On 1/27/2012 8:46 PM, Chris Crawford wrote:
> I've spoken to an attorney about it because of something a client wanted
> to do. I would not bet my financial future on your interpretation. The
> painter and his descendants own the copyright to the painting. NOT, repeat
> NOT NOT NOT the buyer of the physical work of art. Trust me, I do this for
> a living and MY business depends on knowing copyright law, and talking to
> someone who does in cases where I don't.
I've just been reading some stuff about this. Clearly, if one wishes to have
clear ownership of the copyright to a work
of art one purchases, the bill of sale should include sale of the copyright. If
from a gallery, the gallery should have
the right from the artist to sell the copyright, as well
On the other hand, there appears to be a catch 22. If, as I have done on
occasion:
- I buy a painting from the original artist.
- The artist has neither registered the copyright nor kept any copy of the
painting.
- I use that work of art in some way as though I owned the copyright.
- In order to assert a claim against me, the artist must register the artwork.
It need not be registered prior to the
sale to me nor to the protected use I have made of it, but it must be
registered before a claim may be made.
- In order to register it, the artist must must deposit with the US Copyright
Office copies of the work for which
protection is sought. This is to prove that the material that is infringed is
exactly the same material for which the
owner has secured a registration.
- As the artist has no copies of the original, other than those that may have
later derived from the work while in my
ownership and possession, The artist has no way to prove that the work intended
to be registered was originally made by
that artist. Thus, a valid registration may not be made.
- What appears to be the artist's signature on the work will almost certainly
not be proof. I could have copied it,
which may raise separate copyright and or other legal issues. Someone else may
have copied it on a work similar to the
work of the artist. On the other hand, I may have removed it for my use
subsequent to purchase. Without registration,
the artist likely could not obtain a warrant to see the original work, as their
would be no legal claim on which to base
a warrant.
There is clearly legal ambiguity in the law in this situation. I don't know if
this issue has been adjudicated. Clearly,
many ordinary galleries, artists and buyers are not generally aware of this as
yet.
[Yes, I worked closely with lawyers in a different area of the law. There are
probably still several hundred commercial
leases in effect with a long, complicated page, in small print, in them
entirely written by yours truly. When there are
logical ambiguities in the law, they may only be resolved by the courts. I
worked with one very clever fellow whose
contract handiwork went to a state Supreme Court, based on the placement of a
comma. That court ruled, in effect "OK,
you win, but stop doing that, 'cause if any future instances come to us, you
will lose."]
Adjudicating Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|