truth
That's fair. (on the level of the absurd--in reality I WOULD pay for such pontifications).
Under the present copyright law, which became effective Jan. 1, 1978, a work is automatically protected by copyright when it is created. A work is created when it is "fixed" in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. Neither registration in the Copyright Office nor publication is required for copyright protection under the present law. There are, however, certain advantages to registration, including the establishment of a public record of the copyright claim. Copyright registration must generally be made before an infringement suit may be brought. Timely registration may also provide a broader range of remedies in an infringement suit.
http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html
Phonorecord? You mean photo?
dunno, I copied it from somewhere. I was wondering what that meant too.
The link is the U.S. offical regulations. I'm sure lightwizard's suggestions certainly couldn't hurt. Where do you buy this ink and where/when do you apply it/ is it acidic?
....surely it refers to sound as in music, song or
performance?
There are loopholes in that 1978 law which many have unfortunately ran across. I worked with a company who was producing multiple open editions of metal sculpture (before the fad of limited editions -- always dependent on limited of what?) May Co. had them vaguely copied in the Orient and made subtle changes in the designs. However, the pieces were copyrighted and the judge ruled in favor of the originated company because the resemblance within the entire line of merchandise was too similar (which is the one bugaboo of a copyright or even a registered trademark to change some things from the original idea enough to satisfy a judge). The judge also stated that it was a good thing that the original company had copyrighted because he would have had more of a problem ruling in their favor if they hadn't. If you provide art for an ad studio or agency and they use it within their ad and copyright it because you didn't express that you hold the rights to reproduction (and it would be better if you copyrighted it), they will copyright it as a part of the advertising image and you're fresh out of luck.
Kinkaid, for instance, has been copied ad nauseum which doesn't mean much because he copied the basic imagery. You really can't protect yourself from someone using your imagery and making sylistic changes so copyrighting almost becomes moot. It's whether someone makes money when one can drag them into court and insist that imagery is privately their own. Doesn't always work fairly as it still boils down to the decision of a judge. You're just leagues ahead if you spend the $30.00 and whatever additional cost to copyright your painting or sculpture if you are feeling that someone might "steal it" for commercial purposes.
Don't go by the open ended and really only implied statement in the law that everything is automatically copyrighted. It's perceived as "original" but if it isn't registered you'd have a great deal more difficulty protecting your rights. The statement I suggested that the artist is withholding the rights to reproduction also holds some weight but it's still up to a judge how similar the work is that was produced for commercial reasons (it has to be sold for money as a copy or reproduction -- copying something for ones own personal use is not against the law).
Incidentally, most ad agencies or studios won't buy artwork from an artist if they do copyright it because of the later legal ramifications. They can also have the artist sign a release that they have sold the rights to reproduction although that isn't entirely necessary.
Lightwizard, you seem to be such a nice and honorable art dealer. I hope that when my work is ripe for the market I can find someone as dedicated as you seem to be.
It's just an ethic to sell something for what it actually is. The wife of the gentelemen who owns the gallery still calls prints "paintings." She is retired from working for the IRS!
truth
LW, I see only a vague connection between what she calls a print and her occupational role. If I were not already a cynic, it would send a chill up my spine.
I just ran across this thread - I'm still interested in the subject, especially since I just saw Walter Hinteler's thread on the copyright of works in public spaces (which has me apoplexic) so I thought I'd post and kick it up higher in the post list.
Apoplexic? Apoplectic? Well, one of those.
Ha, that's a great idea, Osso. I think that I will some rainy day look over past threads and see if any are worth reviving.
Also, JL and everybody,
we're gradually moving over everything in the past about doing our own art to this forum. So the technique questions are moving over here.
O.K. this is a forum I should be spending more time in.
