Steph's example is absolutely correct in this country as well. But here, it is possible to buy the original AND to purchase the residuals as well. As an example, a young artist in Virginia painted a picture of a scene depicting an historic event. A doctor in the town bought the painting AND the residuals. The artist continued to paint, and became quite successful, with *prints* of his paintings (signed and numbered, but NOT the originals!) fetching handsome sums. The doctor continues to own the right to print the artist's first painting, and continues to make money on this every year... though not a fortune, by any stretch of the imagination. But collectors love having that "first"...
Established writers, painters, lace designers, etc., etc., are more savy and know better than to sign away their rights. Caveat to the uninitiated... Clay ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steph Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 7:59 PM Subject: Re: [lace] pattern copyright and adaptations > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:55:06 -0700, Weronika wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:29:12PM -0700, Adele Shaak wrote: > >> Your bookmark sounds like an adaptation to me. > > > >Which means: I can put a picture on my website, but not the pricking, and I > >should name the source - correct? > > Not in my opinion. Many people do this, but I believe it is a breach of > copyright. A completed piece of lace is a 'derivative work' from the > pricking, and is subject to just the same copyright limitations as a > straight copy of the pricking. So you should ask the copyright holder for > permission to display the picture of the finished lace. I've asked quite a > lot of designers for permission for pieces on my website, and so far no-one > has said no. Most look on it as good publicity I think. > > To help understand why this is so, consider a similar situation. I bought > an oil painting by E B Watts of a teapot shaped like a cauliflower in a > field of carrots. The painting I bought is the one and only oil original. > However, I didn't buy the copyright to the image, only the physical painting > itself. So E B Watts can (and I believe has) sell prints of the painting I > own. She can produce Christmas cards with that image on, I can't. The > image still belongs to her, unless she chooses to sell it. This is > important because obviously it enables her to continue to earn money from > her idea. > > -- > I love children, especially when they cry, for then someone takes them away. > Nancy Mitford > Steph Peters, Manchester, England > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Scanned by WinProxy > http://www.Ositis.com/ > > - > To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: > unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
