who owns a purchased image?

[Ptrash]

I buy a piece of art. That art is a representation of a celebrity, in the public domain (a royal figure).

I want to make a T shirt from a photograph I take of the art, which likely is a painting based on a photograph of the royal personage. Is that "theft" from the artist, or the royal figure (neither of whom might be happy, the former because I'm using her art and the latter because I satirize him)?

I would argue I own the friggin painting, and I should be able to do what I want with it. If the artist wants to make her own t-shirt, she can use her own photo of the painting.

The artist will argue I have to ask permission.

A thrid party would say make your own design. At this point, it would just be a rip of of hers, and not as good. So why bother?

Ultimately, the t-shirt is not successful becasue of the artist's image. It's successful because it was implemented successfully, because of my creative vision.

My compromise solution: make the t-shirt and put aside a portion of the sales for the artist, or a charity of their choice, in case the artist comes calling.

[Ebby]

I don't think you will have a problem if it is for personal use. If you sell those shirts, that is where you run into trouble and the artist will get mad.

Is it legal, meh. Is it going to cause all sorts of problems, probably not.

If you can get in contact with the artist, work out a royalty or something. Then everyone is happy.

[BR]

You can't sell t-shirts with art that you don't have permission to use. You can't go out and buy the Futurama DVDs and take the cover art and sell t-shirts with it. The fact that you even have to ask demonstrates that a part of you knows that what are you planning to do is wrong. Your "creativity of implementation" is just a load of bs unfortunately designed as an excuse. If you have such great creativity, make your own shirt with your own art if the artist's painting matters so little in the shirt's success.

Your better compromise solution: take an image of this royal figure that is in the public domain and use that. (by the way, just having a prince or a queen with the words 'HAY GUYS WHAT'S UP?' probably won't sell all that much).

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by BR
You can't sell t-shirts with art that you don't have permission to use. You can't go out and buy the Futurama DVDs and take the cover art and sell t-shirts with it. The fact that you even have to ask demonstrates that a part of you knows that what are you planning to do is wrong. Your "creativity of implementation" is just a load of bs unfortunately designed as an excuse. If you have such great creativity, make your own shirt with your own art if the artist's painting matters so little in the shirt's success.

Your better compromise solution: take an image of this royal figure that is in the public domain and use that. (by the way, just having a prince or a queen with the words 'HAY GUYS WHAT'S UP?' probably won't sell all that much).

I think the main contention is whether, if you buy a painting, you now 'own' that piece of artwork and any derivative works that you may create.

From: http://www.naia-artists.org/work/newsletter_pdf/winter2004-2005.pdf

Another question led to a long discussion
about what comes with ownership of
copyright.“The copyright holder owns
rights to display, perform, reproduce,
distribute, and control production of
derivative works,” Lisa explained.“If I buy
a painting, I can sell the painting itself,
because I have physical possession of the
image. But I don’t own the copyright, so I
cannot reproduce it. The only time you
can reproduce stuff is if it’s in the public
domain, if it’s old enough. 1923 is sort of
the cut-off; past that date you probably
need an experienced lawyer to help you. If
[the piece] did not have a notice prior to
1923, the artist was out of luck.”

Also: http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html

Q: If I buy a photograph or painting from a photographer or an artist for display purposes, can I use the image for any other purpose?

A. No. Mere ownership of a photograph, a painting or any other copyrighted work does not convey any right to copy or to use the work other than for personal use. For instance, a painting can be hung in a home or office but, absent permission, it cannot be copied, reproduced or used for any other purposes.

The law provides that the transfer of ownership of any material object that is protected by copyright, does not of itself, convey any rights to the copyright. For example, the purchaser of a copyrighted photograph, painting or poster, intended for display purposes, does not acquire any right to copy, reproduce or use the work other than for its intended purpose. Even if one were to purchase an original portrait that was specially commissioned, the purchaser would only be able to frame and display the work. Unless the parties otherwise agree, the artist owns the copyright and the work cannot be copied or reproduced. Thus, without permission, the subject of the portrait cannot even make a holiday card from the painting. Similarly, no one can photocopy an entire book without violating the copyright ownerís exclusive rights in the work. In fact, radio stations and jukebox operators have to purchase licenses to broadcast or play music even if they own the records they are using.

The easy answer is, 'no'.

I can see why the thread-starter might believe that he can use the painted image for his own purposes, as it is a one-of-a-kind product which he purchased. As the above quotations show, however, physical ownership (of even a one-off painitng) does not transfer the copyright to the new owner. That privilege remains with the original artist.

[Ptrash]

You can't sell t-shirts with art that you don't have permission to use. You can't go out and buy the Futurama DVDs and take the cover art and sell t-shirts with it.

I think your example is a poor one. When you buy a DVD you are buying a license to use the art. That's very different than buying a painting. Still, I understand the argument: I'm only buying the physical representation of the image. The intellectual rights stay with the artist. I think it's insane in a world withn 6 billion people and a million images for every living person. This stuff becomes part of the collective consciousness, and is constantly being recycled. Anyway, next time I buy a painting I'll make sure I get the rights to its use as an image.

I guess the solution is to take the painting and find a way to blast it into the t-shirt. I do have the right to do that. And sell, it if I choose to, since it's the physical painting, not the image. It's akin to a creative framing job!

If you have such great creativity, make your own shirt with your own art if the artist's painting matters so little in the shirt's success.

My bad here. What I meant to address was the balance of creativity in reformatted art. Again, I return to Warhol's Campbells soup cans. I can't believe that the label designer's expectation of royalties from Warhol would've exceeded 10% (BTW, Warhol came from Pittsburg and was a top NYC commerical artist. I wouldn't be surprised if he knew the designer, and got permission.)

I'm amazed at how pissed off people get. About half the world agrees that it's ok to incorporate other's "art" into your own, and the other half doesn't. Sometimes I think they're going to kill each other to see who's right.

PS I hope the subsequent posts answer the question:. At what point does an incorporated image transition from someone else's art to one's own? There must be some standard.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by Ptrash
[B]PS I hope the subsequent posts answer the question:. At what point does an incorporated image transition from someone else's art to one's own? There must be some standard.

There is no set standard. Such arguments typically fall to the courts to decide.

[Ptrash]

As an aside, who is the artist of record for a t-shirt? The t-shirt printmaker or the designer? Who keeps the silk screen? Who has the rights/future images from the silk screen?

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by Ptrash
As an aside, who is the artist of record for a t-shirt? The t-shirt printmaker or the designer? Who keeps the silk screen? Who has the rights/future images from the silk screen?

As I used to be a production artist for a huge screenprinting company, I'm perfectly suited to answering this particular question!

The artist of record:

The creator or licensee of the original artwork.

Who keeps the silk screen:

Unless you have purchased your own screens, the screenprinter keeps the screens. Due to the amount of space that would be required to keep screens for each t-shirt, the screens are re-used after being blasted. (I have many t-shirt designs that I produced for production that used 16 screens. When you're using individual screens/frames that cost $250-$300/each, you definitely aren't warehousing them.) While the screenprinting shop may hold onto the films, for expediency in producing any repeat orders, the films belong to the individual (or licensee) who created the original artwork.

In my case, I would be supplied with a piece of artwork for which I had to produce separations and press-ready film. In most cases, I had to make subtle modifications to the original artwork to make it more suitable for production. These modifications did not confer any creative rights to myself nor the company I worked for.

Who has future rights:

The creator or licensee of the original artwork.

[rufusswan]

Guys, what does "blasted" mean? I don't know the lingo. I'm lost in the process of making a tshirt. do not grok

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by rufusswan
Guys, what does "blasted" mean? I don't know the lingo. I'm lost in the process of making a tshirt. do not grok

When you create a silkscreen, you go through the following steps:

(For this example, let's say we're going to print a white '#1' on a black t-shirt)

1) Create the artwork.
2) Print the artwork on clear acetate or film.
3) Get a clean screen.
4) Coat the screen with light sensitive emulsion.
5) Place the film against the screen.
6) Put the screen on a light table (with the film inbetween the light source and the unexposed emulsion).
7) Turn on the light source.

Now, at this point, I should explain that the emulsion will harden in the areas that are exposed to light and the areas that are unexposed will remain water soluable.

8) Let the screen expose.
9) Remove the film from the screen.
10) Using a high-pressure water spray, remove the unexposed emulsion.
11) Dry screen with high-pressure air.

At this point you now have a negative impression on the screen of your design.

12) Mount screen on press.
13) Put white ink in screen.
14) Put t-shirt on press.
15) Lower screen to shirt and using a squeegee, force the ink through the screen onto the shirt.
16) Remove shirt from press and run it through a high-temp dryer.
17) Wear shirt.

So, now you have a shirt, and a dirty screen which needs cleaning so it can be used for another design.

18) Scrub solvent onto screen to remove all emulsion.
19) Blast the dissolved emulsion from the screen with high-pressure water.
20) Dry screen.

That's the basic steps. If you'd like some more detail on a specific area, just ask.

[rufusswan]

Great explanation. I would have guessed that old screens got thrown in the trash when done, and new screen applied to frame. Learned something today.

So, one does not have to worry about someone baggin an old screen from the trash and rippin off your design. If you were paranoid, you could also have them turn over the film from the "Create Artwork" phase.

Paz