A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Stamps » General Discussion
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Q: Art stamps on the Internet ??



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 11th 05, 09:45 PM
amesh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Q: Art stamps on the Internet ??

This is an ooold question, raised by me about 2-3 years ago, but here goes
again.

I have recently been contacted by the Danish Copyright Organisation
(Copy-Dan), who has notified me that according to European copyright
legislation it is not allowed to show stamps or philatelic material on the
Internet, insofar such stamps depict artworks by artists who were still
alive within the latest 70 years. Such material may only be shown in public
on condition that an explicit permission has been obtained from the artist's
estate, or if a substantial due is paid to Copy-Dan to protect the estate's
(or the still living artist's) legal rights.

Example 1.
Pablo Picasso died in 1973. His art works as a whole are protected from
being shown in public until 70 years after his death, i.e. they can only be
shown on the Internet or other public exhibitions in 2043 (!), unless the
exhibitor can provide a written permission from the estate (or the copyright
owner) or pays a *very* substantial due to Copy-Dan for the permission (for
a limited period of 1 month). Any art work -- whether on stamps or not --
may not be reproduced without the explicit written permission of the estate,
or payment of dues to Copy-Dan for the permission.

Example 2.
Arnold Machin died in 1999. The case is the same as for Picasso, and stamps
designed by Machin may not be shown on the Internet or elsewhere in the
public before 2069.

Esample 3:
A living post war artist, who has had the luck of having one of his art
works published on a stamp by a postal administration (of whichever
nationality), can not have his/her art work on the stamp shown in public
until 70 years after his death (whenever that may be). Given that he/she is
still alive and may easily live for another 30 years, his work on stamps is
not admissible to the public for the nest 100 years -- even when issued
legally on a stamp !!!

It is unimportant to Copy-Dan that stamps and philatelic material may be
legally issued by a national post office for postal purposes. Copy-Dan does
not consider the issuing postal administration (of whichever nationality)
the legal copyright owner with regard to showing art stamps and related
philatelic material on the Internet or special museum exhibits, as long as
the artist is still alive or hasn't been dead for at least 70 years. The
rigid interpretation is that the artist must have passed away 70 years prior
to the issues in question -- if not, either the exhibitor produces a written
permission from the artist / his estate, or pays his dues as settled by
Copy-Dan.
I know of a recent case in Great Britain, where the National Gallery in
London had planned an exhibit of the Art Nouveau artist Alfons Mucha in
collaboration with the Czech National Gallery. The exhibit was stopped by
Mucha's estate, claiming that Mucha died "only" in 1939, and that the
exhibit could therefore not be shown legally before 2009. There are other
similar cases in Europe, based on this rigid interpretation, which have
nearly ruined the exhibitors who have worked in good faith.

Copy-Dan has sent me a looong list of sister-organisations throughout the
world, and notified me that they will chase anyone in any country (through
their network) offending the interpretation of the current copyright
legislation, which is applicable within the EU and all affiliated nations in
Europe and the Mediterranean Area.

How are things working in *your* country?
--
Best regards
Ann Mette Heindorff (Mette)
------
Outgoing messages.checked with Norton AV



Ads
  #2  
Old June 11th 05, 10:29 PM
Roger Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"amesh" wrote in message
k...
This is an ooold question, raised by me about 2-3 years ago, but here goes
again.

I have recently been contacted by the Danish Copyright Organisation
(Copy-Dan), who has notified me that according to European copyright
legislation it is not allowed to show stamps or philatelic material on the
Internet, insofar such stamps depict artworks by artists who were still
alive within the latest 70 years. Such material may only be shown in
public on condition that an explicit permission has been obtained from the
artist's estate, or if a substantial due is paid to Copy-Dan to protect
the estate's (or the still living artist's) legal rights.

Example 1.
Pablo Picasso died in 1973. His art works as a whole are protected from
being shown in public until 70 years after his death, i.e. they can only
be shown on the Internet or other public exhibitions in 2043 (!), unless
the exhibitor can provide a written permission from the estate (or the
copyright owner) or pays a *very* substantial due to Copy-Dan for the
permission (for a limited period of 1 month). Any art work -- whether on
stamps or not -- may not be reproduced without the explicit written
permission of the estate, or payment of dues to Copy-Dan for the
permission.

Example 2.
Arnold Machin died in 1999. The case is the same as for Picasso, and
stamps designed by Machin may not be shown on the Internet or elsewhere in
the public before 2069.

Esample 3:
A living post war artist, who has had the luck of having one of his art
works published on a stamp by a postal administration (of whichever
nationality), can not have his/her art work on the stamp shown in public
until 70 years after his death (whenever that may be). Given that he/she
is still alive and may easily live for another 30 years, his work on
stamps is not admissible to the public for the nest 100 years -- even when
issued legally on a stamp !!!

It is unimportant to Copy-Dan that stamps and philatelic material may be
legally issued by a national post office for postal purposes. Copy-Dan
does not consider the issuing postal administration (of whichever
nationality) the legal copyright owner with regard to showing art stamps
and related philatelic material on the Internet or special museum
exhibits, as long as the artist is still alive or hasn't been dead for at
least 70 years. The rigid interpretation is that the artist must have
passed away 70 years prior to the issues in question -- if not, either the
exhibitor produces a written permission from the artist / his estate, or
pays his dues as settled by Copy-Dan.
I know of a recent case in Great Britain, where the National Gallery in
London had planned an exhibit of the Art Nouveau artist Alfons Mucha in
collaboration with the Czech National Gallery. The exhibit was stopped by
Mucha's estate, claiming that Mucha died "only" in 1939, and that the
exhibit could therefore not be shown legally before 2009. There are other
similar cases in Europe, based on this rigid interpretation, which have
nearly ruined the exhibitors who have worked in good faith.

Copy-Dan has sent me a looong list of sister-organisations throughout the
world, and notified me that they will chase anyone in any country (through
their network) offending the interpretation of the current copyright
legislation, which is applicable within the EU and all affiliated nations
in Europe and the Mediterranean Area.

How are things working in *your* country?
--
Best regards
Ann Mette Heindorff (Mette)
------
Outgoing messages.checked with Norton AV

Mette

I have to say that in my opinion far too much power is given to owners of
intellectual property rights nowadays, including copyright owners.

For example we have the pharmaceutical lobby, using the excuse of inadequate
rewards for their investment to screw the third world as much as they can
and force them to buy their products at prices that are ruinous either for
the economies of these poor countries or for their citizens' well-being, and
the powerful European software lobby demanding "software patents", allegedly
to keep pace with the USA, but we all know the real reason.

We now have copyright organisations demanding many different far-reaching
changes in the law. The extension of copyright term in artistic works from
life plus 50 years to life plus 70 years not so long ago is a case in point,
entirely without justification in my opinion. Another new right being
currently debated is for the author (painter, sculptor) to share in gains
made whenever their works are re-sold, presumably at any time during the
extended copyright period. For author, read their greedy descendants (I
believe that the Picasso family have indeed been instrumental in pushing for
this right). This business is getting as sick as the world of football
transfers!

We now have organisations purporting to represent copyright owners
attempting to stretch these rights even further, and in the present case
they are surely pre-judging the rights granted to postal authorities when
stating that they do not consider the issuing postal administration (of
whichever nationality) as the legal copyright owner. Even if the artist
grants rights to the relevant a licence only for use on material relating to
postage stamps (or whatever items are defined in the licence document) then
it is possible that those rights are "exhausted" once the work in question
appears on the postal item. In that case, any unauthorised reproduction of
that item might be an infringement of the rights held by the postal
authority, but would no longer be actionable by the owner of the copyright
in the work illustrated on the item.

I have to say that I do not think the legal position is at all clear, and
that test cases will need to be brought, and these would need to involve
defendants with sufficient resources to force the legal action up to a
sufficiently high level for any judgement to be influential.

Of course, it is not just the artist who might claim an interest. What
about the stamp designer, or the engraver who might have made no small
contribution to the final appearance of the stamp?

I think that in contacting you, Copy-Dan are trying to stretch their muscles
with a bit of scare tactics. Are they at all specific about their reference
to what they describe as "European copyright legislation"? I suspect they
are putting their own interpretation on some of the vague terms in which EC
Directives are normally drafted.

Regards, Roger


  #3  
Old June 11th 05, 11:29 PM
loepp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



amesh wrote:

This is an ooold question, raised by me about 2-3 years ago, but here goes
again.

I have recently been contacted by the Danish Copyright Organisation
(Copy-Dan), who has notified me that according to European copyright
legislation it is not allowed to show stamps or philatelic material on the
Internet, insofar such stamps depict artworks by artists who were still
alive within the latest 70 years. Such material may only be shown in public
on condition that an explicit permission has been obtained from the artist's
estate, or if a substantial due is paid to Copy-Dan to protect the estate's
(or the still living artist's) legal rights.

Example 1.
Pablo Picasso died in 1973. His art works as a whole are protected from
being shown in public until 70 years after his death, i.e. they can only be
shown on the Internet or other public exhibitions in 2043 (!), unless the
exhibitor can provide a written permission from the estate (or the copyright
owner) or pays a *very* substantial due to Copy-Dan for the permission (for
a limited period of 1 month). Any art work -- whether on stamps or not --
may not be reproduced without the explicit written permission of the estate,
or payment of dues to Copy-Dan for the permission.

Example 2.
Arnold Machin died in 1999. The case is the same as for Picasso, and stamps
designed by Machin may not be shown on the Internet or elsewhere in the
public before 2069.

Esample 3:
A living post war artist, who has had the luck of having one of his art
works published on a stamp by a postal administration (of whichever
nationality), can not have his/her art work on the stamp shown in public
until 70 years after his death (whenever that may be). Given that he/she is
still alive and may easily live for another 30 years, his work on stamps is
not admissible to the public for the nest 100 years -- even when issued
legally on a stamp !!!

It is unimportant to Copy-Dan that stamps and philatelic material may be
legally issued by a national post office for postal purposes. Copy-Dan does
not consider the issuing postal administration (of whichever nationality)
the legal copyright owner with regard to showing art stamps and related
philatelic material on the Internet or special museum exhibits, as long as
the artist is still alive or hasn't been dead for at least 70 years. The
rigid interpretation is that the artist must have passed away 70 years prior
to the issues in question -- if not, either the exhibitor produces a written
permission from the artist / his estate, or pays his dues as settled by
Copy-Dan.
I know of a recent case in Great Britain, where the National Gallery in
London had planned an exhibit of the Art Nouveau artist Alfons Mucha in
collaboration with the Czech National Gallery. The exhibit was stopped by
Mucha's estate, claiming that Mucha died "only" in 1939, and that the
exhibit could therefore not be shown legally before 2009. There are other
similar cases in Europe, based on this rigid interpretation, which have
nearly ruined the exhibitors who have worked in good faith.

Copy-Dan has sent me a looong list of sister-organisations throughout the
world, and notified me that they will chase anyone in any country (through
their network) offending the interpretation of the current copyright
legislation, which is applicable within the EU and all affiliated nations in
Europe and the Mediterranean Area.

How are things working in *your* country?
--
Best regards
Ann Mette Heindorff (Mette)
------
Outgoing messages.checked with Norton AV


There is a well known living painter that either trademarked or copyrighted
'painter of light'. It would seem that artists previous to that have been
dubbed thus. I am going to trademark 'painter of canvas' and 'painter of light
and heavy canvas'.

As far as stopping people from showing postage stamps, that in my thinking are
something in themselves separate from the art and artist they may honor, I
agree with Roger, let 'em go to court.

The Mucha estate could have given permission or it could easily have been
requested by the museums. Unless that was some precedent it would seem they,
the museums, would have known that.

  #4  
Old June 12th 05, 05:35 AM
Bill Sharpe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

1. I would hate to see Mette's beautiful web pages disappear as a result
of Copy-Dan's notice.
2. Would this 70 years + limitation apply also to printed/CD-ROM
catalogs depicting these stamps?

In the US there's a "fair use" doctrine that may or may not apply here.

Still, this sounds like several disasters in the making!

Bill Sharpe

"amesh" wrote in message
k...
This is an ooold question, raised by me about 2-3 years ago, but here
goes
again.

I have recently been contacted by the Danish Copyright Organisation
(Copy-Dan), who has notified me that according to European copyright
legislation it is not allowed to show stamps or philatelic material on
the
Internet, insofar such stamps depict artworks by artists who were still
alive within the latest 70 years. Such material may only be shown in
public
on condition that an explicit permission has been obtained from the
artist's
estate, or if a substantial due is paid to Copy-Dan to protect the
estate's
(or the still living artist's) legal rights.

Example 1.
Pablo Picasso died in 1973. His art works as a whole are protected from
being shown in public until 70 years after his death, i.e. they can only
be
shown on the Internet or other public exhibitions in 2043 (!), unless
the
exhibitor can provide a written permission from the estate (or the
copyright
owner) or pays a *very* substantial due to Copy-Dan for the permission
(for
a limited period of 1 month). Any art work -- whether on stamps or
not --
may not be reproduced without the explicit written permission of the
estate,
or payment of dues to Copy-Dan for the permission.

Example 2.
Arnold Machin died in 1999. The case is the same as for Picasso, and
stamps
designed by Machin may not be shown on the Internet or elsewhere in the
public before 2069.

Esample 3:
A living post war artist, who has had the luck of having one of his art
works published on a stamp by a postal administration (of whichever
nationality), can not have his/her art work on the stamp shown in public
until 70 years after his death (whenever that may be). Given that
he/she is
still alive and may easily live for another 30 years, his work on stamps
is
not admissible to the public for the nest 100 years -- even when issued
legally on a stamp !!!

It is unimportant to Copy-Dan that stamps and philatelic material may be
legally issued by a national post office for postal purposes. Copy-Dan
does
not consider the issuing postal administration (of whichever
nationality)
the legal copyright owner with regard to showing art stamps and related
philatelic material on the Internet or special museum exhibits, as long
as
the artist is still alive or hasn't been dead for at least 70 years. The
rigid interpretation is that the artist must have passed away 70 years
prior
to the issues in question -- if not, either the exhibitor produces a
written
permission from the artist / his estate, or pays his dues as settled by
Copy-Dan.
I know of a recent case in Great Britain, where the National Gallery in
London had planned an exhibit of the Art Nouveau artist Alfons Mucha in
collaboration with the Czech National Gallery. The exhibit was stopped
by
Mucha's estate, claiming that Mucha died "only" in 1939, and that the
exhibit could therefore not be shown legally before 2009. There are
other
similar cases in Europe, based on this rigid interpretation, which have
nearly ruined the exhibitors who have worked in good faith.

Copy-Dan has sent me a looong list of sister-organisations throughout
the
world, and notified me that they will chase anyone in any country
(through
their network) offending the interpretation of the current copyright
legislation, which is applicable within the EU and all affiliated
nations in
Europe and the Mediterranean Area.

How are things working in *your* country?
--
Best regards
Ann Mette Heindorff (Mette)
------
Outgoing messages.checked with Norton AV




  #5  
Old June 12th 05, 08:57 AM
amesh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Roger Smith" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"amesh" wrote in message
k...


- snip -

Roger,
You and I are on exactly the same level of thinking, and I am more than
tempted to bring this question before the court to have some of these
questions clarified. But I also fear that as an individual I am bound to
loose my case. Frankly, I cannot think of anyone who as an individual might
win a case against a powerful and self-righteous bureaucracy ;-)

Regards
Mette




  #6  
Old June 12th 05, 09:02 AM
amesh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"loepp" skrev i en meddelelse
...

- snip -

There is a well known living painter that either trademarked or
copyrighted
'painter of light'. It would seem that artists previous to that have been
dubbed thus. I am going to trademark 'painter of canvas' and 'painter of
light
and heavy canvas'.

As far as stopping people from showing postage stamps, that in my thinking
are
something in themselves separate from the art and artist they may honor, I
agree with Roger, let 'em go to court.

The Mucha estate could have given permission or it could easily have been
requested by the museums. Unless that was some precedent it would seem
they,
the museums, would have known that.


The preparations for the Mucha-exhibit were begun in 1998, when the life +
50 years protection was still in force. The general extension enforced in
1999 to life + 70 years made more harm than good to the art world.


  #7  
Old June 12th 05, 09:13 AM
amesh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bill Sharpe" skrev i en meddelelse
...
1. I would hate to see Mette's beautiful web pages disappear as a result
of Copy-Dan's notice.


Thanks Bill :-) they won't disappear totally, only the 20th century artists
and artistic movements have been requested removed (or "paid for"). E.g.
Chagall, Picasso, Dali, Miro, Matisse etc., and such movements as
Expressionism, Post-Expressionism, Fauvism, Surrealism, and all the "wild"
movements from the 1960s.

But, of course, I can always pay Copy-Dan about 1,000 dollars per month for
their "protection"!

2. Would this 70 years + limitation apply also to printed/CD-ROM
catalogs depicting these stamps?


Probably, but I haven't investigated that. However, it is a fact that most
art books concerning the 20th century artists and movements are now hard to
find, because they have been retracted from the market. One that has
survived, is about "Suprematism" and Kasimir Malevich, who died in 1935 (70
years ago), and therefore is freely available.


In the US there's a "fair use" doctrine that may or may not apply here.


The fair use doctrine does apply, but is interpretated differently by the
authorities and the users ...


Still, this sounds like several disasters in the making!


Yes, this lobby has done more harm than good.

Mette






  #8  
Old June 12th 05, 11:22 AM
Douglas Myall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"amesh" wrote in message
k...
This is an ooold question, raised by me about 2-3 years ago, but

here goes
again.

I have recently been contacted by the Danish Copyright Organisation
(Copy-Dan), who has notified me that according to European copyright
legislation it is not allowed to show stamps or philatelic material

on the
Internet, insofar such stamps depict artworks by artists who were

still
alive within the latest 70 years. Such material may only be shown in

public
on condition that an explicit permission has been obtained from the

artist's
estate, or if a substantial due is paid to Copy-Dan to protect the

estate's
(or the still living artist's) legal rights.

Example 1.
Pablo Picasso died in 1973. His art works as a whole are protected

from
being shown in public until 70 years after his death, i.e. they can

only be
shown on the Internet or other public exhibitions in 2043 (!),

unless the
exhibitor can provide a written permission from the estate (or the

copyright
owner) or pays a *very* substantial due to Copy-Dan for the

permission (for
a limited period of 1 month). Any art work -- whether on stamps or

not --
may not be reproduced without the explicit written permission of the

estate,
or payment of dues to Copy-Dan for the permission.

Example 2.
Arnold Machin died in 1999. The case is the same as for Picasso,

and stamps
designed by Machin may not be shown on the Internet or elsewhere in

the
public before 2069.

Esample 3:
A living post war artist, who has had the luck of having one of his

art
works published on a stamp by a postal administration (of whichever
nationality), can not have his/her art work on the stamp shown in

public
until 70 years after his death (whenever that may be). Given that

he/she is
still alive and may easily live for another 30 years, his work on

stamps is
not admissible to the public for the nest 100 years -- even when

issued
legally on a stamp !!!

It is unimportant to Copy-Dan that stamps and philatelic material

may be
legally issued by a national post office for postal purposes.

Copy-Dan does
not consider the issuing postal administration (of whichever

nationality)
the legal copyright owner with regard to showing art stamps and

related
philatelic material on the Internet or special museum exhibits, as

long as
the artist is still alive or hasn't been dead for at least 70 years.

The
rigid interpretation is that the artist must have passed away 70

years prior
to the issues in question -- if not, either the exhibitor produces a

written
permission from the artist / his estate, or pays his dues as settled

by
Copy-Dan.
I know of a recent case in Great Britain, where the National Gallery

in
London had planned an exhibit of the Art Nouveau artist Alfons Mucha

in
collaboration with the Czech National Gallery. The exhibit was

stopped by
Mucha's estate, claiming that Mucha died "only" in 1939, and that

the
exhibit could therefore not be shown legally before 2009. There are

other
similar cases in Europe, based on this rigid interpretation, which

have
nearly ruined the exhibitors who have worked in good faith.

Copy-Dan has sent me a looong list of sister-organisations

throughout the
world, and notified me that they will chase anyone in any country

(through
their network) offending the interpretation of the current copyright
legislation, which is applicable within the EU and all affiliated

nations in
Europe and the Mediterranean Area.

How are things working in *your* country?
--
Best regards
Ann Mette Heindorff (Mette)
------
Outgoing messages.checked with Norton AV


General questions concerning the scope of copyright protection,
whether in literary or artistic works, are simply not capable of being
given answers of worldwide application. Even in countries of the
European Union which are subject to the directive of 1993, it is left
to individual countries to embody it in their domestic law (although,
ultimately, interpretation may be the prerogative of the European
Court). In the context posed by
Mette, there may well be two copyrights, one vested in the original
artist and another in the engraver of a printing plate bearing that
image. It is very likely, therefore, that a postage stamp bearing an
image of a painting is itself copyright. (As in GB stamps bearing the
Machin head; Mette's example 2 is plain wrong.) Further one is
entitled to assume that postal authorities who reproduce artistic
works on stamps have obtained the necessary permission from the artist
or his estate where it is still in copyright. Under the Berne
Convention the duration of such copyrights is 50 years from the END of
the year in which the copyright owner died (not from the date of his
death). Under the imperative of "harmonisation" this became 70 years
within the EU because that was the period applicable in Germany and
the other countries had to fall in line. The "fair use" provisions,
which incidentally were first applied under English law, are, in my
personal view interpreted too strictly within the EU. The USA applies
them much more sensibly and flexibly. There are also provisions in
most jurisdictions for people threatened with an action for
infringement to be able themselves to start an action for a
declaration by the Court that the work in question does not possess
copyright, but that is an expensive road to tread and the destination
uncertain. However, I do not consider that Copy-Dan's claims that the
original artist's copyright in his painting extends to its
reproduction on postage stamps where such reproduction is done with
the artist's permission, is wrong in law (caveat any express provision
to the contrary in Danish law).

My advice to Mette, for what it is worth, is that so long as she
reproduces only stamp images as distinct from the original paintings,
and so long as those images purporting to be mint and are in colour
are `cancelled' in some way, e.g., by a line or arc in one corner, and
so long as she makes it clear that she IS reproducing stamps that are,
or were, on sale to the public, she should be free of interference
from bodies such as Copy-Dan.

Douglas

  #9  
Old June 12th 05, 11:43 AM
amesh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Douglas Myall" skrev i en meddelelse
...

- snip -

My advice to Mette, for what it is worth, is that so long as she
reproduces only stamp images as distinct from the original paintings,
and so long as those images purporting to be mint and are in colour
are `cancelled' in some way, e.g., by a line or arc in one corner, and
so long as she makes it clear that she IS reproducing stamps that are,
or were, on sale to the public, she should be free of interference
from bodies such as Copy-Dan.


Thanks for your advice Douglas. I have been discussing this with Copy-Dan
for 2-3 years, and they insist that the copyright protection applies to
*all* depictions -- also on stamps -- insofar the artist involved was still
alive in 1935 or later. In other words, a rigid interpretation of the
70-year protection.

They have sent me a plain ultimatum: "Remove the images and files listed,
or pay 4,500 DKK (vat 25% included) per month to Copy-Dan for our
permission, given on behalf of the estate". And they did include a formal
invoice, well specified over some 10-12 pages!

That leaves me no choice other than removing the files, does it?

Mette




  #10  
Old June 12th 05, 12:02 PM
Douglas Myall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"amesh" wrote in message
k...
This is an ooold question, raised by me about 2-3 years ago, but

here goes
again.

I have recently been contacted by the Danish Copyright Organisation
(Copy-Dan), who has notified me that according to European copyright
legislation it is not allowed to show stamps or philatelic material

on the
Internet, insofar such stamps depict artworks by artists who were

still
alive within the latest 70 years. Such material may only be shown in

public
on condition that an explicit permission has been obtained from the

artist's
estate, or if a substantial due is paid to Copy-Dan to protect the

estate's
(or the still living artist's) legal rights.

snip

Further to my earlier post in reply to Mette's questions, perhaps I
could make a couple of further points.

1. The last sentence of my penultimate paragraph had an intrusive `do
not' which completely altered what I wished to say. It should have
read as follows (I have taken the opportunity to add to it a bit):

However, I consider that Copy-Dan's claims that the
original artist's copyright in his painting extends to its
reproduction on postage stamps where such reproduction is done with
the artist's permission and to reproductions of such stamps for purely
philatelic purposes other than for sale, is wrong in law (caveat any
express provision
to the contrary in Danish law).

2. Attempts to secure a further widening of the scope of protection
within the EU so as to include an ability to prevent public exhibition
are unlikely to succeed. They are certainly not covered by the present
directive nor, as I know, are they prevented under UK domestic
law.While the renting or lending of an artistic work to the public are
`restricted acts' for which the artist's permission is required, the
making of works available for a public exhibition is not renting or
lending to the public. Also, galleries can lend works to each other
without the consent of the artist whether or not the purpose of the
loan is public exhibition. Galleries can prevent the public from
taking photographs of the exhibits so long as they make this a
condition of entry by printing it on the admission tickets.

3. It is true that in some foreign countries a `droite de suite'
exists which entitles the artist to a payment on a resale of his work.
It is also true that the European Commission is in favour of extending
this right to countries of the Union for works of contemporary and
modern art.

Douglas

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Illegal Stamps - The Gambia (2003) Blair (TC) General Discussion 1 May 31st 05 09:17 PM
Europa 2005 Issues celebrate Gastronomy TC General Discussion 3 May 2nd 05 10:37 AM
Scented stamps TC Blair General Discussion 9 December 13th 04 10:10 PM
Safety First (Part 2) Rodney General Discussion 1 December 9th 04 10:39 PM
North Korea Philately Blair (TC) General Discussion 0 August 17th 04 04:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.