Take the 2-minute tour ×
Writers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for authors, editors, reviewers, professional writers, and aspiring writers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Can I put an old painting on the cover of my book without violating the law?

AFAIK the copyright for a painting expires after 70 years. Hence, if a painting was creatd in 1874 and 70 years expired in 1944, it should be legal to put in on a cover of a book to appear in 2014.

Right?

share|improve this question
    
As said below, it's death plus 70 years, not just 70 years. So, your book, if you published it today, will fall into public domain not 70 years from today, but 70 years after your death. –  Jürgen A. Erhard Mar 6 at 15:13

2 Answers 2

up vote 8 down vote accepted

The copyright may have expired after 70 years. But, depending on the law of the relevant country, the owner of the painting (or any other object) may have the right to forbid the commercial use of reproductions of his property.

Similar to a "model release", with which a human model allows a photographer the usage of her likeness, there is a "property release" for photos made on or of someone's property. Here is the one from Corbis: http://studioplus.corbis.com/InfoPlus/Downloadable_Documents.aspx?secure=guest (scroll down and select your language).


In their gallery rules, published on their website, the Tate states that:

Photography in the main galleries is allowed for personal, non-commercial purposes only.

This means that any image (= photographic reproduction) you might grab from the web was either made for non-commercial use (scholarly publication) or for a specific commercial use (excluding yours).

If you want to use an image (= photo) of one of the paintings in the collection of the Tate commercially, you must use their image licensing service at www.tate-images.com, which will also provide you with an image file you can use in the publishing process. If you register you can calculate the price for your usage.


I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

share|improve this answer
    
My book will appear in Russia. The painting I'm talking about is Rosetti's "Proserpine", which is currently located in the Tate Britain museum. Which authority can tell me whether I can use that painting on the cover of my book in Russia or not? –  Dmitri Pisarenko Jan 12 at 17:05
    
See my edit to my answer. –  what Jan 12 at 17:40
2  
Personally, I think this is a giant rip-off, allowing copyright to last indefinitely. Nevertheless, I believe @what is correct. However, if you can find a book older than 70 years which contains a photograph of the painting, then that photograph should be out of copyright. But IANAL. –  dmm Jan 13 at 6:13
2  
@dmm I believe you would need a photograph that was made before the current owner came into ownership, and by a photographer who is dead more than 70 years. I'm not sure if the quality would be good enough for a book cover, though. Basically, I'd check with a laywer, if the Tate's licensing fees were higher than the cost of a lawyer (Germany: around 150 Euro). Or just pay those licensing fees, because after all the Tate preserved that painting, and I'm grateful that I can still view it and would like to contribute to that effort. –  what Jan 13 at 10:53

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

share|improve this answer
    
There was a comment starting with: "Commercially publishing that photograph you took in the Tate in Russia would probably still be a ..." but the comment was erased. You may notice I used the conditional, meaning that I was not sure of the actual situation. Taking pictures of a public domain work is unlikely to qualify as theft. This is likely to be an area where laws vary widely. But I am no expert on this. BTW Is that why my answer was downvoted? Downvoting without explanation is useless to everyone. It does not even get the error corrected, if there is one. –  babou Feb 15 at 10:43

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.