I know that books fall into the public domain after a certain time after the author’s death, but I was not sure if that was the same with painings.

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html

Just curious. If you are an artist why would you use other artists’ work to sell your “own stuff?”

Can you please tell me if using a painting (on your own website) of an painter who died long time ago would also be considering stealing intellectual property or is that already in public domain? For example, if I would have used a photo of Van Gogh’s paining or Carl Friedrich Koch on my own website that is used to sell my own stuff. Would that be ok or it would be stealing?

There are precious few “exceptions.” The examples that you site for Wayne Thiebaud fall into this very specific, not vague at all, doctrine of “fair use.” #4 is worth noting as it relates to this specific discussion.

https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

I sincerely apologize. I did not express my point clearly in my previous comment. It was NOT to defend the person who scraped Thiebaud’s images. Nor would I defend the person who displayed your image next to roasted meat. And I certainly didn’t mean to imply that you, specifically, had a knee-jerk reaction in this case, but, rather, that I’ve seen *other* artists have knee jerk reactions in situations that were actually beneficial to them. Artists certainly DO have the right to demand unauthorized use be stopped and I support that.

So, let me try to clarify.

The one point I WANTED to make follows:

You wrote, “you can’t borrow or take intellectual property, any property, from the owner unless and until you have their permission. And in the case of copyright you must secure permission in writing.”

While I agree in most cases that is true, and that is always the ethical route for someone to take, that statement may not be 100% legally true.

I wanted to point out that there *are* exceptions. Most exceptions fall under the “fair use” doctrine:

https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

And the copyright.gov website even admits the following:

“The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined.”

If a copyright case gets in front of a judge it is not always going to be as black and white as we copyright holders would like. While commerical gain is ONE part of the test for fair use, it is not the only one. Another part of it is, “The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.” If someone isn’t hurting the market for or value of your artwork, that also plays into fair use.

In fact, I actually found one company that is using a large number of images of Wayne Thiebaud’s paintings definitely for their own commercial gain. I doubt they got prior written permission from him, and I doubt he would want the company to stop using his art. Here are two pages from their website showing the scraped images:

https://bit.ly/a2GAWv

https://bit.ly/dfl9Lp

Having said all of this, I agree substantially with your post and your follow up comment. People SHOULDN’T take artists’ images without permission. People SHOULD get written permission first. I agree with that. The fair use page I linked to even states that, “Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.” That’s ALWAYS the safest most ethical route.

But, I feel artists are better served to understand that there *are* exceptions, fair use DOES exist, there are cases where someone COULD take your images and not be violating your copyright, and that while statements like “that’s the law” are fine, understanding that the law *is tricky* sometimes is a good thing to know.

I am not a lawyer and everything I just wrote could be complete rubbish, if you feel your copyrights have been infringed, or you wish to use something under the fair use doctrine, please consult an intellectual property attorney.

Sincerely,

Clint

Thank you for taking the time to comment.

I get your point about “Free” by Seth Godin. I’m quite familiar with it.

But when my image was stuck closely next to some randome roasted meat on on a Napa chef’s website, it did not elevate my brand.

Had he asked for my permission I may have granted it and I would have relayed my company’s graphic standards.

So no, I don’t want someone helping themselves to my property, credit and or link, or no credit and or link, without my written permission.

And that’s not a knee-jerk reaction, that’s the law.

Ann

I’m not saying what this person did was right, but I am saying remember that “ideas that spread, win” (Seth Godin) – so if someone is sharing your images with the world AND CREDITING YOU (especially if they link) , it might not be a good idea to stop them.

I’m just pointing out sometimes a knee-jerk reaction is just that and it’s a good idea to think through you’re next action logically.

Disclosure – I used to own an art gallery so I’m probably the “very least informed” person you could possibly listen to….of course, I now run an artist website company so maybe that balances out.

Please tell us more about filing a “take down notice.

Ann