Looking for design inspiration?   Browse our curated collections!

Return to Main Discussion Page
Discussion Quote Icon

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions
 
 

Suzanne Powers

8 Years Ago

What Are The Rules/laws For Changing Masterworks Of Artists Not Living

What are the rules/laws for changing Masterworks of artists not living?

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

Harold Shull

8 Years Ago

Hiya Suzanne,

It should be a No, No.

 

Cynthia Decker

8 Years Ago

If the artwork is public domain you can change/alter/sell it however you wish. You can't claim copyright on the original image in whole or in part, but you do own the copyright to the changes you made. For example, if you colorize an image, you own the copyright to the specific colorization.

If an image is copyrighted, you can't sell it, or alter it and sell it, or create derivative versions without express permission or valid license to do so from the copyright holder.

I know this from reading/research I've done, I'm not a copyright professional.

 

Suzanne Powers

8 Years Ago

Thank you Harold and Cynthia. I have changed some old masters paintings by adding flowers, I was warned I may get some extreme criticism. Cynthia, your explanation sounds like others are doing it a lot as to why the rules have become so defined, I'm encouraged. Pixels have probably made it a lot easier to change existing images.

I added my own flower photography to this one.

Photography Prints

 

Mary Bedy

8 Years Ago

Depends on how old it is. I was going to use a poem by a Spanish poet in one of my works, but from what I could find online, I would have to wait 70 years after his death and then i could use it if his family didn't still hold the rights. Unfortunately he died in the 70s so I have to wait a while.

If it's really old you're probably ok but finding the information is hard.

 

Stephen Charles

8 Years Ago

Ask Dave

 

Whimsidaisical

8 Years Ago

There are quite a few people who add, change, or actually cut out pieces from different works to create new ones. As long as it's in the public domain, it should be fine. There are some pieces that aren't for various reason.

I've started doing that with an artist I recently found whose illustrations I really liked, except they were black and white and I love color, so I've been coloring them. Well, adding color, shading, textures, and running through filters. In the description I made sure to put that the original work is in the public domain and some information about the original artist.

Sell Art Online Sell Art Online

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

"What are the rules/laws for changing Masterworks of artists not living?"

If it is legitimately in the Public Domain, there are none. It has been going on for hundreds of years and will go on for hundreds of years if the government stays the h@ll out of it as they should.

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

People need to know that the "dead for 70 years" is not a hard and fast rule. There are exceptions to that rule. It is a basic guideline but not law in all cases.

Then there is the process that some museums, galleries and individuals have had some success at. Reestablishing a copyright or getting the courts to grant a new one for art that has been around for hundreds of years.



 

Suzanne Powers

8 Years Ago

Thank you Charles, Ruth, Floyd for giving some nice take-aways for creating images with old masters.

 

Joy McKenzie

8 Years Ago

Or having their estate manage their copyrights and trademarks such as the Hendrix Experience that just recently settled a 6 year long battle to license Jimi's image and signature with two companies. I feel there's gonna be a big sweep of Hendrix copyright infringers coming soon. The lawsuit was just settled in Oct. 2015.

(I know you're speaking about really old images, but I thought I'd add my comment just for information...some of the recently passed icons have people managing their estates, and it's just another area that needs to be checked)

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

"some of the recently passed icons have people managing their estates, and it's just another area that needs to be checked)"

Yup and some and if all of these estate or foundation run collections will never become Public Domain.

There a families of once famous people that have been dead for 70 years or more and they are reestablishing copyrights. Courts have been very receptive to these cases were the linage is well documented.

 

Whimsidaisical

8 Years Ago

Rijksmuseum actually encourages you to use their public domain art and made them available online in high resolution. They let you know when something isn't public domain, and you can't download those. They will even display online what you've made if you send them a picture of it.

https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en

This is the link to register if you want to download.
https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/rijksstudio

Other museums have started to do this as well, but not in as large of a scale as this museum.

 

Joy McKenzie

8 Years Ago

Thank you, Floyd! ....and Ruth! :)

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

Ruth Moratz, you are right on the money. This is what is happening in the real world of of art. You are going to see more and more of this.

David Bridburg is and has been right on top of this and yet some in here have criticized him for it. I have always found it fascinating myself and really love what he is doing.

Sell Art Online

All of these great works of art would disappear if people would stop buying the prints and supporting the museums and galleries.. A huge percentage of the budgets of the museums and galleries that own these originals come from people publish and distribute these images. I have paid tens of thousands of dollars over the years for access to these image from legitimate brokers that pay a lot of money to the owners of the originals.

Keeping them in front of the greater art buying public is the only way they are going to survive.

 

Ronald Walker

8 Years Ago

It is a bit like defacing a religious icon, a big no no! But that is where the fun lies for many, daring to reinterpret a hallowed image. Dave B. and you with your flowers are doing this in such a way where you are not poking fun or making a political or social statement. In some ways that is where the interest lies, you are reinterpreting the work for aesthetic reasons. Criticism? Hell yes but criticism often is a good thing, at least you got people to think!

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

"It is a bit like defacing a religious icon, a big no no! "

Silly notion. No one is going to the museums or galleries and defacing anything.

 

Ronald Walker

8 Years Ago

Gosh Floyd thanks for pointing that out! If you defaced the cross for example there would be some upset people. Burn a holly book etc. Same goes for old masters work.

 

David King

8 Years Ago

"Silly notion. No one is going to the museums or galleries and defacing anything. "

I agree, though I've never seen the point of it either. I don't criticize, I just don't understand why bother. And like others said, most of what is considered "old masters" is in the public domain and therefore free game, that won't stop the critics though.

 

David King

8 Years Ago

Ron, how do you "deface" a digital file?

 

Stephen Charles

8 Years Ago

Changing someone else's art is like trying to enhance a perfectly tree ripened apricot by cooking it, it's not really possible.

 

Ronald Walker

8 Years Ago

We are not talking about the actual work here. We are talking about an image created by another person. Not a hard concept to understand. As I pointed out defacing a cross or holly book would upset some and yet there are millions of copies of holly books out there and millions of crosses.

 

Audrey Jeanne Roberts

8 Years Ago

I love to play around with master's work - I have a series I've titled "Reimagined Masters." It's fun. I enjoy the challenge of working with classic art and bringing it forward. It's not "classics" it's more decorative art. Here's an example:
Art Prints

Here's the original image that I cleaned up, brightened and then worked with:
Photography Prints

I love the original. I created the second to fit a different color palette and style. As an artist myself, I never fail to learn something when working with classical artwork.

Art is to be enjoyed and to bring joy!

 

Mike Savad

8 Years Ago

it either has to be past copyright or donated by the artist or family. as far as i know that's pretty much it.

and i don't think its the artist that has to be dead 70 years, its 70 years after its created. however its a good rule to live by anyway, because dead artists can't sue, and families may forget. plus its hard to know when they completed it.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

Come on Ronald, you know better then that.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

The bible or the cross are "symbols". We someone defaces something that is a syllable they are attacking an idea, an intangible, a belief.

A digital file is not any form of defacing anything. Or even if you deface a paper or other kind of reproduction or print. The image and the original are not altered in any way, shape or form.

Show All Messages

Big Skip

This is a very popular discussion with 177 responses.   In order to help the page load faster and allow you to quickly read the most recent posts, we're only showing you the oldest 25 posts and the newest 25 posts.   Everything in the middle has been skipped.   Want to read the entire discussion?   No problem: click here.

 

Ronald Walker

8 Years Ago

Floyd if I were to take one of your works and reworked it to make it better you might think it has been defaced. The point is I am supporting these artist not going after them. I feel that there may be some people who feel they are not paying proper homage to the images since they are daring to change the origionals.

 

David Bridburg

8 Years Ago

Mike,

You owe me 5% if she can find some money.

Dave

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

ROFLMAO!

Yes in deed.

 

David Bridburg

8 Years Ago

Susan,

The whole point is do not begrudge other artists, theory or not.

Mike's work is coming down in price possibly in January. Worth the wait.

Dave

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

I would like to know how the line is drawn, who decides what is alternating PD or who is allowed to alter PD and who is not?

And what is acceptable and what is not?

Who are these people? What are the standards? Who came up with them?

 

David Bridburg

8 Years Ago

Confession time, I have been using colors that other artists use.

I am no longer ligit.

Dave

 

Cynthia Decker

8 Years Ago

I didn't see anyone suggesting PD "shouldn't" be altered.

Aside from all the usual bickering from the usual suspects, I saw people talking about some opinions about the impact of altering and selling recognizable PD art from known historical artists on the reselling artist/sales and the impression it gives to they buyer (if any).



 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

Perhaps you could apply for legitimacy here and the art police will grant you a pardon. Maybe the art police chief himself or herself.

 

Cynthia Decker

8 Years Ago

Reductio ad Absurdum.

Now you're just inventing arguments.

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

You need to go read the thread again. That is exactly what some have said.

Some even suggested it was blasphemy.

Cynthia, you keep coming up with that 'all the same suspects" when we know exactly who you mean. Just because people do not agree with you or you them, dies not make it bickering. It is a discussion thread. The bickering only starts when people can not support their posted comments.

In the three years I have been here, "all the same suspects", form my point of view, are the same ones that have ganged up and beat down anyone that dares to challenge their thinking and run them off.

We have more members then ever and less then ever participating in the threads simply because new or opposing ideas are discouraged by "all the same suspects".

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

"Now you're just inventing arguments.'

Only if you see it that way. I prefer to see it as poking a little fun where maybe there is at least a little sense of humor buried down inside a few lurkers if no one else.

 

Cynthia Decker

8 Years Ago

I call it bickering because it's not productive arguing. It's not discourse, it's just repeating the same old comments over and over in different threads. If you get something out of it, then good for you, I'm just calling it like I see it.

There was no instance where anyone tried to say that people shouldn't be allowed to alter PD art. That it should be illegal, or that they should be somehow prevented from making such artwork. I did see lots of people saying they didn't like the idea. That's stating an opinion, not enforcing or policing a personal agenda. Hence my comment about you making up arguments.

This too, has become circular. I stand by my thoughts here.

 

Roy Pedersen

8 Years Ago

Why is it so wrong for an artist to copy or adjust or rework an old painting yet it's ok for musicians to do cover versions of old records.
Sometimes the new version is better and sometimes the original version is better. No matter what the music experts say it is up to the listener to decide .
Isn't it the same with paintings.The viewer is the one that decides if they like it or not and it makes no difference what so called experts think

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

"There was no instance where anyone tried to say that people shouldn't be allowed to alter PD art.'

OP: What are the rules/laws for changing Masterworks of artists not living?

Response: It should be a No, No.

Different response: It is a bit like defacing a religious icon, a big no no!

In my mind it does not get any clearer that that.

Now to defend that, is where the bickering would really begin and that is NOT making up arguments.

 

Mike Savad

8 Years Ago

just a quick fyi dave --- unless you actually tried to colorize something, you have no idea what kind of work goes into making one. there is a lot of creativity involved, you should try it.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

Not to mention Roy Pedersen, parodies with out permission from the original artists.

"Isn't it the same with paintings.The viewer is the one that decides if they like it or not and it makes no difference what so called experts think'

Totally agree!

 

Mike Savad

8 Years Ago

ideally its not lying if you present a famous artwork that you modified on your site and take credit for it because the buyer can probably figure it out. like i don't have to say that i didn't take those pictures because i think its pretty obvious i couldn't have possibly have done it.

if you want to stay totally honest you could say -- this painting - TITLE was originally painted by XXX. however in my version and then explain. and its pretty simple at that point. i think its ok to use the original artists name because they have to find it.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

 

Ronald Walker

8 Years Ago

Floyd just to make sure you keep what I say in context as well, I just want to point out that the "Defacing a religious icon" was part of a pro go for it statement. Not a gosh it should not be done remark.

 

David King

8 Years Ago

"but since you say you need evidence, it turns off this customer. "

It's not me, I was just trying to translate Floyd for you, my mistake.

There's no question that you'll find a person that holds any particular opinion if you search hard enough, (or just post a seemingly innocent question on an artist discussion forum) but the real question does it matter? Where are your motivations for producing your art coming from, internal or external? Where should they be coming from? BTW, this is me talking now.

 

CHERYL EMERSON ADAMS

8 Years Ago

Mike -- OMG there are so many things wrong with what you just said I don't know where to begin:

"ideally its not lying if you present a famous artwork that you modified on your site and take credit for it because the buyer can probably figure it out."

 

Karla Beatty

8 Years Ago

I have noticed that some places like museums online and galleries online hold the copyrights to the PHOTOS of the old masterworks they have. So there might be some copyright issues with the photos you use depending on where you get them. Always double check from a reliable source and don't just download from google, just to be sure.

 

Mike Savad

8 Years Ago

museums can say they have the copyright, but they don't. they can restrict photography of those things though.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

 

Cynthia Decker

8 Years Ago

They can and frequently do have copyrights on photographs taken for books, posters and postcards featuring art in their collections.

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago



And you guys wonder why I come off contentious.

I have posted proof of that very fact to where museums have been able get copyright rewarded to them based on the argument that they need to defend the copyright to pay the cost of just owning the original and keeping it available for the public to enjoy.

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

"they can and frequently do have copyrights on photographs"

Which do not always come under copyright. If you take an exact picture and put it in a book, I do not believe you can copy right the image.

If the image already exists in the Public Domain, it is still in the public domain. In order to be protected you have to have done a certain amount of alteration to it and then only those alterations can be copywriter protected.

Or something to that effect. I don't remember the exact wording but it has to do with one denominational public domain art.

From the Public Domain Sherpa

If I republish or repackage a public domain work, I can claim copyright in it.

There is a limit to what you can copyright in this case. When you add your own stuff to a public domain work, only the stuff you add may be protected by copyright. And then only if it meets the law’s originality and creativity requirements.

It’s misleading to say that you can “protect your public domain project from being stolen, with full legal protection,” as I’ve seen one Internet marketing “guru” do. Why? Because the underlying work will always be in the public domain. If a work is in the public domain you cannot claim a copyright in it. If you made a CD or DVD (or whatever) from it ... so can others. Not only that, but they’re free to do a better job, or add more value, or sell their product for less. Period.

 

CHERYL EMERSON ADAMS

8 Years Ago

 

David Bridburg

8 Years Ago

just a quick fyi dave --- unless you actually tried to colorize something, you have no idea what kind of work goes into making one. there is a lot of creativity involved, you should try it.

Mike,

With the Roses and occasionally elsewhere I do a bit of coloring, certainly changing of tones etc......

I do not envy you. Sorry about belittling your effort. I was having some fun at your expense, sorry.
You dont deserve that and you never tell me to do otherwise, at least not in my more recent memory.
You used to shoot down what I was doing, but not these days.

Mike your work has been growing on me. Many other artists here have work that has grown on me. I do not expect to love or hate work
on the first viewing. Still I can get past any petty criticisms I might have to see the value in the next guy's work.

If other artists cant do that it is their problem.

Dave

 

Gina Nicolae Johnson

8 Years Ago

Agree with Mike.

 

This discussion is closed.