I have been teaching myself to paint by copying images I like from books, magazines and the Internet. Some of these I know to be copyrighted, some are in the public domain, and others are unattributed so I don’t know if they are copyrighted.
Would it be copyright violation if I were to give some of these paintings away? (Or to sell those that are unattributed? I’ve read that such images are considered to have entered the public domain.)
The violation would not be giving them away; it would be in making them in the first place.
Now, if the image was painted before 1923, it’s in the public domain and that’s not an issue.
Later images are probably protected by some sort of copyright. There is a time frame where works could have become PD if the copyright had not been renewed, but I’m blanking on the date range – probably around 1950 or so. Unattributed images may be PD or may not, depending on the date (if the fell under the pre-1977 copyright law and the copyright wasn’t registered, they’re PD; if they were later, they would have some copyright protection even if they weren’t registered).
Now, if the image were under copyright, and you copied it, what would be the issue? It’s a gray areas of deriviative rights and freedom of expression. Andy Warhol was able to paint Campbell’s Soup cans and not be hassled, but part of that could have been a decision on the part of Campbells not to bother.
Now, as a practical matter, if you’re just giving these away to friends, it’s unlikely the copyright holder will learn about it or would care.
The back of the title page shows who has copyright of any book.
Thank you, RealityChuck and boofy_bloke. I’m still wondering about unattributed images. Some of those I’ve painted appear to be early 20th century, others fairly recent, say the last 30 years or so. I read a vague description recently to the effect that these types of images are considered to have entered the public domain. Does anyone know the legal ramifications of selling these types of paintings? I wouldn’t know how to find the copyright holder, assuming there is one.
Yes, but that does not necessarily mean they have the copyright to the images therein.
Some of our artists have songs in movies. The movie copyright may be owned by the motion picture studio, but the copyrights to the songs do not (unless the songs were works for hire).
I’ll agree it can be a pain in the butt sometimes to find the proper attribution for licenced material.
Magazines will have proper credits but you have to hunt like crazy for it. It’s usually by the masthead in teeny weeny print. If you’re painting images in advertisements, those probably belong to the sponsor.
The painting you are making is a separate copyrightable work in itself, but will probably fall under some “derivative work” category. Meaning exactly what is suggests, your work is derived from another original, copyrighted piece.
In any case, from a practical standpoint as RealityChuck said, it’s really unlikely that if you give your practice paintings to family or friends that anyone’s feathers will get ruffled.
That being said, a local university student made a display out of giant “leggo” that he made himself. Leggo got him in doo-doo (he had to remove it, but they didn’t sue him.)
Starving:
“I’ve read that such images (unattributed) are considered to have entered the public domain.”
That sounds like a risky assumption, because it would mean that if someone violated copyright and used an image without attribution then it would be public domain after that.
I’d argue that copying works of art as part of teaching oneself to paint would constitute a fair use.
Thank you, acsenray. But what of giving them away or selling them?
Good question.
I am also inclined to think this would be no big deal to the actual copyright holders as I would only be giving them away or selling them here locally and in a very small quantity. Frankly, I would be happy to give all of them away as I have already done with some, but like most people, I find it hard to turn down money if it’s offered. Plus, it seems to lend credibility to the quality of the work I’ve done if someone is willing to pay for it. However, I am beginning to have the question of copyright come up occasionally and I’m not really sure how to respond.
Sorry, if you distribute the paintings you can get in doo-doo. “Distributing” doesn’t matter if you’re giving them away or selling them for profit. If someone finds out, you can get yourself in doo-doo, it doesn’t matter if you are handing them for free out to elves in the North Pole.
You areinfringing on copyright and if someone finds out, you can get an injunction against you preventing you from doing anything with the paintings, or be sued for damages.
“Damages” would be what is considered to be their damages. So if you sell the painting for $10, you can still be sued for $10,000 if it’s determined that you significantly devalued their copyright.
People do find out about copyright violations – like the Leggo art student I mentioned in my above post. He was up in Canada with just one single little display that was NOT for sale. A Leggo representative gave him a call and the exhibit was confiscated (eventually returned but he can’t display it again).
They may not give two hoots if you give copies to Mom, Dad and cousin Moe, but selling them is very ill-advised. Large quantities or small.
How about trying to paint originals? You can use other works to help you sort out the techniques and figure out shadows etc. But if you selling paintings of copyrighted materials can get you in crap, even if it’s “just locally” in “small quantities.”
If it’s truly “no big deal” to the copyright holders, then you can get their permission (though tracking them down could be a pain in the butt.)
We’ve often give independent film-makers permission to use music for free.
But our IP lawyers have chased after copyright infringers who have done far less.
What do you mean by “painted them”? If you painted them on a blank canvas, yourself, and didn’t use the original signature, then you have one situation. If you painted over a print out, it’s something else.
They are certainly free for you to use for your own education.
As to selling. . .you’re in a really grey area. If you’re selling them as “original work” then you’re probably committing fraud. Can you sell them as copies? Or inspired by? That’s pretty grey. . .are you that good? That your copy can’t be distinguished from the original? If so, do what the last poster said: paint something original.
For good information on these issues, go to nolo.com
Fair use means you can make a copy to educate yourself or for other educational or critical uses - as long as you do not impact the commercial value of the original -
Giving away or selling copies made would be problematical and should be avoided unless you are prepared to defend your use against infringement.
Keep in mind that copyright protection starts when the idea is put to tangible media, registration with the copyright office is only needed if you plan to enforce it.
Also keep in mind that you may not have license to copy a work - this is why you often find cameras prohibited in museums. The idea is that you might dimish the value of the work much the same way the RIAA is going after those who download music. It is one thing to copy a work as an educational activity and yet another to make a copy to display in your home or elsewhere. The educational aspect is OK, the display aspect is not as that impacts the value of the work.
Also keep in mind that copyright protects the expression and not the idea. This is important when it comes to defining derivative works or compilations.
Copying art works as part of one’s art education is fair use in copyright terms. As everybody else as said, the problem starts with when you distribute them, especially for money.
Well, no, the problem actually starts earlier with statements like yours. Stop for a second and look at the issue from something larger than your own perspective. There are thousands or perhaps millions of art students all over the world, year after year, doing the copying. It’s never just “locally and in a very small quantity” from the point of view of the copyright holder. It’s “all over the world and in huge numbers.” If it’s all right for you to do, then it’s also all right for him and her and her and him and them, and suddenly the world is flooded. Why do you think music piracy is treated as such a big deal?
Your selling a copy of someone else’s painting is legally no different from selling a fake Rolex off the back of a truck.
Thank you, Eats_Crayons. This answers several of the questions I had.
Using a completley different medium doesn’t change a thing. If you are looking at a photo and copying it with paint, colored beads and glue, or crayons (mm, crayons!) you’re still making an unauthorized copy of a protected work.
Bryanl this is correct, but you have to be sure that the OP understands that “the expression of the idea” does not mean “the medium”, for the reasons above.
You’d be amazed at how many people think “What? I did a pencil drawing, the original is a photo. What’s the problem?” If you simply reproduce an image accurately in a different medium, you’re still making an unauthorized copy of a protected work. Whether you painted it or photocopied it.
Even legitimate derivative works need to have enough originality to change the character of the original – in other words they have to be pretty damn clever in their own right and not just be a good reproduction.
Starving one thing I used to do was to take my own photos. Killed two birds with one stone. I got really good in photography because I started aiming for the things I liked to paint, and I could do with the images whatever I pleased. This may be a way for you to continue learning while infusing some seriously original expression of ideas and composition into your paintings.
Yes, they are all painted by myself on blank canvas, and thus far signed by me. Originally, I felt I would be taking credit for someone else’s work by signing it, buy my family and friends wanted me to sign their paintings, with the justification being that I was the one who actually painted it. I’ve even considered attaching a note to the back of the paintings accrediting the original artist and date painted if I had the information available.
No, I have not done this. They have been sketched out on canvas, usually with the aid of a grid, and then painted.
No, I am not and never would sell them as original work.
They are good and most people would probably say they see no difference from the original. (But this is more a testament to time spent and painstaking effort than it is to inate talent.) I spend a tremendous amount of time on them and they are relatively simple paintings. Most are two-dimensional works with flat color, like vintage advertising posters although some of the images are more current. I have not yet ventured much into three dimensional work with shading and wide ranges of values though I feel I’m about ready to do so.
Starving there is also a really good book on copyright for artists – it covers the basics in a way that helps you not only protect your own work, but also helps keep you from accidentally committing a no-no.
I’ll have to check my bookshelf at home to get you the title. It was a gift from one of my lawyer buddies, and covers digital media as well.
A handy website is Copyright for Collage Artists it seems to be a decent intro to the basics and is good because, well, collage artists, by definition, use chunks of existing works.
Thank you for your enlightening explanation. With regard to Rolexes off the back of a truck, I think you may be misunderstanding my situation. I’m not talking about going commercial with some of these paintings, I’m talking about perhaps selling a painting to a friend of my teenage neice (for example), a painting I had invested maybe as much as 15 or 20 hours in, for $20 or $30.
I see your point about selling copyrighted work, but I think the Rolex analogy is a tad strong.
This is an excellent idea. Thank you!
I appreciate the time you are spending to help me with this. Thank you, again.