The answer of @what is not quite correct, though his comment contradicting his own answer is. But I realized that they were the same person only after writing this answer. I will still include it as it may possibly clarify the logic of this.

Copyright last up to 70 years post mortem auctoris (that means
"after the author's death", but Latin is so chic).

Regarding your painting, the painter was most likely dead before the
end of 1943, which puts the painting in the public domain on january
1st 2014. So you are OK.

Actually, my favorite painter, who happens to be Russian, is Wassily
Kandinsky who died in december 1944, and will enter the public domain
next january.

Checking wikipedia, Dante Gabriel Rossetti died in 1882. So you are
pretty safe on that part.

As long as the painting is under copyright, you cannot use publicly without
permission any copy (reproduction) you may own or find. This is true
even if you are the actual owner of the original painting. You own the
object, not the right to copy it.

If it sits in your living room, you can publish photographs including
it only if it is clearly part of the surrounding rather than a major
component of the photograph.

My institute could not publish photos of its main building, because
they had forgotten to include that right in the contract with the
architect.

When the work enters the public domain, these restrictions fall. The owner
may have the right to forbid people to take photograph of his property, but cannot
forbid using existing copies, or making secondary copies from them.
There is ownership, but no longer a copyright. Pretty logical, whether
you like it or not.

In principle, ownership of art works has nothing to do with copyright,
though Europe has included one aspect in its
copyright legislation with the so-called droit de suite. There are a few other cases where a copyright legislation can concern ownership; they are usually related to moral rights, which may have no time limit.
So whether the owner can forbid you to make copies of his property is
a matter of local legislation.

It is quite possible that using a picture of a
painting illegally taken in Tate Gallery would be illegal in the UK but legal in
Russia. And I have no idea whether Tate would be able to sue you when
you come to UK if they cannot prove you were the one who took the
picture.

However, you have to be careful. If a reproduction of the painting
has been made by a professional with specific care, he can claim that
his copy is an original work ... as a particularly good copy of the
painting, and consequently claim a copyright on his copy. This is of
course disputable in court, as he has to show that his own creativity
shows in the quality of the photo, that it is an artwork on its own,
that other people would have done it differently. Courts may take it
or leave it. Copyright is supposed to protect only original work, and a photocopy of a work is in no way original work.

Gallery claims over reproduction rights of the (average quality)
copies they sell are sometimes very debatable ... but who wants to go
to court.

IANAL - not a lawyer - this is no advice

---

(0)

Login to post a comment!