Having run into a number of issues surrounding copyright and my work, I took some advice from an online legal group - going to a 'proper' solicitor would've cost over £100 which I didn't have. What follows is direct copies of the email Q&A.
I thought it might be interesting for others to see what came out of it - and possibly generate more discussion
Conversation
I am an artist reproducing well known artworks - including Banksy & Lichtenstein in cross stitch. I am aware of a whole history of appropriation in art and have read a bit about copyright/intellectual property rights. Where do I stand legally if I were to exhibit/sell any of these pieces
images of work done can be seen here
http://stitchedupbyleona.blogspot.com/
also, do I have incur any right to copyright in the making of these cross stitch works?
Optional Information:
Province/Country relating to question : England
Already Tried:
read up on different internet sites re copyright
Can I presume you have not asked permission from the original artists please?
Have no permissions from original artists.
Banksy's agent said that he doesn't grant commercial licences to anyone
DACS deals with Lichtenstein
Want to know does appropriation in art have any standing in law
If you plan to just use an artwork as a starting point for your work, and your final piece will not resemble the original artwork too closely, there should not be a copyright issue. The test that your piece will be subject to, to ensure that you are not breaching copyright, is to present the original image and your new creation side by side and have an individual who is not trained in the arts determine whether there is an obvious visual connection between the two. If they determine that there is a connection, it is likely that there will be a breach of copyright.
UK copyright law states that as long as a new piece is not substantially derived from someone else's earlier copyrighted work, elements of a copyrighted image can be used for example in a collage. However each case will be looked at in its own circumstances as determining whether a ‘substantial part’ of a copyrighted image has been used can be very subjective.
If you plan to essentially stitch what you see as I suspect you suggest, you will need the permission of the original work's copyright owner to do as you suggest otherwise you could be liable to the original artists for damages. .
the cross stitch pieces are a direct representation of the original works - the appropriation is into a different format - i have been clear about where the work originally comes from - not tried to pass it off as my own
I understand what the laws say about infringement through copying/changing etc - what I am unclear on and would like advice about is appropriation in art - & how/when that appropriation creates a new piece and where that piece stands legally
Appropriation refers to the use of prior works. It is permissible to use elements of prior works providing your new work is not largely a copy of the original. I refer the above test which the courts try to use to test whether the new work is a genuine new work or substantially a copy - namely " to present the original image and your new creation side by side and have an individual who is not trained in the arts determine whether there is an obvious visual connection between the two".
From what you say you are going to be caught by legislation on this as it would be clear to any third party that your work is a copy of the original.
OK - think that is definitely the case re Banksy/Lichtenstein plus a couple of others.
did you look at the blog?
Marcel Duchamp's Fountain - originally exhibited/published in 1917 - he died in 1968. Original piece was sculpture - photo found on-line, can't find photographer details
What would the copyright position be here?
You are very talented.
Copyright would subsist for 70 years from the end of the year the original work was produced. If the photo was a verbatim photo of the original then copyright would have expired as it would subsist from the original production date.
Assuming the photo contained some novel material or some form of artistic creativity itself then copyright would still arise afresh in the photo.
Thanks!
There are quite a few I would really like to do - including Rosie the Riveter http://www.nps.gov/pwro/collection/website/home.htm
I'm guessing I would have to research each one on individual basis before using it - particularly commercially
What about o/seas - US, France etc - is there any compatibility in laws? If i do a USA piece in the UK which countries copyright law applies?
Why were people like Richard Prince & Sherrie Levine able to get away with the work they did? What am I doing differently to them?
Basically you need to either get permission from the artists or find works that are 70 years old or more. In the case of the urinal, you would need to show that you copied from a work ideally that is 70 years old or more - i.e. a photo older than 70 years to be safe which it seems to me should be possible?
What copyright do I have from cross stitching from an image more than 70 years old?
Would permissions from original artists state what if any copyright I have from reproducing their work in this format
What protections should I put on my blog images?
Am I allowed to display those images on my blog/facebook/flickr or publicly exhibit freely if they weren't for commercial purposes - just examples of work i like to do?
What if someone copies from my blog if/whilst I don't have permissions
Assuming your cross stitching reproduction contains some novel material or some form of artistic creativity itself which you can demonstrate then copyright would arise for 70 years for your work.
Copyright arises automatically but you can include a copyright symbol and the year copyright arises as above if you wish.
Even if you wish to display for free you still need a licence from the copyright owner. Often if you will not make any money the copyright owner will grant a licence for free though they do not have to.
Further copying from your blog would be a separate basis for action by the copy right holder against the new copier.
Does the act of cross stitching itself demonstrate/prove novel material/artistic creativity?
So I would not be liable if someone copied from my blog?
I have noticed that Banksy seems to be take what he likes & use it in his images eg tesco/pulp fiction etc but then stop others from using his stuff commercially - doesn't add up
I have also heard you can't copyright street art - but a work can be the intellectual property of ...(artist) - is that so?
No it needs to be significantly different to the original work in its own right - not just the materials used to create it. It will only be subject to copyright in it's own right, if you can show that you created i different to the original.
You would not be liable for further copies from your blog
Ref Banksy he would need to demonstrate hat he has used the elements you refer to in some form of creative way - i.e he hasn't jut reproduced the TESCO logo verbatim on a canvas etc.
