The Bauhaus was a German art school in the 1920s-30s (Bauhaus - Wikipedia). I really like this poster and I’d like to print it and frame it myself if it’s no longer under copyright protection. The poster is from 1923.
If it’s not under protection, can I use the .jpg from the art.com link or do I need to find a version on some other page?
The bad news is that the cutoff for absolutely, undoubtedly public domain is January 1, 1923, so that just misses it by probably a few months. The good news is that there’s a fair chance it’s public domain anyway. The bad news is that finding that out might be difficult and expensive, and the frogurt is also cursed.
For that image, it might be worthwhile to find a way to automatically redraw it in a vector format and use that to make the poster. JPEGs very rarely scale well.
Bauhaus the band uses alterations of that image pretty frequently as basically their logo. I wonder if they needed permission. Wikipedia claims that Beggars Banquet (or the graphic artist?) might own the copyright to album covers and such, no mention of the movement. I know that doesn’t directly answer your question, although it does show that it has been used for commercial use.
So you could just buy a band poster, and keep it intact or trim the words. You may risk becoming gothier.
You have to look into German copyright law, not US law. I can’t seem to find anything about a term, but it was probably longer and more restrictive than the US. There are many issues involved, such as whether it was copyrighted in the US and when (if the work were printed in Germany in 1920, but the first posters were copyrighted in the US in 1960, then it wouldn’t be PD in the US; if it were printed in the US in 1920, it would be).
Things are just too complex to come up with a simple answer to this.
Why? It’s entirely possible for something to be public domain in one country and under copyright in another. Some of George Orwell’s essays are public domain in Australia and not in America, for example. Why would German copyright law have relevance on whether it’s public domain in America?
If you aren’t going to sell the image, who gives a frak? Private usage and all that.
Seconded.
Aren’t the damages that apply if/when copyright violation is proven tied to the monetary gain derived? If so, making a copy for your own wall will not be a problem.
Thirded - this is classic Fair Use. But you are going to need a better copy to print poster size for sure.
I don’t see how this qualifies as fair use, actually.
$180 for a print?!
Wot?? Wot??
Damages are in no way linked to the monetary gain. The standard is how much damage the copyright owner suffered (for example, now he can’t sell the OP a poster), or statutory damages (the copyright owner doesn’t need to prove his damages, the judge basically makes something up).
How is this fair use? The purpose of a poster is… to be framed and hung on a wall. The OP intends to print out the poster and… frame it and hang it on a wall. He is not studying it, criticising it, making a parody, or any other conceivable fair use I can think of. It’s squarely affecting the possible economic gain of the copyright owner. He could easily obtain a copy at a reasonable price, but he doesn’t want to.
Seriously, I’m all for fair use and all, but this falls squarely into “ripping the copyright owner off”, IF copyright hasn’t expired. If it has expired, have at it. If you think you won’t get caught, go ahead. But calling this fair use just boggles.
My SO is a photographer (which is why I have access to a good, photo-quality printer) and copyright infringement is a sore subject. I’m with Tabby_Cat; printing a copyrighted picture for framing is not fair-use. However, I strongly disagree that $180 is a reasonable price for a 90-year-old print. 
I had done some research and came up with something similar to Derleth (thanks, btw, for the links). Making it even more complicated is that there was some info that said the Nazi government disavowed the Bauhaus art, which might have released the copyright. OTOH I’m not sure I want to take advantage of a Nazi loophole.
Heh. Well, I’m not making any value judgments about “reasonable” (I did pay my wedding photographer in the region of $600 for a canvas print of my wedding photo).
I finagled the copyright to my pictures from him, though. 
Just a post to say I sympathize with the OP. You’re trying to do the right thing, but the Byzantine nature of copyright law (part of what breeds contempt for it among some) is such that it may take a Herculean effort to determine the copyright status of the work. Likely much, much more than $180.
A canvas print of a photograph, plus the photography itself, is a long way from a one-color litho on paper, “sequentially numbered in pencil…by the publishers curator.”
There is no “peering agreement” between countries when it comes to patents. So, if something has a patent in the US it only has a patent in the US. This is why there has been some issues with Chinese companies copying US IP (Intellectual Property) such as designs, equipment, etc. The US is powerless to enforce these rules unless that company tries to sell that product here. Or, for the sake of the company, whatever country that company has a patent in.
Also, patents and the like terminate at different intervals and only if the patent has been maintained. If the owner of the patent does not pay the fee to maintain the patent for whatever time period then it goes into the public domain.
Any ways, as I digress:
You can do a US Copyright Lookup here: http://www.copyright.gov/records/
Yes, it’s that easy! And, you can lookup by keyword, etc. Any ways, there is one patent that might have copyright over some Bauhaus work.
However, that search function is only from 1978 onward. So, I do not know if that means patents that are still active from 1978 onwards or patents filed after 1978. Also, since patents have to be renewed to their term limit, will that be reflected on any renewals made after 1978?
So, I will ask a friend of the family who is an actual patent attorney. I know he has access to much more powerful search engines and his info is basically everything the USPTO has on file.
But, so far, that image seems to be in the public domain in the US at least. Probably why that image is so small. I am sure that company has a real nice master on hand to make the prints.
Can you point me to where anyone is talking about patents? If you mean ‘copyrights’, you’re wrong: Look up the Berne Convention sometime.
Oh, one last thing I noticed. That print is provided by Johann Bayer. Who is an artist who sells stuff on Art.com. So, when you order the print, he is making it for you. If you go to that product page and click on his name it pulls all the other stuff he is selling. A few other similar prints and some other stuff. Maybe he has original posters and has had them scanned in.
No other info directly available from Art.com site.
I use the term patent loosely. As, the US Patent Office controls the US copyrights as well. I default to that term since our family friend has used the term interchangeably at times.
It’s fairly obvious, given the context of the discussion and my reply, that I was walking about the “copyright” issue.
I shall use the term “copyright” henceforth!
Not to mention, doing a search wouldn’t prove anything, since you no longer have to register copyrights. Checking with the USPTO won’t help at all.
Also, Berne Convention. In short, copyright in Germany = copyright in US. Go to law school for the long version, a law student might be cheaper than a lawyer for this.
Right, but that still doesn’t mean you need to look up German law, given that each country has to implement the convention in their local laws.
electronbee: You would not believe the kind of utter nonsense that gets spewed when people confuse copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and “It’s MINE I TELL YOU I HAVE A MORAL RIGHT!!!”
