Disclaimer: Opinions expressed below are those of VAGA and not necessarily of the College Art Association.

VAGA:
VISUAL ARTISTS AND GALLERY ASSOCIATION

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLISHERS, AUTHORS AND OTHER ART USERS

submitted by Robert Panzer, February 2003,
Executive Director, VAGA
for College Art Association, Image Rights Workshop, 2/22/03

 

VAGA AND REPRODUCTION RIGHTS

VAGA is an artists' rights organization and copyright collective that has administered and protected the reproduction rights (copyright) of visual creators for over 25 years. Collective representation makes it easy for publishers and other users of art to clear the rights for thousands of works of art and photography in one place. As a member of CISAC, the international confederation of societies that represent creators, VAGA takes part in setting and following consistent international standards that govern the treatment of and procedures affecting artists and publishers.

The artists and estates included on the enclosed partial list have authorized VAGA to represent their reproduction rights. These artists are either direct members of VAGA or are members of our sister societies worldwide. Regardless of your source for transparencies or black & white photos, you must contact VAGA for permission to reproduce their works. It is best to contact VAGA as early on in your project as possible in order to receive permission by your deadline and to locate images quickly and with the least expense. VAGA can help in a number of ways:

If you are able to send us your list of images, we will be glad to indicate the artists we represent. In some cases, we may also be able to assist you in locating transparencies and black & white photos from the artist, his/her gallery, or our archives. Thus, you may be able to avoid the rental and rights fees you would normally pay a museum or other source for access to photographic material.

With non-VAGA artists, if the information is readily available to us, we will refer you to the appropriate rights holders and image sources.

In situations where you are looking for a type or style of art rather than a work by a particular artist, feel free to call us. We will be glad to send you slides, brochures or other forms of imagery that might fit your particular needs. You are also welcome to visit our offices and review our archives.

If you have any questions about this or any VAGA service or operating procedure, please give us a call.

pubmat 8/00


COPYRIGHT INFORMATION:

SOME GENERAL RULES OF THUMB

For over twenty five years VAGA has cleared rights for the reproduction of works of art created by our artist members. One question frequently asked by those seeking rights is: "How do we know if the work is still protected by copyright?" The answer: sometimes neither VAGA nor the art user (publisher, museum, advertiser, etc.) knows with absolute 100% certainty whether or not the work is protected. Certain presumptions based on available evidence -- especially for works of art published prior to 1978 -- must often be made in order to reasonably satisfy the copyright question. Otherwise, many legitimate reproductions of art could not occur. To bring some order to this matter, we submit the outside parameters of protection for works of art. If followed, it is unlikely that you will violate anyone’s copyrights.

  • If a work of art by an American artist is published prior to 1978, copyright protection can last from 28 to 95 years after the publication date (nevertheless, all works published before 1923 are in the public domain in the U.S.). Determining the true period of protection can be difficult because it is dependent on accurately defining the publication date (the definition of what constitutes "publication" of fine art is often debated), knowing the extent to which the copyright owner fulfilled re-registration and other copyright formalities, and interpreting case law. As is typical, cases are often conflicting. If you are not absolutely sure of the copyright status of a work of art, by using the 95 year term, the longest term allowed by law, you avoid the possibility of copyright infringement.
  • If a work of art by an American artist is published after 1978, the work is protected for 70 years after the death of the artist.
  • If a work of art is created by a Foreign artist, and your reproduction of it will be distributed in the U.S. only, the term of protection is 95 years after publication for pre-1978, post-1923 works and 70 years after the death of the artist for post 1978 works. This is regardless of whether the artist fulfilled any U.S. copyright formalities, such as posting a copyright notice and/or registering or renewing the copyright.
  • If your reproduction of a work by an American or Foreign artist will be distributed outside the U.S., the copyright term(s) of the other country(ies) may apply. Most other countries’ terms last from 50 to 70 years after the death of the artist. Most EC (European Community) countries have adopted or will soon adopt a 70 year period.

Copyright law is more complex than the rules of thumb listed above. We do not represent that these guidelines cover all aspects of the law or necessarily apply to the unique circumstances you may encounter.

MORE ON COPYRIGHT

Who Owns the Copyright?

When you obtain a reproduction quality image of a work of art from a museum, collector, stock house or art gallery, or even if you shoot directly from a medium containing the art, such as a book, magazine, or the Web, you are often reproducing art that is protected by copyright.[n01] Paying a fee [n02] to an image source does not mean that you have cleared rights in the underlying work unless the image source is also the copyright holder in the underlying work. If not, you must locate the copyright owner and clear the rights. Generally speaking, artists or their estates (sometimes with copyright administration through an organization such as VAGA) are the likely owners of fine art copyrights.

Despite this, some image sources, especially those which are also owners of the underlying work, such as museums and collectors, may not inform you that permission should be obtained from a copyright holder. There are a number of possible reasons for this: The source lacks resources and sophistication in matters of copyright; the source does not care; the source believes it is the rightful owner of the copyright. [n03] Some sources, especially museums, will include a clause in their loan/rights agreements that states that they take no responsibility for claims of copyright made by other parties. Unfortunately, these clauses are usually part of the small type of the agreement and seem to conflict with the major part of the agreement which says the museum is granting "rights". To add to the confusion, it is rarely clear if they mean the underlying work or their particular image of it.

Furthermore, these sources may deny you access to their imagery (can public museums do this?) because they deem your use inappropriate or in competition with a use they may make of the art. But unless the source also owns the copyright in the underlying work, you cannot be prohibited from going elsewhere for the image. Only the copyright owner in the underlying work can decide what is and is not an appropriate use of the art.

The ã Notice

Regarding the notice of copyright in the U.S., all works of art created after March 1 of 1989 are automatically protected by copyright whether or not the © notice is affixed to the work. Registration with the copyright office is NOT required for protection of works created after this date. (In fact, registration was never a requirement for copyright except prior to commencing a lawsuit.)

The law prior to 1989 is complicated and often confusing. In general, some works of art created before 1989 did not contain a copyright notice and may have fallen into the public domain in the U.S. Even so, these works may still be protected in the U.S. under other provisions in the law and as a result of precedents. If the reproduction is published/distributed outside the U.S., the laws of the country of distribution may apply. In most of the world, there has never been a requirement to affix a copyright notice to a work to obtain protection. Even if a publication is expected to be distributed in the U.S. only, an art user should not forget that rights may eventually be sold for foreign distribution. Of course, if a work is published on the Internet, it is automatically published worldwide.

U.S. Restoration of Copyright for Works by Foreign Artists

On January 1, 1996, copyrights were restored in the U.S. for works of art of a foreign origin - still protected by copyright in the country of origin - that may have fallen into the public domain in the U.S. due to the failure of copyright owners to fulfill old copyright formalities. The term of copyright for these works is now 95 years after first publication for pre-1978, post-1923 works and 70 years after the artist’s death for post-1978 works.

NOTES:

  1. We are referring here to the underlying or original work of art. But what about the actual image you are provided -- the photo, transparency or digital scan? Many image sources believe that they have a copyright in these. Do they? If the image is taken of a two dimensional work of art there is no copyright in this reproduction. Only the underlying work of art is protectable. This was affirmed in the landmark case, Bridgeman v Corel. The court ruled that there was no originality in a straight forward reproduction of a two dimensional work art. In general, copyright is awarded for "originality" apparent in the final creation, not in the act of reproduction. Excepting images of three dimensional art such as sculpture, an image of a work produced to facilitate the reproduction of the work into yet another medium, such as a book, for example, does not contain in it anything original from the producer of the image. The sole purpose is to have the image look as much as possible like the original art. If it does not, then the photographer/image maker has essentially failed and the image will not be loaned out. An acceptable image should and does look the same as the original except for the fact that it is not an exact copy (clone) because, of course, it is in a different medium. The law clearly states that copyright is not awarded solely for a change in medium.

    To achieve "originality" the new image must be a result of something changed or added to the original to create a new image which appears different from the original. A change in appearance which occurs only because of a change in media does not constitute originality. If copyright could be awarded for this, why not award it for making a photocopy, or even a photocopy of a photocopy, and so on? This is not to say that photographers and image processors of fine art are not bringing great skill and craftsmanship to the process. There is no question that some are better than others. One might even say that it is an "art" to produce a good reproduction quality image of a work of art. But here, the art is in the process, not in the way the final image appears.

    Even if one were to conclude that an image of a work of art deserves its own copyright, this "new" second copyright is only a derivative copyright and hence, beholden to any copyright that may exist in the original work of art . A photographer or museum would still need to obtain the artist's or heir’s permission to "shoot" the work (except for certain "fair uses" such as for archiving); and anyone who in turn reproduces the image, would also need to obtain the artist's/heir’s permission. [text]
     
  2. Image sources charge fees for "rental", "usage", "rights" or combinations of these words. They seem to be used interchangeably even though they mean different things to different people. [text]
     
  3. A common misconception is that any individual or institution which obtained a work of art before 1978 is also the copyright holder in that work. This is true only if a combination of unlikely circumstances occurs. What is more likely is that the artist or artist’s estate owns the copyright or the work of art is in public domain in the U.S. In 1976 (effective 1978), the copyright law was revised. Since then, the only way copyright is transferred is if the artist or estate does so in writing. As a general rule of thumb, copyright is NOT transferred through ownership of the physical work itself. [text]

Go To VAGA Documents for Artists
Return to Clearing Rights & Permissions
Return to Robert Baron's Copyright Page
Return to Robert Baron's Home Page