[danprince]

If an artist died 140 years ago, but images of his work went mostly unpublished till the 1960's and later, and *those images* are copyrighted, does vectorizing, extensively cleaning up, removing design elements etc. leave me with something legally saleable on screenprinted garments? Does their copyright only cover the original image, pixel for pixel? Shepard Fairy/HOPE case? That photographer was still living, does that make a difference? Am swimming in grey area.

 

[kimura-mma]

If the images were published in the 60's, they are likely still copyrighted today. No amount of editing the image will make it legal for you to sell without permission. As long as the image is recognizable, the copyright owner (or their estate) has the right to take action. That is why Shepard Fairey lost, it was obvious what image he used as his source. You would need to make the image completely unrecognizable to get away with it. Even then, you are swimming in a gray area that could lead to legal issues.

Perhaps you can find similar public domain images. Or find out about licensing the images you want to use.

 

[danprince]

"Similar public domain images" is a hazy area. I stumbled across this artist's work in a reputable, relatively well sourced venue for public domain images. Could that, in itself, constitute due diligence?

 

[Fuzzyfreak]

It's a 20 year copyright from the date of first publication as recorded in the library of congress, the copyright , if not renewed after that becomes public domain and that is the law. Re-newel is the hardest thing to understand, the author and said artist cannot renew said copyright for his or her works, it has to be a relative born to said artist. You need a lawyer in you area to make sure of this. Extensions are granted for another 20 years to the original author on a petition basis and that's why you need to ask a lawyer for the rite to reproduce the artwork without paying royalties per reproduction you think is public domain you are thinking of reproducing.It is very costly to be wrong,printing other artist's works, especially when you get caught doing it!

 

[danprince]

I know that copyright covers "reproduction" of the image, so I can, for instance, not post the image on my for-profit website without attribution. I think I am creating an adaptation of an artwork that is itself in the public domain. My adaptation is dissimilar enough in construction and context(t-shirt) from the original work(book/jpeg) that I'm hopefully no longer stealing, as neither they, nor anybody, owns the content of the original works. The man's grandchildren are cold in the ground from old age. It is the photograph of the artwork which is copyrighted.

 

[Fuzzyfreak]

Well, since it is put that way, should have said that from the start. Print away and reproduce the archival pictures that are no longer held in personal domain and are truly free to public domain

 

[elcielo]

I think I am creating an adaptation of an artwork that is itself in the public domain. My adaptation is dissimilar enough in construction and context(t-shirt) from the original work(book/jpeg) that I'm hopefully no longer stealing, as neither they, nor anybody, owns the content of the original works.

You might want to be a bit more certain than that.