What are the rules for using old art in commercial situations such as logos, adverstisements, etc. Specifically, I am interested in using (perhaps with modification) a woodblock print image from the 1850s. To make it clear, I do not own an original copy.
In the U.S., anything created before 1920-something in in the public domain and is therefore free to use. However, the source of your image (e.g., if you get the image of the woodcut from a photograph of it) may be copyrighted.
–Cliffy
Like Cliffy said. There is some kind of rule where you need to get permission (sometimes involving a fee) for publication from a Museum that owns the thing-- i.e. to publish a photo of the Mona Lisa you need to do some paperwork with the Louvre. Multiples, though, like prints, are a bit different-- you might have to acknowledge whatever collection you got an image of a particular copy from (i.e. if the image you have is of the particular impression of Dürer’s Melancholia at the Spencer Print Room, you’d have to talk to them.
The object itself may be old and in the public domain, but IMAGES/REPRODUCTIONS OF IT are not, just like a particular performance/recording of an old piece of music. Bill Gates, btw, is buying up image rights to old artworks left and right. You can often get away with fair use, but not if you’re using the thing to make a profit. However, I don’t know about the grey-area of “ripping off a design” if you significantly change it-- you may be in the clear.
[QUOTE=capybara]
Like Cliffy said. There is some kind of rule where you need to get permission (sometimes involving a fee) for publication from a Museum that owns the thing-- i.e. to publish a photo of the Mona Lisa you need to do some paperwork with the Louvre. Multiples, though, like prints, are a bit different-- you might have to acknowledge whatever collection you got an image of a particular copy from (i.e. if the image you have is of the particular impression of Dürer’s Melancholia at the Spencer Print Room, you’d have to talk to them. QUOTE]This is the part that really confuses me. I know that museums seem to own the rights to certain “images”, but I don’t see how if they are old. Is it just the fact that since the Louvre owns the Mona Lisa that only they have the ability to take a good phot of it, and they own the photo rights?
That is what museums would have you believe, and I think that was the reasonable assumption by most people.
Until Bridgeman vs. Corel 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). The District Court ruling only has power in the U.S., and only for public domain works.
“The Court’s prior opinion indicated that plaintiff’s exact photographic copies of public domain works of art would not be copyrightable under United States law because they are not original.”
Essentially, the court found that a photograph taken of a public domain artwork, regardless of the incredible skill needed, was not afforded copyright protection since it lacked any significant creativity. In other words, a picture that is intended to be an exact image of a public domain work is itself, effectively, in the public domain. [I am not an attorney and the above paragraph is my own interpretation]
Whether this case will stand the test of time remains to be seen, but one museum spokesman said that there was a reason that museums had never brought such a suit (the implication being that they knew they would likely lose). Brideman is not a museum, but a publisher and licensee of art.
And that is why most museums won’t let you use a tripod in a gallery (even if they do let you use a camera)-- so that the museum basically has control over all very good reproductions. They hold copies of negatives, which they then reproduce for other people on request/ fee payment, or they will let you take a photo if you do some paperwork and have a fair use claim (like for an unpublished art historical dissertation).
Who knows how the suit that Raza mentions will turn out.
DanBlather, search on “Bridgeman” and “Corel” on the SDMB. I’ve expounded at length about this over the past few years, in many threads. Poster Raza is the only person correct in this thread. The courts have found that a slavish copy of a Public Domain work is still Public Domain, despite what people claim. It’s important to note that not only has Bridgeman never been challenged, but the general opinion (see my lengthy past posts for more detail and links) of legal experts in the field is that it is unlikely to ever be overturned.
(note that all the above, and Bridgeman, only applies in the US)
I neglected to emphasize that Bridgeman should only be guidance regarding the situation tested: a public domain work that is two-dimensional. Photographs of a statue are an entirely different matter.