|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 8th, 2009, 09:27 PM | #1 |
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Asheville NC
Posts: 426
|
Rights to copies of paintings?
I just finished watching a documentary on Leonardo da Vinci. They had obviously taken video of copies of Da Vinci's work--looked like prints from old posters of the Last Supper and the Mona Lisa. They also had a shot of a guy wearing a mona lisa T-shirt as he walked down the street? Assuming they do not have permission to reprint these things from the louvre or whoever owns the prints, is this legal?
|
February 8th, 2009, 09:51 PM | #2 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 3,840
|
The copyright on Classic Masterpieces doesn't exist.
The copyright on IMAGES of those masterpieces IE: Photos, lies with the creator of those images. The museums where the masterpieces rest - controll the right to ACCESS those masterpieces for reproduction purposes. They may therefore control or lisence ACCESS in order to benefit from licensing copyright. Then there is the whole subject matter of 'derivative work' and 'fair use' in terms of the documentary you are mentioning. In short - there is no short answer WebMuseum: Copyright laws around the world http://rubens.anu.edu.au/copyright.html an example of the law in AUSTRALIA, but not the US. |
February 8th, 2009, 10:23 PM | #3 |
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Asheville NC
Posts: 426
|
Richard, thanks for replying. I read those links. Very helpful. I was watching the Da Vinci doc because I'm taking my son with me to the Louvre next week. If I'm reading this right, if I take a video of a Da vinci or Van Gogh and reproduce it for a documentary later on I'm in the clear because the copyright holders aren't around anymore.
|
February 9th, 2009, 03:44 AM | #4 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco)
Posts: 954
|
Quote:
|
|
February 9th, 2009, 09:19 PM | #5 |
New Boot
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA 90024
Posts: 12
|
It's not that the copyright holders aren't AROUND anymore, it's that THERE IS NO MORE COPYRIGHT PROTECTION for works that have been around so long. They've "fallen" into the PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Copyright protection is limited in time. In the U.S. and many other countries, copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the death of the author of the work. (This is the modern law... in the past the time frame was much shorter.) Clearly, DaVinci has been dead for hundreds of years, and his works were all published hundreds of years ago... so they're in the public domain. The analysis is more complex for works created during the first quarter to half of the 20th century, and if you plan to use such a work, it'd be wise to consult with an attorney. |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|