I read an article yesterday that fascinated and alarmed me. You should read it. It's from The Boston Globe and the title is, "You can buy a painting, but it’s not really yours."
In essentials, some artists retain rights to their work after the sale including — but not limited to — banning the resale of their work (and often insisting that the buyer donate the work to a museum later in life), determining how or if a work of art can be cleaned, receiving a 15% commission if the work is re-sold, and so on.
On the one hand, I get it. On the other hand, wtf?
I'm trying to sort out my feelings and so I've made a list of facts and thoughts to assist the process.
- Artists retain the copyright to their work even after it's sold. (This is a good article that is very easy to read and understand.) This means that the artist can sell prints and even license the artwork for sheets, coffee cups, notebooks, etc. The buyer of the artwork cannot. They are buying the physical object. This is something I agree with.
- The Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) of 1990 grants "moral rights" to artists. From Wikipedia: "Under VARA, works of art that meet certain requirements afford their authors additional rights in the works, regardless of any subsequent physical ownership of the work itself, or regardless of who holds the copyright to the work. For instance, a painter may insist on proper attribution of his painting, and in some instances may sue the owner of the physical painting for destroying the painting even if the owner of the painting lawfully owned it….
VARA exclusively grants authors of works that fall under the protection of the Act the following rights
- right to claim authorship
- right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
- right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
- right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation
Additionally, authors of works of "recognized stature" may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work."
- I understand that early in an artist's career he/she might sell a painting for a few hundred dollars and then later that painting is worth thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. I totally understand why this may feel unfair to the artist. But, I do think that the buyer paid the artist what they asked for at the time and should have the right to sell the work. The commission idea seems like a kind of compromise — both buyer and artist make a profit together.
- I wonder all the time if my hard work will just end up in a landfill. I suppose the insistence on work being donated to a museum ensures that this isn't true. But the truth is, most museums have more stuff not on display than stuff on display. Do I really want my work to sit in a basement warehouse for its lifetime? Is that a better fate than in the home of someone who likes it?
- Mostly, I wonder why anyone would buy a piece of art under these insane circumstances? It's not an investment. It's not even something you can pass down to your children. I guess it's just something to enjoy in the moment?
- Obviously, the most extreme of these restrictions only apply to super famous artists who are selling work for millions of dollars. But that's also a question. Why? When I sell a painting for $1000, it means as much to me as a million dollar painting does to someone higher up the food chain.
I don't know. Maybe I've just confused myself more. What do you think?
Thanks for stopping by!
I think that once an item is sold, it belongs wholly to the purchaser. The creator should have no claim to it. What if the artist becomes famous after he dies. Does his child have the right to claim part of a future sale? What of descendants of Van Gogh or Picasso? Do they have the right to claim a part of a sale? Common sense says “No” , but I never did understand the law very well. When you sell anything, you give up ownership.
This law is ridiculous and seems to me to be cumbersome and unenforceable,
I think that once an item is sold, it belongs wholly to the purchaser. The creator should have no claim to it. What if the artist becomes famous after he dies. Does his child have the right to claim part of a future sale? What of descendants of Van Gogh or Picasso? Do they have the right to claim a part of a sale? Common sense says “No” , but I never did understand the law very well. When you sell anything, you give up ownership.
This law is ridiculous and seems to me to be cumbersome and unenforceable,
I think that once an item is sold, it belongs wholly to the purchaser. The creator should have no claim to it. What if the artist becomes famous after he dies. Does his child have the right to claim part of a future sale? What of descendants of Van Gogh or Picasso? Do they have the right to claim a part of a sale? Common sense says “No” , but I never did understand the law very well. When you sell anything, you give up ownership.
This law is ridiculous and seems to me to be cumbersome and unenforceable,
I think that once an item is sold, it belongs wholly to the purchaser. The creator should have no claim to it. What if the artist becomes famous after he dies. Does his child have the right to claim part of a future sale? What of descendants of Van Gogh or Picasso? Do they have the right to claim a part of a sale? Common sense says “No” , but I never did understand the law very well. When you sell anything, you give up ownership.
This law is ridiculous and seems to me to be cumbersome and unenforceable,
I think that once an item is sold, it belongs wholly to the purchaser. The creator should have no claim to it. What if the artist becomes famous after he dies. Does his child have the right to claim part of a future sale? What of descendants of Van Gogh or Picasso? Do they have the right to claim a part of a sale? Common sense says “No” , but I never did understand the law very well. When you sell anything, you give up ownership.
This law is ridiculous and seems to me to be cumbersome and unenforceable,
I think that once an item is sold, it belongs wholly to the purchaser. The creator should have no claim to it. What if the artist becomes famous after he dies. Does his child have the right to claim part of a future sale? What of descendants of Van Gogh or Picasso? Do they have the right to claim a part of a sale? Common sense says “No” , but I never did understand the law very well. When you sell anything, you give up ownership.
This law is ridiculous and seems to me to be cumbersome and unenforceable,
I think that once an item is sold, it belongs wholly to the purchaser. The creator should have no claim to it. What if the artist becomes famous after he dies. Does his child have the right to claim part of a future sale? What of descendants of Van Gogh or Picasso? Do they have the right to claim a part of a sale? Common sense says “No” , but I never did understand the law very well. When you sell anything, you give up ownership.
This law is ridiculous and seems to me to be cumbersome and unenforceable,
I agree with Dale Rose. But also, these laws would be difficult to enforce. If I sold a piece of art for $200 and later that person sold it to someone else for $5000 I wouldn’t even be aware that this occurred so how could I claim 15%? If I insisted the piece of art be donated to a museum, how would I know when and if the piece wasn’t chunked in the garbage by the grandson of the person who bought it after the death the person. The grandson (or other person) wouldn’t even know there was such a requirement. I can see how in really “important” pieces of artwork there would be knowledge of what happens to the artwork but otherwise I don’t see how anyone could know what happens to that piece once it has left the artist.
I agree with Dale Rose. But also, these laws would be difficult to enforce. If I sold a piece of art for $200 and later that person sold it to someone else for $5000 I wouldn’t even be aware that this occurred so how could I claim 15%? If I insisted the piece of art be donated to a museum, how would I know when and if the piece wasn’t chunked in the garbage by the grandson of the person who bought it after the death the person. The grandson (or other person) wouldn’t even know there was such a requirement. I can see how in really “important” pieces of artwork there would be knowledge of what happens to the artwork but otherwise I don’t see how anyone could know what happens to that piece once it has left the artist.
I agree with Dale Rose. But also, these laws would be difficult to enforce. If I sold a piece of art for $200 and later that person sold it to someone else for $5000 I wouldn’t even be aware that this occurred so how could I claim 15%? If I insisted the piece of art be donated to a museum, how would I know when and if the piece wasn’t chunked in the garbage by the grandson of the person who bought it after the death the person. The grandson (or other person) wouldn’t even know there was such a requirement. I can see how in really “important” pieces of artwork there would be knowledge of what happens to the artwork but otherwise I don’t see how anyone could know what happens to that piece once it has left the artist.
I agree with Dale Rose. But also, these laws would be difficult to enforce. If I sold a piece of art for $200 and later that person sold it to someone else for $5000 I wouldn’t even be aware that this occurred so how could I claim 15%? If I insisted the piece of art be donated to a museum, how would I know when and if the piece wasn’t chunked in the garbage by the grandson of the person who bought it after the death the person. The grandson (or other person) wouldn’t even know there was such a requirement. I can see how in really “important” pieces of artwork there would be knowledge of what happens to the artwork but otherwise I don’t see how anyone could know what happens to that piece once it has left the artist.
I agree with Dale Rose. But also, these laws would be difficult to enforce. If I sold a piece of art for $200 and later that person sold it to someone else for $5000 I wouldn’t even be aware that this occurred so how could I claim 15%? If I insisted the piece of art be donated to a museum, how would I know when and if the piece wasn’t chunked in the garbage by the grandson of the person who bought it after the death the person. The grandson (or other person) wouldn’t even know there was such a requirement. I can see how in really “important” pieces of artwork there would be knowledge of what happens to the artwork but otherwise I don’t see how anyone could know what happens to that piece once it has left the artist.
I agree with Dale Rose. But also, these laws would be difficult to enforce. If I sold a piece of art for $200 and later that person sold it to someone else for $5000 I wouldn’t even be aware that this occurred so how could I claim 15%? If I insisted the piece of art be donated to a museum, how would I know when and if the piece wasn’t chunked in the garbage by the grandson of the person who bought it after the death the person. The grandson (or other person) wouldn’t even know there was such a requirement. I can see how in really “important” pieces of artwork there would be knowledge of what happens to the artwork but otherwise I don’t see how anyone could know what happens to that piece once it has left the artist.
I agree with Dale Rose. But also, these laws would be difficult to enforce. If I sold a piece of art for $200 and later that person sold it to someone else for $5000 I wouldn’t even be aware that this occurred so how could I claim 15%? If I insisted the piece of art be donated to a museum, how would I know when and if the piece wasn’t chunked in the garbage by the grandson of the person who bought it after the death the person. The grandson (or other person) wouldn’t even know there was such a requirement. I can see how in really “important” pieces of artwork there would be knowledge of what happens to the artwork but otherwise I don’t see how anyone could know what happens to that piece once it has left the artist.
IDK, I’m mildly mind blown by this concept. But your comment about having your artwork end up in a landfill hit home. I recently bought a piece of art at a church sale. Did an internet search on the artist and found out he’s passed on but was a local artist, teacher, and the first president of the local art guild. Now his art graces my wall and not the landfill.
IDK, I’m mildly mind blown by this concept. But your comment about having your artwork end up in a landfill hit home. I recently bought a piece of art at a church sale. Did an internet search on the artist and found out he’s passed on but was a local artist, teacher, and the first president of the local art guild. Now his art graces my wall and not the landfill.
IDK, I’m mildly mind blown by this concept. But your comment about having your artwork end up in a landfill hit home. I recently bought a piece of art at a church sale. Did an internet search on the artist and found out he’s passed on but was a local artist, teacher, and the first president of the local art guild. Now his art graces my wall and not the landfill.
IDK, I’m mildly mind blown by this concept. But your comment about having your artwork end up in a landfill hit home. I recently bought a piece of art at a church sale. Did an internet search on the artist and found out he’s passed on but was a local artist, teacher, and the first president of the local art guild. Now his art graces my wall and not the landfill.
IDK, I’m mildly mind blown by this concept. But your comment about having your artwork end up in a landfill hit home. I recently bought a piece of art at a church sale. Did an internet search on the artist and found out he’s passed on but was a local artist, teacher, and the first president of the local art guild. Now his art graces my wall and not the landfill.
IDK, I’m mildly mind blown by this concept. But your comment about having your artwork end up in a landfill hit home. I recently bought a piece of art at a church sale. Did an internet search on the artist and found out he’s passed on but was a local artist, teacher, and the first president of the local art guild. Now his art graces my wall and not the landfill.
IDK, I’m mildly mind blown by this concept. But your comment about having your artwork end up in a landfill hit home. I recently bought a piece of art at a church sale. Did an internet search on the artist and found out he’s passed on but was a local artist, teacher, and the first president of the local art guild. Now his art graces my wall and not the landfill.
I think you are right on, Julie! The art that kinda makes me upset is the bit about having to give it to a museum when you pass. Sometimes the museum will reject the offer–what then?
I think you are right on, Julie! The art that kinda makes me upset is the bit about having to give it to a museum when you pass. Sometimes the museum will reject the offer–what then?
I think you are right on, Julie! The art that kinda makes me upset is the bit about having to give it to a museum when you pass. Sometimes the museum will reject the offer–what then?
I think you are right on, Julie! The art that kinda makes me upset is the bit about having to give it to a museum when you pass. Sometimes the museum will reject the offer–what then?
I think you are right on, Julie! The art that kinda makes me upset is the bit about having to give it to a museum when you pass. Sometimes the museum will reject the offer–what then?
I think you are right on, Julie! The art that kinda makes me upset is the bit about having to give it to a museum when you pass. Sometimes the museum will reject the offer–what then?
I think you are right on, Julie! The art that kinda makes me upset is the bit about having to give it to a museum when you pass. Sometimes the museum will reject the offer–what then?
The whole idea raises some interesting questions. If I were to purchase a piece of art and the artist wanted to retain ‘rights’, I would not buy it. It becomes an issue between the buyer and the artist. Now I will pay more attention to what I buy. Yikes.
The whole idea raises some interesting questions. If I were to purchase a piece of art and the artist wanted to retain ‘rights’, I would not buy it. It becomes an issue between the buyer and the artist. Now I will pay more attention to what I buy. Yikes.
The whole idea raises some interesting questions. If I were to purchase a piece of art and the artist wanted to retain ‘rights’, I would not buy it. It becomes an issue between the buyer and the artist. Now I will pay more attention to what I buy. Yikes.
The whole idea raises some interesting questions. If I were to purchase a piece of art and the artist wanted to retain ‘rights’, I would not buy it. It becomes an issue between the buyer and the artist. Now I will pay more attention to what I buy. Yikes.
The whole idea raises some interesting questions. If I were to purchase a piece of art and the artist wanted to retain ‘rights’, I would not buy it. It becomes an issue between the buyer and the artist. Now I will pay more attention to what I buy. Yikes.
The whole idea raises some interesting questions. If I were to purchase a piece of art and the artist wanted to retain ‘rights’, I would not buy it. It becomes an issue between the buyer and the artist. Now I will pay more attention to what I buy. Yikes.
The whole idea raises some interesting questions. If I were to purchase a piece of art and the artist wanted to retain ‘rights’, I would not buy it. It becomes an issue between the buyer and the artist. Now I will pay more attention to what I buy. Yikes.
“Some artists retain rights to their work” but not all artists? So who is making more money… I mean artists sell their work to make money… otherwise why sell it at all? So I wonder how this “retaining rights to their work” is helping (or not helping) their sales. “Shooting the hand that feeds you” comes to mind. It does remind me of musicians and their lyrics… I mean you basically have to rent their songs, you cannot play them for a commercial/public event without paying a fee (true also in churches btw). So is this an attempt for equality? (The Copyright law also comes to mind). Or is my example apples and oranges? I suspect once an artist dies, unless there is a foundation under their name, all bets are off. There would be no one to keep track and thus no one to sue the offender.
“Some artists retain rights to their work” but not all artists? So who is making more money… I mean artists sell their work to make money… otherwise why sell it at all? So I wonder how this “retaining rights to their work” is helping (or not helping) their sales. “Shooting the hand that feeds you” comes to mind. It does remind me of musicians and their lyrics… I mean you basically have to rent their songs, you cannot play them for a commercial/public event without paying a fee (true also in churches btw). So is this an attempt for equality? (The Copyright law also comes to mind). Or is my example apples and oranges? I suspect once an artist dies, unless there is a foundation under their name, all bets are off. There would be no one to keep track and thus no one to sue the offender.
“Some artists retain rights to their work” but not all artists? So who is making more money… I mean artists sell their work to make money… otherwise why sell it at all? So I wonder how this “retaining rights to their work” is helping (or not helping) their sales. “Shooting the hand that feeds you” comes to mind. It does remind me of musicians and their lyrics… I mean you basically have to rent their songs, you cannot play them for a commercial/public event without paying a fee (true also in churches btw). So is this an attempt for equality? (The Copyright law also comes to mind). Or is my example apples and oranges? I suspect once an artist dies, unless there is a foundation under their name, all bets are off. There would be no one to keep track and thus no one to sue the offender.
“Some artists retain rights to their work” but not all artists? So who is making more money… I mean artists sell their work to make money… otherwise why sell it at all? So I wonder how this “retaining rights to their work” is helping (or not helping) their sales. “Shooting the hand that feeds you” comes to mind. It does remind me of musicians and their lyrics… I mean you basically have to rent their songs, you cannot play them for a commercial/public event without paying a fee (true also in churches btw). So is this an attempt for equality? (The Copyright law also comes to mind). Or is my example apples and oranges? I suspect once an artist dies, unless there is a foundation under their name, all bets are off. There would be no one to keep track and thus no one to sue the offender.
“Some artists retain rights to their work” but not all artists? So who is making more money… I mean artists sell their work to make money… otherwise why sell it at all? So I wonder how this “retaining rights to their work” is helping (or not helping) their sales. “Shooting the hand that feeds you” comes to mind. It does remind me of musicians and their lyrics… I mean you basically have to rent their songs, you cannot play them for a commercial/public event without paying a fee (true also in churches btw). So is this an attempt for equality? (The Copyright law also comes to mind). Or is my example apples and oranges? I suspect once an artist dies, unless there is a foundation under their name, all bets are off. There would be no one to keep track and thus no one to sue the offender.
“Some artists retain rights to their work” but not all artists? So who is making more money… I mean artists sell their work to make money… otherwise why sell it at all? So I wonder how this “retaining rights to their work” is helping (or not helping) their sales. “Shooting the hand that feeds you” comes to mind. It does remind me of musicians and their lyrics… I mean you basically have to rent their songs, you cannot play them for a commercial/public event without paying a fee (true also in churches btw). So is this an attempt for equality? (The Copyright law also comes to mind). Or is my example apples and oranges? I suspect once an artist dies, unless there is a foundation under their name, all bets are off. There would be no one to keep track and thus no one to sue the offender.
“Some artists retain rights to their work” but not all artists? So who is making more money… I mean artists sell their work to make money… otherwise why sell it at all? So I wonder how this “retaining rights to their work” is helping (or not helping) their sales. “Shooting the hand that feeds you” comes to mind. It does remind me of musicians and their lyrics… I mean you basically have to rent their songs, you cannot play them for a commercial/public event without paying a fee (true also in churches btw). So is this an attempt for equality? (The Copyright law also comes to mind). Or is my example apples and oranges? I suspect once an artist dies, unless there is a foundation under their name, all bets are off. There would be no one to keep track and thus no one to sue the offender.
This is another interesting and very detailed article on the topic:
https://alj.artrepreneur.com/visual-art-ownership/
I am a weaver and quilter — in the past those were considered utilitarian objects that couldn’t be covered by copyright, but now as we all know, many woven and quilted objects are considered art objects. Reading these articles about the artists’ rights beyond the sale of their object made me wonder, who determines if it is art? Can only the creator decide that? Or, if I sell you an ordinary quilt for $300, but you as the buyer decide it is art, and then sell it to a collector as such, do you get to set the rules for its future?
Such a tangled web! (to use a weaving term…)
This is another interesting and very detailed article on the topic:
https://alj.artrepreneur.com/visual-art-ownership/
I am a weaver and quilter — in the past those were considered utilitarian objects that couldn’t be covered by copyright, but now as we all know, many woven and quilted objects are considered art objects. Reading these articles about the artists’ rights beyond the sale of their object made me wonder, who determines if it is art? Can only the creator decide that? Or, if I sell you an ordinary quilt for $300, but you as the buyer decide it is art, and then sell it to a collector as such, do you get to set the rules for its future?
Such a tangled web! (to use a weaving term…)
This is another interesting and very detailed article on the topic:
https://alj.artrepreneur.com/visual-art-ownership/
I am a weaver and quilter — in the past those were considered utilitarian objects that couldn’t be covered by copyright, but now as we all know, many woven and quilted objects are considered art objects. Reading these articles about the artists’ rights beyond the sale of their object made me wonder, who determines if it is art? Can only the creator decide that? Or, if I sell you an ordinary quilt for $300, but you as the buyer decide it is art, and then sell it to a collector as such, do you get to set the rules for its future?
Such a tangled web! (to use a weaving term…)
This is another interesting and very detailed article on the topic:
https://alj.artrepreneur.com/visual-art-ownership/
I am a weaver and quilter — in the past those were considered utilitarian objects that couldn’t be covered by copyright, but now as we all know, many woven and quilted objects are considered art objects. Reading these articles about the artists’ rights beyond the sale of their object made me wonder, who determines if it is art? Can only the creator decide that? Or, if I sell you an ordinary quilt for $300, but you as the buyer decide it is art, and then sell it to a collector as such, do you get to set the rules for its future?
Such a tangled web! (to use a weaving term…)
This is another interesting and very detailed article on the topic:
https://alj.artrepreneur.com/visual-art-ownership/
I am a weaver and quilter — in the past those were considered utilitarian objects that couldn’t be covered by copyright, but now as we all know, many woven and quilted objects are considered art objects. Reading these articles about the artists’ rights beyond the sale of their object made me wonder, who determines if it is art? Can only the creator decide that? Or, if I sell you an ordinary quilt for $300, but you as the buyer decide it is art, and then sell it to a collector as such, do you get to set the rules for its future?
Such a tangled web! (to use a weaving term…)
This is another interesting and very detailed article on the topic:
https://alj.artrepreneur.com/visual-art-ownership/
I am a weaver and quilter — in the past those were considered utilitarian objects that couldn’t be covered by copyright, but now as we all know, many woven and quilted objects are considered art objects. Reading these articles about the artists’ rights beyond the sale of their object made me wonder, who determines if it is art? Can only the creator decide that? Or, if I sell you an ordinary quilt for $300, but you as the buyer decide it is art, and then sell it to a collector as such, do you get to set the rules for its future?
Such a tangled web! (to use a weaving term…)
This is another interesting and very detailed article on the topic:
https://alj.artrepreneur.com/visual-art-ownership/
I am a weaver and quilter — in the past those were considered utilitarian objects that couldn’t be covered by copyright, but now as we all know, many woven and quilted objects are considered art objects. Reading these articles about the artists’ rights beyond the sale of their object made me wonder, who determines if it is art? Can only the creator decide that? Or, if I sell you an ordinary quilt for $300, but you as the buyer decide it is art, and then sell it to a collector as such, do you get to set the rules for its future?
Such a tangled web! (to use a weaving term…)
Original photos with a copyrighted photographer’s imprint cannot be legally copied. The same should go for copyrighted artwork, prints, etc. Digital piracy in this age is a real thing and big business. However, artwork with strings attached assures a reluctance to purchase art as an investment. Vintage automobiles, music rights, rare books, art, etc are often considered “investments” sometimes not displayed by the investor. Commissioned works should come with a contract in perpetuity. I was asked to produce illustrations for a children’s book. In my purchase agreement, I asked any commercial use of the images were credited to me and reproduction royalties. There are pros and cons on both sides. Ultimately the artist must decide if he/she will keep legal hooks in his/her artworks. Setting a uniform legal code for “strings attached” for all original art may be the bomb that blew up all hopes and dreams of the next great master.
Original photos with a copyrighted photographer’s imprint cannot be legally copied. The same should go for copyrighted artwork, prints, etc. Digital piracy in this age is a real thing and big business. However, artwork with strings attached assures a reluctance to purchase art as an investment. Vintage automobiles, music rights, rare books, art, etc are often considered “investments” sometimes not displayed by the investor. Commissioned works should come with a contract in perpetuity. I was asked to produce illustrations for a children’s book. In my purchase agreement, I asked any commercial use of the images were credited to me and reproduction royalties. There are pros and cons on both sides. Ultimately the artist must decide if he/she will keep legal hooks in his/her artworks. Setting a uniform legal code for “strings attached” for all original art may be the bomb that blew up all hopes and dreams of the next great master.
Original photos with a copyrighted photographer’s imprint cannot be legally copied. The same should go for copyrighted artwork, prints, etc. Digital piracy in this age is a real thing and big business. However, artwork with strings attached assures a reluctance to purchase art as an investment. Vintage automobiles, music rights, rare books, art, etc are often considered “investments” sometimes not displayed by the investor. Commissioned works should come with a contract in perpetuity. I was asked to produce illustrations for a children’s book. In my purchase agreement, I asked any commercial use of the images were credited to me and reproduction royalties. There are pros and cons on both sides. Ultimately the artist must decide if he/she will keep legal hooks in his/her artworks. Setting a uniform legal code for “strings attached” for all original art may be the bomb that blew up all hopes and dreams of the next great master.
Original photos with a copyrighted photographer’s imprint cannot be legally copied. The same should go for copyrighted artwork, prints, etc. Digital piracy in this age is a real thing and big business. However, artwork with strings attached assures a reluctance to purchase art as an investment. Vintage automobiles, music rights, rare books, art, etc are often considered “investments” sometimes not displayed by the investor. Commissioned works should come with a contract in perpetuity. I was asked to produce illustrations for a children’s book. In my purchase agreement, I asked any commercial use of the images were credited to me and reproduction royalties. There are pros and cons on both sides. Ultimately the artist must decide if he/she will keep legal hooks in his/her artworks. Setting a uniform legal code for “strings attached” for all original art may be the bomb that blew up all hopes and dreams of the next great master.
Original photos with a copyrighted photographer’s imprint cannot be legally copied. The same should go for copyrighted artwork, prints, etc. Digital piracy in this age is a real thing and big business. However, artwork with strings attached assures a reluctance to purchase art as an investment. Vintage automobiles, music rights, rare books, art, etc are often considered “investments” sometimes not displayed by the investor. Commissioned works should come with a contract in perpetuity. I was asked to produce illustrations for a children’s book. In my purchase agreement, I asked any commercial use of the images were credited to me and reproduction royalties. There are pros and cons on both sides. Ultimately the artist must decide if he/she will keep legal hooks in his/her artworks. Setting a uniform legal code for “strings attached” for all original art may be the bomb that blew up all hopes and dreams of the next great master.
Original photos with a copyrighted photographer’s imprint cannot be legally copied. The same should go for copyrighted artwork, prints, etc. Digital piracy in this age is a real thing and big business. However, artwork with strings attached assures a reluctance to purchase art as an investment. Vintage automobiles, music rights, rare books, art, etc are often considered “investments” sometimes not displayed by the investor. Commissioned works should come with a contract in perpetuity. I was asked to produce illustrations for a children’s book. In my purchase agreement, I asked any commercial use of the images were credited to me and reproduction royalties. There are pros and cons on both sides. Ultimately the artist must decide if he/she will keep legal hooks in his/her artworks. Setting a uniform legal code for “strings attached” for all original art may be the bomb that blew up all hopes and dreams of the next great master.
Original photos with a copyrighted photographer’s imprint cannot be legally copied. The same should go for copyrighted artwork, prints, etc. Digital piracy in this age is a real thing and big business. However, artwork with strings attached assures a reluctance to purchase art as an investment. Vintage automobiles, music rights, rare books, art, etc are often considered “investments” sometimes not displayed by the investor. Commissioned works should come with a contract in perpetuity. I was asked to produce illustrations for a children’s book. In my purchase agreement, I asked any commercial use of the images were credited to me and reproduction royalties. There are pros and cons on both sides. Ultimately the artist must decide if he/she will keep legal hooks in his/her artworks. Setting a uniform legal code for “strings attached” for all original art may be the bomb that blew up all hopes and dreams of the next great master.