| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/09/2010 12:16:37 PM · #1 |
Hi guys,
I'm doing a case study in my MA course, and it's related to music business. It's an imaginary situation where a girl makes a music album and you have to sort out all the copyright deals in order to solve the case. I sorted out all the music related issues, however, the music album author hired an artis to make a CD sleeve for her. She wants the artist to do a pastiche of a Lowry painting for the cover of the album showing the new bridge across the Tyne, The Baltic Art gallery and the new concert hall. L.S. Lowry died in 1976.
Any suggestions on how to approach the copyright on this particular matter?
Can the work of a pastiche author be considered an artwork?
Who is in hold of the copyright for Lowry's painting?
Is it possible to get a permission to publish this pastiche? Also, is it a legal action (I mean, reworking somebody's work over, even if it's a pastiche).
If anyone can recommend a good UK copyright based book on this subject, it'd be much appreciated.
Cheers
Message edited by author 2010-01-09 12:22:32. |
|
|
|
01/09/2010 12:21:19 PM · #2 |
| To me there's a few copyright issues to explore, architectural (bridge, art gallery and concert hall), original artwork, new artwork to be created. Can't help you much on where to look for info though. |
|
|
|
01/09/2010 02:51:13 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
01/09/2010 07:36:09 PM · #4 |
Here are a few thoughts.
Entitlement to the copyright is part of Lowry's estate inherited as an asset by his beneficiaries.
If the pastiche is a direct copy of Lowry's work (with the modern twist) then there is a strong likelihood that it would be an infringing copy. The producer should try to licence the work for this purpose from Lowry's estate. Otherwise, given the commercial use of the image, the producer will be potentially liable for the profit made from the infringing use of the image.
Alternatively, the need for a licence could be avoided by asking the artist to paint something similar, and in the style of (but not a direct copy of) one of Lowry's works. This would not infringe Lowry's copyright.
The copyright in architecture does not apply when reproduced in two dimensions - a photo or a painting. However, the artist should not copy from or use someone else's photo of the architecture without a licence to use that photo - he should either take his own photos or paint them on location.
The artists pastiche itself attracts copyright - the record producer should make sure in his contract with the artist that the image belongs to the record producer, or at least that the artist grants a licence for the record producer to use the image as intended.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2010 09:04:06 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Entitlement to the copyright is part of Lowry's estate inherited as an asset by his beneficiaries. |
If the painting has been sold wouldn't the copyright be held by the current owner? |
|
|
|
01/09/2010 09:27:23 PM · #6 |
Thank you  Matthew, very comprehensive and helpful view on the case. Much appreciated. |
|
|
|
01/09/2010 11:10:55 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Entitlement to the copyright is part of Lowry's estate inherited as an asset by his beneficiaries. |
If the painting has been sold wouldn't the copyright be held by the current owner? |
The painting yes, the copyright, no. If someone buys one of your photos do they then own the copyright? Unless of course paintings are dealt with differently. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/24/2025 04:18:38 PM EDT.
