Is it plagiarism?

[BobB]

I've seen many posts on plagiarism and copying ideas of others and wanted to get some input on an idea.

I love the works of the great French impressionist like Monet, Degas, Manet and others. They were painters and produced some of the most beautiful works. If you took one of thier paintings and recreated it completely in glass and no other mediums would that be considered plagiarism? Obviously you couldn't claim it as your own idea and wouldn't want to, but as a reproduction in an entirely different medium. Would you still have to have thier permission to reproduce the piece and pay royalties?

I'd love to hear everyone input.

Thanks,
BobB

[Cynthia]

I have no idea if it would be plagarism or not. I'm not really sure what constitutes plagarism legally. You see Tiffany and Frank Lloyd Wright reprductions in contact paper and there are coffee cups with Renoir and Monet all over them...stuff purchased at museum gift stores...but I expect some royalties were paid or rights were purchased. Are these paintings now part of the public domain? Are they up for grabs?

I would think the thing to do is if you like impressionism, make your own images with glass in the style of the impressionists. If you want to reproduce particular paintings then you probably need to discover where to get the rights to do so. I believe that reproducing someone elses work, even if they are long dead, even if you change the medium, would require some release, permission or what ever.

[Kitty]

the first question is "what do you intend to do with the piece you make?" if you're going to make it and keep it at home, it's a non-issue.

try this on for size: let's say you admire a Monet painting, and reproduce it in glass. then you make a line of greeting cards showing your piece, and you sell those cards. or maybe you make your glass repro, and hang it on a wall in a gallery, for sale. you might have a problem with that because the museum that owns the painting could hold the rights to the reproduction of the piece. if you reproduced Warhol's "Marilyn" in glass and marketed the resulting image, you'd be tramping on the copyright.

for the Metropolitan Museum of Art in particular, if you look in their catalog, a lot of the stuff they are selling they own the rights to, because the items are in their collection. greeting cards, umbrellas, all that stuff that has art from their collections, the museum owns the rights to the reproduction of those images. same thing with the Van Gogh paintings in the the Dutch museum. when you see certain paintings reproduced all over the place, like the Monet umbrellas i mentioned, the museum has licensed the image. those examples are direct reproductions, not morphed ones like you suggest, but i don't think there's much of a difference.

did you ever hear about the legal controversy about cindy sherman getting somebody's artwork in one of her art photographs, and the resulting lawsuit? whoever the offended party was ... i forget the details ... claimed she didn't have permission to use their work in HER work.


The Bateman Archive is full of stuff that people can use without copyright problems. if memory serves me, bill gates bought the Bateman Archive and turned it over for public use, so if you took something from that source, you'd be OK.

is this responsive to what you had in mind?

somebody i know in hawaii has a GIANT painting in their livingroom that looks and feels like Gauguin, to da max. in fact, the size is the #1 give-away that it isn't a Gaugin. it is not signed, and discussions about it are not invited, beyond people saying "wow." the person who painted it is (not surprisingly) a well-known local painter, and for that reason doesn't want a lot of discussion around town about the fake Gauguin they painted. of course, common sense would eventually win out, and anybody in their right mind would realize that a multi-million dollar painting is not going to be on the wall in a house in Honolulu, no matter how posh the house.

BTW, i am aware of large glass plates featuring Matisse-type images, in the spirit of his paper cut-outs. the plates aren't exact copies, but nonetheless it's pimping on Matisse. they're damn close, and i wouldn't want to own one.

[Dani]

From a legal standpoint, I believe the works of the Impressionists are in public domain... meaning no one owns the rights so they may be reproduced by anyone. Reproducing a piece using another medium would, I believe, be considered significantly altering the piece. I also unpopularly believe that copying excellent work is a great way to learn and improve one's skills. Many artists throughout history, in fact, did derivative work. It seems to me to be a peculiarly Contemporary if not American philosophy to wish to be completely different and original from anything ever done in the arts (a pursuit doomed to frustration in my belief.) And it might also explain why some of the newest creations we see are so full of absurd gimmickry as to be laughable... some of the latest in architecture comes to mind. Having said all that, the area of intellectual property rights is fast changing, and when I read of unknown parties copyrighting the works in the Hermitage museum.... well, I suppose it's worth checking to make sure someone hasn't already placed copyright on Monet's works. Sigh.

[Kitty]

Many impressionist works are not in the public domain, Monet being a prime example. Their age is not a factor; the present ownership of them controls. That's where the licensing agreements come into play.

[Jim Murphy]

Hi BobB,

Let's just say you want to create one of Monet's "Water Lilies" in glass. You haven't indicated how you would "recreate" or "reproduce" it and it would probably be wise - legally - NOT to publish an explanation of your method if it involves some sort of "scanning" or similar method of reproducing a Monet image.

If you are "painting" a "Water Lilies" using freehand placement of frit-on-glass for example, is not your "Water Lilies" simply BobB's "Water Lilies" ?

Legally, it's ALL about the method. Think about it.

Jim

[Brock]

Hey, I'm feeling artistic, can someone tell me where to get a pattern book, and maybe give me some help with the glass selection. Brock

[Dani]

Many impressionist works are not in the public domain, Monet being a prime example. Their age is not a factor; the present ownership of them controls. That's where the licensing agreements come into play.

I would be inclined to find out who thinks they own the licensing rights.... and how they believe they acquired them. What was the legal vehicle since copyright laws have a very clear and specific time limit.

[Brock]

Many impressionist works are not in the public domain, Monet being a prime example. Their age is not a factor; the present ownership of them controls. That's where the licensing agreements come into play.

I would be inclined to find out who thinks they own the licensing rights.... and how they believe they acquired them. What was the legal vehicle since copyright laws have a very clear and specific time limit.

Well do let us all know. Brock

[Cynthia]

Kitty, thanks for the licensing info, but particularly for bringing up the idea of intent.

Your Warhol example brought up another thought on my part that relates a bit to what Dani posted. I painted a self portrait, ala Warhol's Monroe, or Jackie. This was a student project and the assignment was to paint (copy) a Manet, or Dali, or whoever (Much like Manet's Olympia...which is a knock off of another historical painting by Courbet), but make it your own. The intent being to get you to paint like someone else and get yourself out of your box and to learn to paint. Learn the convention, then you can get your hands dirty making your own statements, perhaps breaking from those conventions. Copy the painting of...an exercise in learning. I learned a lot about the skills of painting as well as more about the history of art that I never would have experienced if I hadn't tried to paint like Seurat, Pissarro, Morisot... It's a traditional way to learn.

Like Dani, I wholeheartedly approve of learning your skills by copying...the intent is what is at issue. As Dani pointed out, the European tradition was that students sat in the salon and copied the paintings of the Masters stroke for stroke. Often they moved on as apprentices to paint in the skies for the Masters, or the entire painting was done by the apprentice, and Van Dyck signed it since it was produced in his studio and the apprentice painted the scene he was told to paint in the style of Van Dyck. By reproducing others style or even straight copying, we learn a lot about how to do what we do and eventually we find our own voice. Again, intent is the key word and I am so glad Kitty pointed that out.

... I also unpopularly believe that copying excellent work is a great way to learn and improve one's skills. Many artists throughout history, in fact, did derivative work. It seems to me to be a peculiarly Contemporary if not American philosophy to wish to be completely different and original from anything ever done in the arts (a pursuit doomed to frustration in my belief.)

[Kitty]

dani, yes to time limits. i don't know how the licensing works for Monet's images, or for Mickey Mouse or Peanuts. i just happen to be aware of the licensing for reproduction of various works of art used in merchandise. one of my business acquaintances produces those umbrellas with degas and monet motifs, and they pay licensing fees. i guess with the first run on the copyright and the subsequent renewal, it must be several decades now, maybe 27 or so, times 2? i really have no idea how a museum gets the rights on a painting that is 125 years old and has had many owners, and a few thefts, in its lifetime. i guess some items are in the public domain and some aren't. one day i'll ask my trademark attorney about it and i'll report what he says.

the income from licensing fees is substantial, and has lot to do with museums keeping in the black. a few years ago the MFA in Boston got a new director, and he did a lot of things to bring more cash into the museum, including licensing the use of artworks owned by the museum.

i'm no expert, just happen to have a little nickle knowledge, and have read a few blurbs. in the related subject of trademarks, i know a little more because i have a couple of brands, and have gone to the trouble of registering them with the US Patent & Trademark Office, an experience that is certainly the "ne plus ultra" of microscopic examination and challenges. LOL. your tax dollars at work.

[Kitty]

duplicate.

[Don Burt]

Hey, I'm feeling artistic, can someone tell me where to get a pattern book, and maybe give me some help with the glass selection. Brock

Which pattern themes are you looking for? There are hundreds of different pattern books available. We can't help you if you aren't specific. Large Dog Breeds? Sporting Dogs? Toy Dog's? Dogs playing cards and smoking? Ladies with large hats and blank oval faces walking dogs on a leash?

[Ron Coleman]

I've seen many posts on plagiarism and copying ideas of others and wanted to get some input on an idea.

I love the works of the great French impressionist like Monet, Degas, Manet and others. They were painters and produced some of the most beautiful works. If you took one of thier paintings and recreated it completely in glass and no other mediums would that be considered plagiarism? Obviously you couldn't claim it as your own idea and wouldn't want to, but as a reproduction in an entirely different medium. Would you still have to have thier permission to reproduce the piece and pay royalties?

I'd love to hear everyone input.

Thanks,
BobB

Some interesting reading.

http://www.screenweb.com/garment/cont/licensing.html

Ron

[Brock]

Hey, I'm feeling artistic, can someone tell me where to get a pattern book, and maybe give me some help with the glass selection. Brock

Which pattern themes are you looking for? There are hundreds of different pattern books available. We can't help you if you aren't specific. Large Dog Breeds? Sporting Dogs? Toy Dog's? Dogs playing cards and smoking? Ladies with large hats and blank oval faces walking dogs on a leash?

Well, I really hadn't gotten as far as a motif or theme, just something that I could create that I could call my own. From a pattern. Yeah, maybe the large hat lady walking a dog, a little dog. a little black dog walking so fast his legs are a blur. Do you think I could do them in frit? How would you portray the rain on the cobblestones? How much should I charge for it? Thanks for your help. Gosh, this is fun. Brock

[Paul Tarlow]

To further complicate things different countries have very different laws when it comes to intellectual property.

For example, in the U.S. the image of Rodin's Thinker is in the public domain. In France you can get yourself in a mountain of trouble reproducing it for commercial reasons without getting permission.

- Paul

[Dani]

Good point, Paul. And there's the added complication of copyright becoming part of a family estate and renewal rights, etc. It's terribly complicated. Guess it's best to stick with pre-Eighteenth century works to be safe. Not to mention challenged. One could spend a lifetime trying to become as good as Rubens. A good many artists in Europe still do... many are trained copyists who actually have jobs in museums. Unheard of in America. There are actually arts centers and museums that don't have artists in residence. Mine doesn't.

[Kitty]

i saw The Thinker when i was about 10, and remember there was a big to-do about no cameras being allowed, strictly forbidden & enforced. i believe it was in a courtyard of a museum in those days, so it wasn't about flash bulbs affecting other artwork. it was about no pictures being reproduced.

from the vantage point of 2003, that protectionism seems quaint, with the world as it is.

[David Williams]

Well, I really hadn't gotten as far as a motif or theme, just something that I could create that I could call my own. From a pattern. Yeah, maybe the large hat lady walking a dog, a little dog. a little black dog walking so fast his legs are a blur. Do you think I could do them in frit? How would you portray the rain on the cobblestones? How much should I charge for it? Thanks for your help. Gosh, this is fun. Brock[/quote]

You could call it "Pet Peeve"

[David Williams]

i saw The Thinker when i was about 10, and remember there was a big to-do about no cameras being allowed, strictly forbidden & enforced. i believe it was in a courtyard of a museum in those days, so it wasn't about flash bulbs affecting other artwork. it was about no pictures being reproduced.

from the vantage point of 2003, that protectionism seems quaint, with the world as it is.

We tell people to please not photograph our work. I think its wise to do what you can to protect your intelectual property *before* it gets ripped off. Afterwards its very expensive and the damage has been done already.