Copyright Law & artists

Einhard

I'm having an argument with a friend about copyright law and how it applies to artistic works once they've been sold by the artist (yeah I know, what crazy lives we lead!). He thinks that the copyright and right to reproduction always lies with the purchaser, whilst I argue that the artist, and the estate for a period after his death, retain some control of the work. Does anyone know where the law stands on this? For instance, if I sold a work of my own to the national gellery in the morn, would they gain image rights for that, or would they remain with me? Any input appreciated. Links to further reading or authoritative documents doubly appreciated!

FreudianSlippers

Under the Berne Convention:

Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.

Essentially you can sell the copyright, but you always hold the moral right to the work (although you can agree not to enforce it).

The example is if someone buys your painting and wants to destroy it you can attempt to enforce your moral right to prevent them from destroying it.

Einhard

OisinT wrote: »

Under the Berne Convention:


Essentially you can sell the copyright, but you always hold the moral right to the work (although you can agree not to enforce it).

The example is if someone buys your painting and wants to destroy it you can attempt to enforce your moral right to prevent them from destroying it.

Thanks for the reply. I was thinking more along the lines of commercial copyright though. I gave an example of selling my work to a museum in the OP. Were they to produce posters and such memorabilia from that image, would I be within my rights to stop them? If not, would I be allowed to produce competing memorabilia using the same image? If the answer is no, how exactly do the estates of artists produce an income?

FreudianSlippers

Einhard wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. I was thinking more along the lines of commercial copyright though. I gave an example of selling my work to a museum in the OP. Were they to produce posters and such memorabilia from that image, would I be within my rights to stop them? If not, would I be allowed to produce competing memorabilia using the same image? If the answer is no, how exactly do the estates of artists produce an income?

Well, I just assumed since you said museum you were talking about art of some sort. Now, moral rights only exist on works of visual art AFAIK, so take that on board. There is no real answer to your question is a complicated answer.

The simple answer is that you sold the copyright to the museum, therefore they own the rights to reproduce and sell as they wish. Would you have the right to stop them is where it gets complex. Yes and no. You could certainly argue that certain types of sales are contrary to your moral rights over the work - there is caselaw internationally that has gone both ways on this argument.

Could you, though prevent them from selling posters etc. just because you want to? My view is no. Certainly there may be those who will argue that you can and talk about strengthening moral rights and how it's not really clear (and different between jurisdictions) how moral rights are viewed, but to me the answer is that you sold the copyright and it is now theirs to profit from.
Can you produce your own material is also a complex question IMO, and again the answer for me is no. You sold all of your rights (bar moral which you cannot sell) - but can you infringe on your own work? Sort of, yeah.

Sorry that I can't be more clear on that. From an academic point of view it's a dilemma. Yes, moral rights exist and are different in each jurisdiction. In Europe at least the answer is clearer but still muddy.
Artists can have something called resale rights, where they are entitled to a share of the profit made from reselling merchandise based on the original work, but that's not even recognised in all European countries AFAIK.


In short, it could certainly be argued that you still have some rights to the use and/or sale of your work (at least artistic work) - whether that is correct or incorrect is up for debate. I am of the view that you cannot prevent sales of your work and you cannot sell the work if you have sold the copyright, unless it somehow infringes your moral right.

Don't even get me started on parody