of the Metropolitan Museum of Art suing all the copyists or confiscating the copies, which are still being bought and sold.

My father, by the way, found it at a rather grand home where the owners had set it out for the trash. The owners gave it to him. It was put in the basement when my parents were moving, and it was destroyed when the basement flooded. Otherwise, I'd have it my home.

Colorwash's Home

[Windy]

Was it a copy though? There are so many instances where an artist has made studies before making the full size version. But I just looked up this beauty and can't quite see it being the case here, because of all the detail!

[Barbara]

I just don't get this whole thing. If a person or institution purchases contemporary art, which is copyrighted by the artist, the buyer can't copyright it, though they may protect the work due to the fact that it's copyrighted. If it isn't copyrighted, how do they get away with copyrighting it? It makes no sense.

Colorwash's Home

[Bert]

As I understand it, if there is a copyright on a piece of IP/art then you have the pay the copyright owner. Whoever that is. Using copyrighted material without permission is rolling the dice.

If there is no copyright anymore, the IP is "in the public domain", then you have to ask the question "who controls access to the IP/art". In this case, who is allowed to make reproductions and under which restrictions. At least that is my guess.

If you download a free photo from a stock photo website (lets say Gettys or Unsplash) then there is a license attached to that photo. It will tell you the ways you can use that photo. Usually it's some kind of Creative Commons license (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license).

Personally, if a photo doesn't come with some sort of "public domain" license (f.i. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license#Zero_/_public_domain) then I wouldn't touch it.

[Barbara]

I've the feeling that classic art (my focus) may be in muddy legal waters. The only time I ran into it in real life was with a video I'd uploaded to YouTube and in which I'd used music from a musician who'd created an arrangement of a classic. A sheet music company claimed they'd copyrighted it. They could only copyright their arrangement, not the music itself, so I reported it to the musician, who was furious, telling me he (and YouTube) had been battling with the sheet music company for constantly claiming infringement all over the place. The musician, YouTube, and I won the battle because the company hadn't composed the music.

The above is similar to a museum trying to limit the use of da Vinci's art, but am I right? I've no idea.

Colorwash's Home

[Fiorenzo]

The museum cannot claim the copyright of the da Vinci's art itself, but it can limit the use of photos of that art you make within that museum. Many museums didn't allow making photos back in the old days, at least not in Switzerland and to some extent also in Germany and Italy. Don't know if this has changed nowadays.

The YouTube problematic of shady companies claiming copyright for works of independent musicians is well-known. Most of the time, these are professional Chinese businesses specializing in such scams by exploiting the whole copyright protection mechanisms on YT. There are plenty of authors and musicians on YT complaining that even they get copyright strikes by such companies for their own art/compositions. And once you are in that loop, dealing with YT is a nightmare. We had such cases also here on Zazzle in the past.

[Barbara]

The sheet music company the musician and I ran up against was a thoroughly legitimate one, the same sort that limits churches in the use of classic choral music, forcing churches that are essentially poor to "illegally" put one purchased piece of sheet music through a copier for their choir. There was a bit of software that would "listen" to the first phrases of a composition in order to recognize the piece. Apparently, they didn't account for the fact that they weren't the only souls in the world capable of creating unique arrangements.

I've not heard of any museums in the U.S. suing over the rights of their collections, but what I've heard and what's true can easily be different. The only problems I've heard about are those with highly talented forgers.

Colorwash's Home