Rights to copies of paintings? at DVinfo.net

Matt Buys · February 8th, 2009, 09:27 PM

I just finished watching a documentary on Leonardo da Vinci. They had obviously taken video of copies of Da Vinci's work--looked like prints from old posters of the Last Supper and the Mona Lisa. They also had a shot of a guy wearing a mona lisa T-shirt as he walked down the street? Assuming they do not have permission to reprint these things from the louvre or whoever owns the prints, is this legal?

Richard Alvarez · February 8th, 2009, 09:51 PM

The copyright on Classic Masterpieces doesn't exist.

The copyright on IMAGES of those masterpieces IE: Photos, lies with the creator of those images.

The museums where the masterpieces rest - controll the right to ACCESS those masterpieces for reproduction purposes. They may therefore control or lisence ACCESS in order to benefit from licensing copyright.

Then there is the whole subject matter of 'derivative work' and 'fair use' in terms of the documentary you are mentioning. In short - there is no short answer

WebMuseum: Copyright laws around the world

http://rubens.anu.edu.au/copyright.html an example of the law in AUSTRALIA, but not the US.

Matt Buys · February 8th, 2009, 10:23 PM

Richard, thanks for replying. I read those links. Very helpful. I was watching the Da Vinci doc because I'm taking my son with me to the Louvre next week. If I'm reading this right, if I take a video of a Da vinci or Van Gogh and reproduce it for a documentary later on I'm in the clear because the copyright holders aren't around anymore.

Paul Tauger · February 9th, 2009, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Alvarez

The copyright on Classic Masterpieces doesn't exist.

The copyright on IMAGES of those masterpieces IE: Photos, lies with the creator of those images.

The museums where the masterpieces rest - controll the right to ACCESS those masterpieces for reproduction purposes. They may therefore control or lisence ACCESS in order to benefit from licensing copyright.

Then there is the whole subject matter of 'derivative work' and 'fair use' in terms of the documentary you are mentioning. In short - there is no short answer

WebMuseum: Copyright laws around the world

Copyright in Australia an example of the law in AUSTRALIA, but not the US.

Richard, you missed your calling by not becoming a lawyer. As usual, your answer is spot on! :)

Gordon P. Firemark · February 9th, 2009, 09:19 PM

It's not that the copyright holders aren't AROUND anymore, it's that THERE IS NO MORE COPYRIGHT PROTECTION for works that have been around so long. They've "fallen" into the PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Copyright protection is limited in time. In the U.S. and many other countries, copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the death of the author of the work. (This is the modern law... in the past the time frame was much shorter.)

Clearly, DaVinci has been dead for hundreds of years, and his works were all published hundreds of years ago... so they're in the public domain.

The analysis is more complex for works created during the first quarter to half of the 20th century, and if you plan to use such a work, it'd be wise to consult with an attorney.

February 8th, 2009, 09:27 PM	#1
Matt Buys Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Asheville NC Posts: 426	Rights to copies of paintings? I just finished watching a documentary on Leonardo da Vinci. They had obviously taken video of copies of Da Vinci's work--looked like prints from old posters of the Last Supper and the Mona Lisa. They also had a shot of a guy wearing a mona lisa T-shirt as he walked down the street? Assuming they do not have permission to reprint these things from the louvre or whoever owns the prints, is this legal?

February 8th, 2009, 09:51 PM	#2
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	The copyright on Classic Masterpieces doesn't exist. The copyright on IMAGES of those masterpieces IE: Photos, lies with the creator of those images. The museums where the masterpieces rest - controll the right to ACCESS those masterpieces for reproduction purposes. They may therefore control or lisence ACCESS in order to benefit from licensing copyright. Then there is the whole subject matter of 'derivative work' and 'fair use' in terms of the documentary you are mentioning. In short - there is no short answer WebMuseum: Copyright laws around the world http://rubens.anu.edu.au/copyright.html an example of the law in AUSTRALIA, but not the US.

February 8th, 2009, 10:23 PM	#3
Matt Buys Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Asheville NC Posts: 426	Richard, thanks for replying. I read those links. Very helpful. I was watching the Da Vinci doc because I'm taking my son with me to the Louvre next week. If I'm reading this right, if I take a video of a Da vinci or Van Gogh and reproduce it for a documentary later on I'm in the clear because the copyright holders aren't around anymore.

February 9th, 2009, 09:19 PM	#5
Gordon P. Firemark New Boot Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Los Angeles, CA 90024 Posts: 12	It's not that the copyright holders aren't AROUND anymore, it's that THERE IS NO MORE COPYRIGHT PROTECTION for works that have been around so long. They've "fallen" into the PUBLIC DOMAIN. Copyright protection is limited in time. In the U.S. and many other countries, copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the death of the author of the work. (This is the modern law... in the past the time frame was much shorter.) Clearly, DaVinci has been dead for hundreds of years, and his works were all published hundreds of years ago... so they're in the public domain. The analysis is more complex for works created during the first quarter to half of the 20th century, and if you plan to use such a work, it'd be wise to consult with an attorney.