Lightwizard wrote:The high salt content of Campbell soups may have been the health problem Warhol was experiencing!
(They are extremely high in salt content).
The act of creation does not copyright anything -- even putting the copyright mark does not copyright anything. One must obtain the proper paperwork (available online), fill it out with and send it in with a photograph. It costs less than a $100.00 for self registering a copyright.
Otherwise, one has no legal position to insitute a lawsuit if one's work was copied verbatim.
No, this is true for patents and even song works, but I believe artwork is automatically copyrighted - says my laywer.
Even though forgery laws kick in where a work of value may not be copied and sold as representing the original. It does not cover your personal work. In order for the forgery laws to be applicable, the forger must also sign the work with the artist's name in an effort to also pass off the work as authentic and make a demonstrable effort to sell the work.
A note about copying -- if another artist copies your work or it were to appear in an ad, for instance, without your persmission but there are enough slight alterations to the original image, you won't have much luck in court. This makes copyrighting artwork rather dubious. If an advertising agency use the work of an artist who does not copyright the material, the agency may copyright the ad as the originator. You would have effectively given up your copyright to the work.
What your lawyer may have meant is that unless you are well known and getting a lot for your artwork, copyrighting is not necessary. If it weren't necessary for those artists who market their work, they wouldn't be doing it. They are, but there's a bug in that also. The publisher is the one who in the contract will copyright the print edition of the work. That makes them the originator of the artwork.
(And many artists have become aware of this and will not allow such a clause in the contract).
Who owns your painted image? If you sell a painting and are later approached
by an outside agency who wants to use the
aforementioned painting in a poster for example,
(and will pay you a fee) does the legal owner of the painting have any legal rights concerning its reproduction?
In other words, who owns copyright? I assume the artist always owns reproduction rights of her or
his artwork or am I sorely mistaken?"
He's a patent attorney, and he says "The act of creation" of an artwork is enough to hold up in court, that the laws are very strict in favor of protecting artists. He also said that it is easier to defend if it has a copyright logo on it/ says it is copyrighted. He doesn't specialize in art patents though, so I guess it couldn't hurt to do some research on the net. I'll try to find some good research by Friday.
The artist retains the copyright after a sale, all they sell is the original or copy of the artwork, unless the copyright is expressly given (as in book publishing or ads). The copyright may be sold separately from the original work. It works best if you let the person purchasing the original work know this is the case. (And the same with whoever is purchasing the copyright - that they do not own the original work.)
I know the wine label case and the artist had copyrighted the material -- the attorney is incorrect that courts will uphold the right of the artist, especially if the person or persons who copied or reproduced it made no discernable profit. A patent attorney knows an invention must be patented to protect the rights of the inventor or he would have no job.
Again, if an artist does work that ends up in an ad and the ad agency or art studio copyrights the material, the artist has lost the rights to that work. Some ad agencies or studios will not even accept work that is copyrighted by the artist. It's a jungle out there but don't spend the $40.00 or so online to copyright unless you feel someone would find a reproduction of your work and use it commercially. The likelihood of this isn't really worrisome.
Art publishers of limited editions in their contracts will copyright the reproduction of the work and the artist has, in essence, sold their rights to the work. Most publishers will not accept a contract where the artists has already copyrighted the work. They especially won't if the artist has an agent -- they want to be the agent and exclusive perveyor of the work. Some galleries even work that way.
Sorry, but I have been in the industry including working for the major publisher of limited editions and working with their internal lawyers. If an artist is professional selling their work, I would definitely consult an attorney in art law. The U.S. is actually pretty lax with its art laws although they were tightened up after the Dali and Upstairs Gallery scandal.
BTW, if you sell an artwork to a company who is not an ad agency but do not copyright or have them sign that they understand the rights to reproduction is retained, they can go ahead and copyright the material as part of an ad and you'd have a problem. Always at least have on your invoice that the rights to reproduction are retained by the artist and when the customer signs for receipt of the artwork, they have in law agreed they will not reproduce it without your permission.
In the wine label case, the company was just ignorant and didn't try to copyright the image.
"The artist retains the rights of reproduction" should also appear on the back of the artwork -- not on the dustcover of a custom frame because that can be replaced.
I'm glad I'm not having to negotiate American law!
Here you can join an organisation called DACS (I keep meaning to) who will fight any cases for you.
The truth is if you did produce an original piece of art and somehow it fell into the hands of someone who used it commercially, any judge is going to be sympathetic towards the plaintiff if you were to sue. However, like I said, if you don't formally show that you are retaining the rights of reproduction and the "user" were to copyright the artwork as part of an ad (or label, logo or any commercial use), you'd have a legal snag that may easily be held against you. If you feel this could happen, it's not that time consuming nor expensive to copyright an image. You wouldn't have to put the "c" in a circle on an artwork but in reverso (on the back) is perfectly okay. Artists who sell their work with no invoice or paperwork are just not practicing good business proceedure.
A cheap rubber stamp "The artist retains the rights to reproduction" is sufficient for most but I know well know artists who copyright and will use the ultraviolet fingerprint on the face of the art.
It is true that the US art laws are less stringent than those in European countries especially. However, they have made it not legal to call a reproduced print an "original print" which is what they were getting away with in the 80's.
LW.....your high wattage illumination is much appreciated by me......and to think it is for
free, thank you!!!!
Your comment about putting the copyright ownership on the invoice is a great idea, LW. Thank you. An artist friend of mine who sells much of his work always write his name, date, etc., on the back of his paintings in ink. I still think the invoice idea is the best. Putting out $40.00 for every painting is a bit too costly for me.
I'd do both -- write on the artwork inreverso and on an invoice or bill of sale that the artist retains the rights to reproduction. This will deter anyone from breaking the rules and even if they were to incorporate it into a commercial presentation and copyright it, you still will have a case. It's best to take a photo of the front and the back of the artwork (most artists always keep a photo record of the image but rarely think to take a picture of the back showing the rights to reproduction). This is in case the artwork is conveniently "lost" by the defendant.
truth
What could be better than having our own pro bono legal advisor? It is pro bono, isn't it, LW?
I'll send you all a bill marked "Non-lawyer retains the right to pontificate."
(The total of the invoice will be two-bits).
