Q: Art stamps on the Internet ??

"amesh" wrote in message
k...
"Helene Sarrazin" skrev i en meddelelse
. ..
amesh a écrit :

For the moment the files in question are removed, and life goes on. The
whole thing is not sooo disastrous, as I can still show any artist in
any context up to 1935, provided that the artist involved was dead in
1935 or earlier; from next year until 1936, and so on. I will for sure
not be "out of the market" because of this! ;-)

What about Slania's work... he certainly is an artist of the XXth century
(even the XXIst)... will you have to remove this site too ?

No. I have Slania's permission to exhibit anything from his burin. And
so does the US-based producers of the special Slania-album.

Mette

Because Slania is dead, is his permission also valid (compulsory) for his
heirs?

--
Victor Manta

"Helene Sarrazin" wrote in message
. ..

As far as I know... and regarding French law... (transposition of European
law... but not only), any reproduction of any stamp by any mean could be
regarded as an offense to author's right (and their heirs)... (and not
COPY-right, which is a US notion, and can be sold to someone else)

Even if the art reproduced by the stamp is old enough (say : Rembrandt)...
the stamp engraver is regarded as an artist also... and HIS reproduction
rights are protected by this law...

But as far as I know, no stamp-collector in France has been threatened so
far... and won't ever be... I hope !

Helene

Helene,

Thanks a lot for all your explanations. One can see (also from your other
answers in this thread) that they derive from your own, bitter experience...

Because it is clear that the laws that you cite are applied in the EU, that
means that the stamps collectors from there became a kind of endangered
species. The free circulation of persons in the countries of the EU brings
them nothing, because the laws are "harmonized" among these countries by
Brussels directives.

The only (temporary?) escape could become again (like during the last big
war) the small Switzerland.

--
Victor Manta

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://www.pwmo.org/
Art on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/
Romania by Stamps: http://www.marci-postale.com/
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/communism/
Spanish North Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"amesh" wrote in message
k...
"Helene Sarrazin" skrev i en meddelelse
. ..
amesh a écrit :

For the moment the files in question are removed, and life goes on. The
whole thing is not sooo disastrous, as I can still show any artist in
any context up to 1935, provided that the artist involved was dead in
1935 or earlier; from next year until 1936, and so on. I will for sure
not be "out of the market" because of this! ;-)

What about Slania's work... he certainly is an artist of the XXth century
(even the XXIst)... will you have to remove this site too ?

No. I have Slania's permission to exhibit anything from his burin. And
so does the US-based producers of the special Slania-album.

Mette

Mette

I trust that your permission from Slania was in writing and covers your web
activities, so that you would be able to produce documentary evidence in
court should Copy-Dan pursue you in respect of your Slania images.

Regards, Roger

This is an intimidaiton tactic by this organisation. As Denamrk is a
singatory to the Berne Convention on copyright and INTERNATIONAL Copyright
trumps this organisation and their obtuse reference to "European copyright
laws" (ask them to produce a copy for you to read!), fair use/ fair dealings
applies. In your case, your use is clearly well within the legal definition
of fair use / fair dealings and is clearly protected use of the images.

If I were you I'd move the site to a US server, maybe even move the
ownership to a US or Canadian friend and tell these jerks to go shove it.
But that's me. :-)

"Douglas Myall" wrote in message
...

"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
"Douglas Myall" wrote in message
...

"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
"amesh" wrote in message
k...
skrev i en meddelelse
...

So, if Mette had a web site over here in the US, then she
could
continue in the "educational" mode she was before this
brou-ha-ha?

Hmmmm... how much space do you need Mette?

snip
But it wouldn't be worth while, because as a Danish subject I
would be
"chased" under Danish law, no matter where the server is
located.
snip

Mette

On which base? For example a tourist's obligation is to observe
the
rules of
the country where s/he is (and a more concrete example is that
the
punishment for example for drugs is different in The Netherlands
when
compared to Singapore).
--
Victor Manta

On the basis that the internet is worldwide. Most governments
treat
websites available in their countries as published within their
jurisdiction.
snip
Douglas

I can't follow you, Douglas.

That the Internet is worldwide is a fact.

Because "Most governments treat websites available in their
countries as
published within their jurisdiction", how does this contradict the
idea that
Mette's full site wouldn't be prosecuted if the server were in USA
(and
where her stamps images would be treated under the "fair use"
doctrine).

--
Victor Manta


Because, as Mette has already said, it does not matter where the
server is. If the images are made available to a computer in Denmark
they are published in Denmark.

But if the site were hosted (and owned?) in the US (or Canada) _US_ (or
_Canadian_) law would apply and thus she would be free of the harrassment of
some psuedo-legal group trying to enforce their wrong interepretation of the
law.

"loepp" wrote in message
...
Victor,
I hate to be the barer of bad news but selling a painting and it's
copyright
are separate. Artists retain copyright on art they sell (yes, 70 years
after
they die). Permission to reproduce it in print must be obtained from the
artist
and it is merely professional courtesy that the new owner be notified. I
actually own all copyrights to portraits of the people I paint But it
would be
highly unprofessional to reproduce them without it being a collaborative
effort
or understood by all as in; use in my portfolio, website, advertising,
etc. If
someone wishes to make photos of their portrait to distribute among family
or
whatever, there is no chance that I would say no. In fact I can supply
said
reproductions as photo prints are a big expense each year.

This is quite different than painting something and then sellign it. When
you paint a portarit you are doing a commissioned work. That is regarded as
a "work for hire". As such, unless the hirer specifically grants you sole
copyright, you have no right to reproduce any of the work with the exceptoin
of those matters covered under fair use/dealings.

"Phil Ately" [email protected] wrote in message
news:icUwe.1839419$6l.1568090@pd7tw2no...
"Douglas Myall" wrote in message
...

"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
"Douglas Myall" wrote in message
...

"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
"amesh" wrote in message
k...
skrev i en meddelelse
...

So, if Mette had a web site over here in the US, then she
could
continue in the "educational" mode she was before this
brou-ha-ha?

Hmmmm... how much space do you need Mette?

snip
But it wouldn't be worth while, because as a Danish subject I
would be
"chased" under Danish law, no matter where the server is
located.
snip

Mette

On which base? For example a tourist's obligation is to observe
the
rules of
the country where s/he is (and a more concrete example is that
the
punishment for example for drugs is different in The Netherlands
when
compared to Singapore).
--
Victor Manta

On the basis that the internet is worldwide. Most governments
treat
websites available in their countries as published within their
jurisdiction.
snip
Douglas

I can't follow you, Douglas.

That the Internet is worldwide is a fact.

Because "Most governments treat websites available in their
countries as
published within their jurisdiction", how does this contradict the
idea that
Mette's full site wouldn't be prosecuted if the server were in USA
(and
where her stamps images would be treated under the "fair use"
doctrine).

--
Victor Manta


Because, as Mette has already said, it does not matter where the
server is. If the images are made available to a computer in Denmark
they are published in Denmark.

But if the site were hosted (and owned?) in the US (or Canada) _US_ (or
_Canadian_) law would apply and thus she would be free of the harrassment
of some psuedo-legal group trying to enforce their wrong interepretation
of the law.


Can you quote legal authority for this opinion?

Regards, Roger

"Phil Ately" [email protected] wrote in message
news:d9Uwe.130819$El.53213@pd7tw1no...
In your case, your use is clearly well within the legal definition of
fair use / fair dealings and is clearly protected use of the images.


As with another message of yours on this thread, can you quote legal
authority for this opinion?

Regards, Roger

"Roger Smith" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Phil Ately" [email protected] wrote in message
news:d9Uwe.130819$El.53213@pd7tw1no...
In your case, your use is clearly well within the legal definition of
fair use / fair dealings and is clearly protected use of the images.


As with another message of yours on this thread, can you quote legal
authority for this opinion?

No matter which legal authorities might be quoted, my sites are going to
stay put where they are. And there is certainly no question of ceding the
ownership to someone else !!! I have arranged myself adequately in order to
avoid any further embarrassments. The coming court case is being prepared
and is well attended to by specialized attorneys. Life goes on, and so does
my websites, with new pages to the existing ones, and new sites waiting in
the wing.

Mette

Phil Ately wrote:

"loepp" wrote in message
...
Victor,
I hate to be the barer of bad news but selling a painting and it's
copyright
are separate. Artists retain copyright on art they sell (yes, 70 years
after
they die). Permission to reproduce it in print must be obtained from the
artist
and it is merely professional courtesy that the new owner be notified. I
actually own all copyrights to portraits of the people I paint But it
would be
highly unprofessional to reproduce them without it being a collaborative
effort
or understood by all as in; use in my portfolio, website, advertising,
etc. If
someone wishes to make photos of their portrait to distribute among family
or
whatever, there is no chance that I would say no. In fact I can supply
said
reproductions as photo prints are a big expense each year.

This is quite different than painting something and then sellign it. When
you paint a portarit you are doing a commissioned work. That is regarded as
a "work for hire". As such, unless the hirer specifically grants you sole
copyright, you have no right to reproduce any of the work with the exceptoin
of those matters covered under fair use/dealings.

Art is commissioned for all sorts of applications, many include limited
reproduction use such as courtroom art, advertising, etc. These copyright
issues are worked out or understood at the outset. Any further use beyond the
original agreement of the commissioned work must still be in an agreement with
the artist. There is no "work for hire" rule that denies an artist their
copyrights, there may be specific situations where the artist agrees not to
reproduce something commissioned as in a stamp design. But the point here is
that in commissioned art for reproduction there is no reason that an agreement
wouldn't be completely specific and/or limited. If it isn't specific and/or
limited, the artist has the copyrights.
I sell the original of a commissioned work of art and unless I specifically
include the copyright, the default owner of the copyright is me. With courtroom
art the originals are owned by the artist who has no limitations on what they
can do with them. Each entity that uses the sketches must have an agreement
with the artist. There is no guarantee that the artist's work will be used.
Ventures where a work is commissioned specifically for purchase and for
reproduction, there is a price for the original that may include money for an
edition and an agreement that may include royalties/percentage of sales of
prints. Certainly there are lowlifes that would prey on an artist's poverty and
take advantage of a situation and I don't say this lightly as the abuses are
too many and too often. There is no love lost between art marketers and
artists. Don't get me started on my opinions of some art marketers. I respect
lawyers more. Also don't think that I will stand up for artists in general
either, there as sorry a lot as any. Now stamp dealers...phew.
cheers,
TL