Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bobby p]

Hi Everyone

This is my first post and thank god I found your forum, as this problem has really been a thorn in my side.

If anyone is kind enough to give me some advice or point me in the right direction I cannot thank you enough in advance !!!!

With regards my question I have phoned up (IPO) twice to verify and also paid a copyright lawyer on (Just Ask) to answer this question they both said the same thing which was no problem go ahead. However just recently when talking to a person involved in the arts (restoration of digital images) he said the opposite!

Basically really need some clarification here before I go any further with my project.

I am building a prototype product, which is built around or uses famous public domain masterpieces of art. The (IPO) and Lawyer both said as they are in public domain they are copyright free and can be used /amended and sold with no issues.

My arts friend said it is much more complicated than that and you have to buy a license to use them like for example the Mona Lisa, Starry night and any other very famous work.

My own personal thinking on this is if you look on the web you will find thousands of both huge and small businesses selling prints of these works. Have they all paid a license? Plus if you go on ebay, café press you will find Mona Lisa mugs, greeting cards, key rings prints, mouse mats all being sold with no problems? Have all these people paid a license?

If the answer is you should really have one but none does and the chance of getting sued are very remote I will have to take that on board.

If however the answer is you must get a license please could you tell me or direct me where I should go to find out?

Thank you very much for listening to my ramblings it is much appreciated and once again if anyone is kind enough to give me some advice or point me in the right direction I cannot thank you enough in advance!!!!

Best wishes to you 

[Isaac]

My arts friend said it is much more complicated than that and you have to buy a license to use them like for example the Mona Lisa, Starry night and any other very famous work.

Your friend is wrong.  The only thing the least bit problematic is finding an image of the Mona Lisa to use.   Under US law, images that are nothing more than copies of 2-D public domain art work cannot be protected by copyright, but some image owners will fight about that.  The other issue is that museums often don't allow photography either to avoid damaging the artwork or to keep control copies of artwork.

Have they all paid a license? Plus if you go on ebay, café press you will find Mona Lisa mugs, greeting cards, key rings prints, mouse mats all being sold with no problems? Have all these people paid a license?

Probably not.  But "I saw it on the Internet" is a pretty poor guide to what's legal.

[bobby p]

Hi Isaac

First of all thank you so much for your extremely helpful reply.

What I was thinking of Isaac was sourcing digital images of acceptable quality from Wikipedia , Wikipedi commons and The York Project (Public Domain) on Wikipedia and choosing only paintings that Wikipedia make a strong point of saying they are public domain and their copyright has expired .

Next the digital image would be passed to my digital restoration expert friend who will work very hard bringing the images up to a professional restored level using his vast experience in these matters.

The images would then be sold as part of a product built around masterpieces of art.

Isaac the most important thing is that we are safe to do this and don’t get into trouble from a copyright perspective ?

But out of interest Isaac would my digital restoration expert friend technically own the copyright of these restored images due to the length of time and his expertise to professionally restore them?

Thank you so much Isaac you have no idea how much you have helped me.

I cannot thank you enough 

All my best wishes to you.

Rob 

[OMG IP]

If you lift an image from a website that readily states: this is public domain, the CR is expired, etc., by all means, print that statement out

[BobRoberts]

"would my digital restoration expert friend technically own the copyright of these restored images due to the length of time and his expertise to professionally restore them?"

My understanding is that Copyright rights are not created through hard work (i.e., called 'sweat of the brow').  Rather, copyright rights (including derivitive copyright rights) are created through adding creativity to a work. 

Good luck.

 

[Isaac]

Next the digital image would be passed to my digital restoration expert friend who will work very hard bringing the images up to a professional restored level using his vast experience in these matters.

I like Mr. Roberts answer.  If your buddy's efforts simply make the image a more accurate copy of the original, then his efforts won't product a copyrightable work associated.  It's essentially the same theory that made the image copyright free in the first place.

Isaac the most important thing is that we are safe to do this and don’t get into trouble from a copyright perspective ?

Well, there are some caveats.  Nobody can promise that you will not be sued, and laws in some countries may differ from US law.  The court decisions in the US and Great Britain that established these principles are very unpopular in some circles.

[bobby p]

Thanks very much guys for your help here .

Out of interest I see a few images on wikipedia are classed as being in the public domain but are part of direct medias 10,000 public domain paintings from The York Project dvd .It states that the compilation copyright is held by Zenodot Verlagsgesellschaft mbn and licensed under the GNU Free Document license.

I have read a bit abut GNU but it is beyond my level of understand . Am I right in saying that it basically means if you want to reproduce the whole project or compilation then zenot own the copyright and you must ask their permission ?

I only want a few images from their 10,000 compilation does that mean I am o.k as I am not reproducing the whole project/compilation  ?

Plus does the GNU Free Document License mean you are free to use them or not ?

Thanks for clearing that up for me

Best wishes

Rob

[Smokin]

I'm only guessing here, but stock photo companies try to control public domain images in various creative ways. For example, Getty will have a massive collection of public domain images and allow to browse it and use them so long as you agree to their contract that the "service" they are providing requires a license "blah blah blah". It stops being a copyright issue and starts being a contract issue at that point, so while the image is still in public domain, if they can prove you used "their" collection without paying for it, then they can sue or at the very least threaten to sue.

The license means you have to agree to what the license states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Document_License

[Isaac]

For example, Getty will have a massive collection of public domain images and allow to browse it and use them so long as you agree to their contract that the "service" they are providing requires a license "blah blah blah". It stops being a copyright issue and starts being a contract issue at that point, so while the image is still in public domain, if they can prove you used "their" collection without paying for it, then they can sue or at the very least threaten to sue.

Excellent point.   

Some collection managers might include some type of invisible identifier in their photos to help them make their case about where you obtained the image.  You can avoid that issue by getting your image elsewhere and by avoiding whatever trigger forms a contract with the manager.