Works of Van Gogh are still under copyright?

I'd like to get some works of Van Gogh, Degas and Monet embroidered but I do not know whether it infringes copyright. How can I verify that? Your advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

George - http://EmbroideryArtwork.com

Hi George. Maybe you could a legal answer from Georgia's 'Lawyers for the Arts.' http://www.glarts.org

And might I say, you've taken up quite a phenomenal project. I used to do embroidery when I was a child... but not by choice. I think it was just my mother's favorite form of punishment. Good luck.

Here, the present laws gives copyright in seventy years from the death of the artist.

A link to a page with more information about copyright:

Hi, George

There is no clear answer to your question. In the end, the decision could swing either way depending on the interpretation of a particular federal judge or jury.

The general rule is that copyright infringement is not realized if the new work is substantially changed from the original. An embroidered version of an original work MIGHT be considered different enough from the original to avoid copyright infringement. Or, a change in medium (embroidery v. oils) MIGHT NOT be considered enough of a modification, particularly if there were no changes in color, texture or composition.

See www.copyright.gov for full information.

This is a personal comment, NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE.

I think Miriam is correct.

I encourage all fools of your sort to follow your advice. Take away that NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE. Hopefully you will end up with bancrupcy, not managing to pay all your smart, expensive lawers in a case you are doomed to loose.

web sites like www.visipix.com provide high quality , printable images of art whose copyright has ended, including van goghs.

Frankly, museums have a big vested interest in 'protecting' their intellectual property: it keeps you from putting these images on calendars, cocktail napkins, scarves, etc. while the museums do just that and sell them in their museum stores and catalogs. Consider all of the satires based upon American Gothic...can the Art Institute of Chicago sue? Would they go after Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward for the American Gothic pose that they affect on their popcorn packages? If you were going to render a classic image of GREAT WORLD ART in embroidery, I would think that it would be okay. Earlier this year there was an article on the copyists in the Lourve that appeared in the Smithsonian Magazine....good article and it makes the terms of the relationship between the copyists and the Lourve pretty clear. I doubt that you would be trying to pass an embroidery of VanGogh's Sunflowers off as an original VanGogh. (You didn't know that the did embroidery? He took it up while his ear was on the mend.)

This has been a very interesting and good discussion. But it is still in puzzle in terms of those opinions in summary below. In fact, I consulted a lawyer about it trying to get answers, but unfortunately it did not help.

Here is the scenario we discuss: Will that infringe copyright if one get a Van Gogh's work embroidered for commercial purpose given the piece is in public domain already, according to US law, but it is owned by a museum or estate in US or foreign country? Yes or no?

Below is summary of the discussion (true or false?):

'Reproducing famous works of art usually requires expensive licensing from the estate or the museum which owns that piece.'

'The copyright is still held by the owner/museum/artist's estate although the artist has been dead for a long time such as 100 yeas and the item is in public domain already as the present laws gives copyright in seventy years from the death of the artist.'

'An embroidered version of an original work MIGHT be considered different enough from the original to avoid copyright infringement. Or, a change in medium (embroidery v. oils) MIGHT NOT be considered enough of a modification, particularly if there were no changes in color, texture or composition.'

'I'm pretty sure these artist's works are not protected by copyright any more, if they ever were.'

'If you were going to render a classic image of GREAT WORLD ART in embroidery, I would think that it would be okay.'

'There is no clear answer to your question. In the end, the decision could swing either way depending on the interpretation of a particular federal judge or jury.'

'If a museum owns a piece of art, generally they own the legal right to use it's image. That is why when you see stationery, or other things done in with reproductions of a painting, and it's labelled 'Monet's Waterlillies' it also says 'Museum X'.'

'If you, as an artist, choose to do a painting in the style of Monet's Waterlillies, and sell it, use if for commercial purposes, then you say 'After Monet's Waterlillies' - therefore making it clear that this is a painting done by you in the style of.'

'If you want to go into the National Gallery of art here (as I'm sure Lula, or Caryn, and other locals such as myself do) and sit and sketch - that's fine. But, if you want to then commercially reproduce your exact copy of Girl with a Watering Can - well, you're in trouble. And if you want to make a commercially sold embroidery of that painting, you're violating the ownership rights of the museum.'

'All works for which the statutory copyright period has expired belongs to the public domain. - The copyright may be transferred to a new copyright owner, but this transfer is not automated by the transfer of the ownership of the actual work. So, the owner of a work may or may not be the copyright holder. - The duration of copyright for works first published prior to 1978 is, at most, 95 years after the creation of the work. - The duration of copyright for works created after Jan. 1, 1978 is, at most, 120 years from the year of its creation.'

'As for your example with Monet's Waterlillies you may be right or you may not. Had Monet been a U.S. artist this would probably have been a borderline case based on when the copyright had been renewed. I'd say that it would probably belong to the public domain from this year, 2003. Since Monet is French, the U.S. law does, however, not apply.'

'Museums in the US are very protective of any commercial use of an image of a piece of art that they own.'

Of course, the easy way OUT of all of this legal tangle-up is to produce your *own* images!

To solve it - why don't you write a letter to one of the museums involved. If they give permission, your problem is solved. If not - they may give you a legal reason for not accepting it.

Would be interesting to hear what it ends up with.