Google Answers Logo
View Question
Q: Copyright Law ( Answered 5 out of 5 stars,   5 Comments )
Subject: Copyright Law
Category: Reference, Education and News > General Reference
Asked by: linchpin-ga
List Price: $10.00
Posted: 28 Jul 2004 11:40 PDT
Expires: 27 Aug 2004 11:40 PDT
Question ID: 380382
I know that if you buy an original painting from the person who
painted it (when this is not a "work for hire" situation), that
doesn't give you the right to reproduce it.  Copyright still resides
with the artist.  What I'm looking for is a citation from U.S. or
international copyright law that bears that out and/or case(s) in
which this has been the decision (preferably something on-line I can
link to).
Subject: Re: Copyright Law
Answered By: journalist-ga on 28 Jul 2004 13:31 PDT
Rated:5 out of 5 stars
Greetings Linchpin:

First, review Circular 40 at the US Copyright Office regarding work of visual art.

In this, it states 
"For certain one-of-a-kind visual art and numbered limited editions of
200 or fewer copies, authors are accorded rights of attribution and
integrity. The right of attribution ensures that artists are correctly
identified with the works of art they create and that they are not
identified with works created by others. The right of integrity allows
artists to protect their works against modifications and destructions
that are prejudicial to the artists? honor or reputation. These rights
may not be transferred by the author, but they may be waived in a
written instrument. Transfer of the physical copy of a work of visual
art or of the copyright does not affect the moral rights accorded to
the author."

The part "These rights may not be transferred by the author, but they
may be waived in a written instrument.  Transfer of the physical copy
of a work of visual art or of the copyright does not affect the moral
rights accorded to the author."

If you have not waived your copyright to the owner of the painting,
then you should still retain all rights to reproductions.  Next
question, did you *register* the copyright?

An original, creative work automatically has a copyright but
*registering* the copyright is the way to have full protection under
U.S. law.

Following are more resources that will help explain what to do and not
to do with works of visual art.




Arts Law Australia


"Unless you specifically sell or give the copyrights away, you still
own them. And to do that you'd want to put it into writing.  When I
sell a painting, I include a certificate of authenticity also. The
last statement is "artist retains all copyrights to this original
piece of art."
Please read the entire thread as it is basically the same your question.


"The word license means the "freedom to do something" So when you give
a  company a license to use your art, that means you're giving then
the freedom or ability  to use your art in a certain way, on  a
certain type of produce, for a certain period of time, and with
certain restrictions on usage.

"Another key concept has to do with the difference between copy rights
and reproduction rights. While you own the copy right of your art for
75 years from the time you created it- whether or not you've
registered the copyright with the local copyright office-you also own
the reproduction rights. That means that no one can reproduce your art
without your OK."



The following three references are from

"Copyright is a collection of property rights based on a personís
creative skill and labour. The rights are protected in law ....
Copyright is owned by the artist (with specific exceptions) and comes
into existence from the moment a work is created. It allows the artist
to benefit from the use of their work in reproduction on paper, in
photographs, on film and video, and in digital form. Copyright only
exists in artworks that have material form - there is no copyright in
ideas .... Copyright usually exists for a period of 50 years after the
death of the artist ...."* quoted from:"
"The owner of the artwork, if not the copyright holder, may not give
this permission." quoted from: 
*(basically, buying a painting does not constitute that the copyright
becomes the province of the buyer)"

"Moral rights are the rights the artist retains over their work after
it is sold. These rights are guaranteed internationally by the Berne
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. In
Australia on 7 December 2000 a bill protecting the moral rights of an
artist's work was passed in parliament."


Bottom line: you own the copyright to your original work.  For legal
protection, you need to *register* your copyright.  Then, after
registering, you must place a proper copyright notice on your work or
in the papers referencing sales of your work.

Please remember that I am not an attorney therefore this answer does
not constitute legal advice. These resources will assist you and,
should you have questions on the fine points of copyright
infringement, please seek the counsel of a practicing attorney.

I hope this answers your question.  Should you require clarification,
please request it and I'll be happy to respond.

Best regards,

PS A tip to save money on copyright fees is to copyright a collection
of work, say 10 paintings at once titled "Collection 3" - this way you
pay one fee of (currently) $30 for all ten in the collection as
opposed to $30 for each painting copyrighted separately.

When you cite the copyright, it would be referenced something like
"©2004 Artist Name, Collection 3" as opposed to the painting's name
like "©2004 by Artist Name."  Proper wording of copyright notices is
also paramount to protecting your work and these guidelines are
available from the U.S. Copyright Office.


artist retains right to reproduce after selling painting
license to reproduce art
US copyright office visual art


International Copyright protection (or lack thereof)

Copyright relations of U.S. with foreign countries
linchpin-ga rated this answer:5 out of 5 stars and gave an additional tip of: $5.00
Thorough response with plenty of reference links.

Subject: Re: Copyright Law
From: greyknight-ga on 28 Jul 2004 11:55 PDT

I think this is what you are looking for:

Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or
phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law
provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that
embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the

I hope this helps
Subject: Re: Copyright Law
From: ipfan-ga on 28 Jul 2004 15:01 PDT
Copyright ownership vests in the "author" of a work.  See 17 U.S.C.
Section 201(a) (
 The "author" is defined to be the "originator," i.e., the one who
conceived of a sufficiently creative and original idea to merit
copyright protection.  See Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546
(1973) (
 Modern copyright law further assumes that the author is thereafter
the one who fixes the idea in a "tangible medium," see 17 U.S.C.
section 102(A) (,
and the author's copyright springs into existence as an inchoate
intellectual property right upon fixation.

Thus, the author in your hypothetical is the artist, who also is the
person who presumably fixed his or her idea in a tangible medium by
placing oil or acrylic or watercolor on canvas.  His copyright in that
work remains his even if the painting (medium) itself is sold or
transferred because 17 U.S.C. Section 202 is clear that the
"[t]ransfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy .
. . in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any
rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the
absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or
of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in
any material object."
 Indeed, such a transfer of copyright ownership cannot even occur
absent a signed writing.  See 17 U.S.C. Section 240(a)

So, on your hypothetical, the artist/author retains all of the
exclusive rights inherent in the bundle of rights that make up a
copyright, which are delineated at 17 U.S.C. Section 206
even if the painting itself is sold.   Note that all this assumes that
the painting was first created on or after January 1, 1978.

With all due respect to journalist, moral rights are separate and
distinct from the exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder,
such as the exclusive right to reproduction (which is one right about
which linchpin specifically asks).  See 17 U.S.C. Section 106A
Subject: Re: Copyright Law
From: journalist-ga on 28 Jul 2004 20:29 PDT
Thanks, Ipfan, for drilling down into the resources and providing
Linchpin with further explanation of the difference between exclusive
rights and moral rights.  I thought I inferred that well enough in my
answer *and* I appreciate your support in the matter!  I think the
support factor is what keeps Google Answers such a productive
environment.  :)

Best regards,
Subject: Re: Copyright Law
From: linchpin-ga on 29 Jul 2004 18:09 PDT
Thanks a lot, you guys!
Subject: Re: Copyright Law
From: journalist-ga on 29 Jul 2004 18:25 PDT
Thank you, Linchpin, for your kind words and your added generosity! 
I'm delighted you are pleased with my work.  :)

Best regards,

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  

Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy