4 ms·
If you sell a man or women a piece of artwork, yes they can put it up in their home and people can see it. If people take photos in front of it, well the photo
by djsumdog 9y ago
If you sell a man or women a piece of artwork, yes they can put it up in their home and people can see it. If people take photos in front of it, well the photo is of the people and the art could be fair use context. If they take that piece of art and copy it and put it on a book cover .. now that's not right.
I've never actually bought art at an art fair, but I was with a friend who bought a ballet drawing once. I don't remember her signing anything to indicate use. She used her debit card and bought a painting which later hung up on her wall.
I feel like if this happened today, this wouldn't be acceptable. If I sell you a piece of art, you don't get the copyright for that art. You can sell the art like you sell socks, and the person who buys that art can resell it later. But you can't make copies and sell them as your own. Or stand in front of it, take a photo, and use it as a book cover claiming fair use.
If there is no contract, you haven't signed over your rights, and we should default on the side artists rights side of it.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago> If you sell a man or women a piece of artwork, yes they can put it up in their home and people can see it. > If they take that piece of art and copy it and put it on a book cover .. now that's not right. ...where exactly do you think book covers come from? > If I sell you a piece of art, you don't get the copyright for that art. If you sell me art that I'm going to use for a book cover, I will in fact get the copyright for that art. There's no other way for me to handle that.
- ygra 9y agoIsn't copyright non-transferrable? You'd get certain usage rights, but copyright will always remain with the original artist.
- thaumasiotes 9y agoI have no idea what you're talking about. Obviously, the historical facts are that copyright was transferable at the time. It's certainly transferable right now. Why is your sentence set in the past tense, and what are you thinking of?
- ygra 9y agoNon-native speaker; tense used reflects how such questions are stated in my native tongue; didn't have any semantics to it.
- yoaviram 9y agoYou're confusing copyright with moral rights[1], although even moral rights are transferable. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
- heretoo 9y agoDepends on which country you are in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany
- heretoo 9y agoI think that is how it is in Switzerland. The "Urheber" is the person with the original copyright, but can hand over the usage rights to someone else, in turn losing them. [update: copyright in German might be like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany]
- ygra 9y agoAh, very dependent on the jurisdiction, then. I thought it was more or less similar everywhere.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- pasquinelli 9y agoyeah, selling a painting is different from granting a copyright for a painting. that's the point.
- thaumasiotes 9y agoThis was commissioned work. It was commissioned under existing legal standards specifying that the copyright went to the person buying the work. Had it been commissioned under legal standards specifying that in the absence of a written contract, copyright stayed with the artist, there would have been a written contract assigning copyright to Chrysalis Records. It's not like Terry Ellis found an existing painting and bought it. Nobody got ripped off here, and everyone got exactly what they should have expected to get.
- chrischen 9y agoThe artist entered into the agreement knowing full well what it was going to be used for.
- rmk 9y agoThere was no (written) agreement. One of the things that made it difficult for the artist to get a cut.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]