# Copyright of photos and paintings ownership questions. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 3, 2014, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-photos-and-paintings-ownership-questions/703422 "2014-11-03T04:27:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-photos-and-paintings-ownership-questions/703422/21 "2014-11-06T17:37:21Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Is this something recent? The current copyright law has been in place since 1978. That established the principle of copyright when fixed in tangible form. > [@](#): > > Do buyers nowadays also buy specifically the copyright along with the work for some reason? They could, though I can’t give any examples. They could also license reproductive rights from the copyright holder, which is far more common. > [@](#): > > If I buy a painting (or more probably a photograph) for $ 500 000, and the painter/photographer then decides to mass-produce copies sold $5 each, do I have any recourse? Recourse for what? The original is still worth whatever an original is worth, almost invariably more than a $5 copy. What have you lost? How can you prove it? ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-photos-and-paintings-ownership-questions/703422/22 "2014-11-06T18:46:39Z")
Some jurisdictions go further - I have read about some laws in some places that allow the artist to dictate some terms about how their works are displayed or portrayed even after someone else has bought them. (For example, many years ago there was a squawk about a sculpture in the Eaton Place in Toronto. The sculpture was a very realistic portrayal of Canada Geese in flight, and one year the mall owners put a large red bow on each gooseneck. The self-important artist had a connipshit and went to the media. Under such a new law, he would be able to legally force the mall to remove the decorations. But then, where does it end? An architect produces a work of art, does he have a right to control how his building is photographed and displayed in the media…?) Where **clairobscur** might have a point, too, is in the field of limited editions. A situation you will find common in science fiction and comic book conventions is that limited edition prints are photoprints rather than silkscreen, the process is much quicker and simpler, and the prints can be produced as required instead of all at once to keep down up-front inventory costs. one artist found a piece of artwork to be extremely popular, so having sold out the 100-limited-edition run, produced a new size of the same print in a larger “limited edition”. The artist, of course, retains the copyright for reproduction rights, the only legal recourse I guess is the exact wording of the “limited edition” promise. there’s the whole “transformative” aspect of copyright too. IANAL, perhaps we can get a real legal insight, but simply “taking a picture” or reproducing an existing artwork does not create a copyright on the content of that photo. You can’t copyright the Mona Lisa by being its official photographer, any more than compiling a list of phone numbers gives you copyright over the phone book. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-photos-and-paintings-ownership-questions/703422/23 "2014-11-06T21:48:53Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Certainly they could. Making an unlicensed copy of a copyrighted work is not a crime. Oh yes, it [is](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Copyright_Law_in_the_United_States) (in the US and many other countries). Over the years the number of things covered by US criminal copyright law has increased and the penalties as well. Hence the “FBI Warning” at the beginning of video tapes. Lots of people have been prosecuted for copying movies, software, etc. in recent years. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-photos-and-paintings-ownership-questions/703422.md?page=1)