Get paid to upload images of historical paintings?

[Anonymous No.15730347]

I know a place that has high res images of paintings that I don't see posted anywhere else (at least with a simple google search). Can I make money by uploading them to a place like gettyimages without legal trouble since these paints are all like 100 yrs old?

[Anonymous No.15730391]

>>15730347
get someone who give you a bill for the transaction since you bought the pictures right fren? and bullshit your way through while making money with the derivatives (posters, postcards, bookmarks, prints on fabric, t shirts cushions, tapestries) you can also try to get creative and regurgitate that content into something new. It’s a lot of utilization hidden in this database

[Anonymous No.15730404]

also gib hi res rare paintings plz

[Anonymous No.15730409]

>>15730347
kek he spilled the spaghetti

[Anonymous No.15730435]

Not historical but do you have any high res George Condo? I've been trying to get a particular piece in high res for 3 years now. It's called Three Graces (spring) from 2011.

[Anonymous No.15730437]

>>15730391
No fren, I didn't buy them. I just happen to stumble onto this site that uploads them to view only, but it's easy to bypass that. This is why I am wondering if there is a legal issue on whether the person who scanned the paintings get credit or no because the original artist has already died long ago.

[Anonymous No.15730501]

>>15730437
>implying
create the right circumstances in which you are authorized to sell them in case you are not is what I’m saying

[Anonymous No.15730528]

>>15730437
If the idea is whether the photographer has any copyright claim to their phtograph (or scan or whatever), the answer is probably no under US law. That's assuming the image is just intended to be a digital image of the original art, and not that the photographer is making something that is an original, creation. The more the photo is just a copy of the original, the less the photographer has a valid claim to copyright.

[Anonymous No.15730619]

>>15730435
I don't see that one, but I found this for you

[Anonymous No.15730634]

>>15730528
Thanks, this is what I wanted to hear

[Anonymous No.15730654]

>>15730347
>can I steal copy righted images and make money
No. Not even on the "black market" as there is no black market for high res digital copies Share the place and your method fag, at least anon can make those images public domain and manage the kike hosting the site not just not making any money but losing money as he probably already paid for the licencing

[Anonymous No.15730741]

>>15730347
how do I paint good to where I can get this good? How do I get as good as the masters?
I have no idea how to use the $2000 worth of oil paints and brushes I used..I got all these brushes and paint thinners

[Anonymous No.15730767]

Op, Can you tell us the site?

[Anonymous No.15730779]

>>15730528
you are retarded expecting just because a Nigger is dead that nobody owns the rights. Whoever owned the site, probably fag OP himself paid a hefty fee to host those images else they would be easy to steal. Doesn't mean that anybody stealing them can make a profit as there is no market.

The only market imaginable would be a content creator using those images for his content to market it. If he would get caught without being able to show the licence he would get sued

[Anonymous No.15730802]

>>15730347
Have fun with your DMCAs and cease and desists.

This is how that stuff works:
The painting is public domain. You can take a picture and do anything you want with it. But the access to them is restricted, so unless you can claim the photo/scan of the painting, you're done. That's one of the reasons museums don't allow cameras - and if it's a painting that isn't on public display, you're fucked.
Getty knows this way better than you do (since you're completely clueless), and you'll never get a single image posted.
Did you really think you found a loophole to a market that's been on lockdown for decades? Really?

[Anonymous No.15730809]

>>15730741
Art market isn't about being good, it is purely about marketing. You could be a talentlese heck shitting on white paper, if you manage to market it and be able to convince retards that your art is valuable, your art could in the future be used for money laundering.

[Anonymous No.15730818]

>>15730528
That's not how it works, at all. "Derivatives" is when a photo is used in a singular, standalone work of art, a one of a kind deal. Selling copies is 100% copyright, and the owner of the scan/photo has all of the rights.

[Anonymous No.15730853]

>>15730809
yeah but artfinder has people selling paintings of nude children and young teens all the way up to nude women and make a fucking killing. People just buy and eat that shit up like crazy. Some of these artists make thousands easily. As long as it looks real, people will buy it. Simply draw a girl, put some red drape over her, boom, stupid amount of sales. Go look, anon. Sex sells.

[Anonymous No.15730881]

>>15730779
OP said 100 years old, so these are presumably public domain works.

>>15730818
Your post doesn't make any grammatical sense, but, no, you can't just copy or scan an existing work of art to create a new derivative work of art. That's not protected by US copyright. If you disagree, please cite legal precedent in favor of your position.

[Anonymous No.15731022]

>>15730779
>>15730802
>>15730881
Here's an example of one, so things are clear. It was painted by this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonietta_Brandeis

[Anonymous No.15731083]

>>15731022
MY GOD, How beautiful. I have like 50 thick art books. I adore art. Beyond everything, I would give everything I have to have this ability to make this

[Anonymous No.15731084]

>>15731022
I don't know how European copyright law differs from US, but I expect at least that that would be public domain in the EU.

[Anonymous No.15731146]

>>15730347
Here's just an example article that I found searching that explains US copyrght perspective on these kinds of works in more words than I can type on a phone.

http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/who-owns-the-copyright-scans-public-domain-works/

[Anonymous No.15731153]

>>15731083
Me too, but Im too lazy to even try

>>15731084
Yeah, I was reading this article (https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/)) on US laws. It is fair use; come to think of it, it is pretty scummy that gettyimages charge hundreds of dollars for a digital image of this... but I got to make a living

[Anonymous No.15731197]

>>15731022
Beautiful, please post more. Are they high enough resolution to get a decent print done?

[Anonymous No.15731238]

>>15731153
I'm going to try my damn best. The fucking materials were expensive as shit, and what is weird is there aren't really any tutorials online which is really weird. Oil painting seems to be a thing that all those who know how to do it keep it to themselves. It feels like I have to go to a fucking class.
All these damn artists online just show what materials they use and what they make, but I think none of them show HOW to paint because oil paints take forever to dry

[Anonymous No.15731244]

>>15730881
Oh, shove your "grammatical errors" errors up your ass, you pretentious bag of shit. The courts have been ruling that stand alone art, one of a kind works, is where '"derivative" is a defense against copyright. I also didn't claim what you think I did, because you were so excited you had a "Well ackshually", you fat finger posted your neckbeard bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15731248]

>>15731153
Fair use is a question of how people can use and reproduce copyrighted works. For public domain works, "fair use" doesn't matter because there's no copyright anymore.

Second, even when certain things are not protected by copyright, that doesn't mean they aren't worth anything. If someone makes a good scan of a painting, that takes labor and expertise. Shouldn't they be compensated for that? But copyright laws weren't designed to help those people.

[Anonymous No.15731255]

>>15731022
Whoever took the photo of that painting owns the copyright, not you.

/thread

[Anonymous No.15731396]

>>15731248
I still don't understand what you're trying to say in relation to anything I or OP said. He's not talking about derivative works. He's talking about what is legally more or less a straight reproduction of another work. Derivative works are when you adapt other works or incorporate them into a new work.

>A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

[Anonymous No.15731404]

>>15731197
Not sure, what resolutions are typically needed for a quality print? That one I posted was 3730x2233, 300 dpi. And gettyimages sells images typically that size for 500 bucks

>>15731238
Cheers and gl. I like this guy's videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg4eQuX8UoZkpZNno-eyYoQ

>>15731248
I see your point, but the article i mentioned says this "An important wrinkle to understand about public domain material is that, while each work belongs to the public, collections of public domain works may be protected by copyright. If, for example, someone has collected public domain images in a book or on a website, the collection as a whole may be protectable even though individual images are not. You are free to copy and use individual images but copying and distributing the complete collection may infringe what is known as the “collective works” copyright."
Check out this video though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxySP5R-IWs&list=PLYOGLpQQfhNKZWrx-1v96O7zvDVSngJLW&index=13

[Anonymous No.15731464]

>>15731255
That's NOT how it works. If I scan a copy of Moby Dick, my scan is not a new work with its own copyright. It's just a copy of a public domain work. What OP is talking about is the same thing applied to paintings.

For example, CD Sheet Music is a company that sells CD-ROMs with PDFs containing scans of public domain sheet music. They strip off the original headers (where the title, composer etc. would go) and footers (where the original publication and copyright info would go) and slap on their own headers and copyright notices. They say that you are not allowed to copy their scores other than printing for personal use. But if someone actually started distributing CD Sheet Music's scans and CD Sheet Music tried to sue him in court, CD Sheet Music would lose. In fact, I know of at least one company that sells (among other scores) scans that are obviously from CD Sheet Music with the CD Sheet Music copyright cropped out.

[Anonymous No.15731570]

>>15731404
thanks m8

[Anonymous No.15731593]

>>15731464
Oh, for fuck's sake, you're a literal retard, who doesn't understand anything about copyrights.

Here's how it works, in simple language, so your waterhead can understand it.

Copyright is not over physical objects. The words of Moby Dick are public domain. But if I take those public domain words, and reformat them into an ebook that I sell on Amazon, MY VERSION of the public domain words is my copyright. You can make your own version of those words and sell them (thousands of people do this, from individuals to the bog publishing houses), but MY VERSION is MY COPYRIGHT.

The Mona Lisa has no copyright. But if I take a photo of it, the PHOTO ITSELF BELONGS TO ME, and you can't put it on coffee mugs to sell it. That's why the Louvre doesn't allow unlimited access to it, with cameras.

It's really simple. And your retard neckbeard ass will keep arguing it, because your rancid brains refuse to admit you're wrong.

As for your lame sheet music example, yeah, why do you think they strip out the publishing information? Because that version of the public domain music belongs to someone else, you fucking dolt. You tanked your own fucking argument, you lame brain.

[Anonymous No.15732971]

>>15731593
No, that's not how copyright works. In your example, the originsl copyright is for the text of Moby Dick, not for its layout on the page or anything like that. If you type out the text of Moby Dick and create an ebook out of it, you MAY be able to claim a copyright on your new edition if you have contributed any substantial "creative" material to your edition (such as your own commentary). However, you do not have a copyright on the text of Moby Dick that is in your edition, because the text of Moby Dick is public domain. If I copied and pasted your reproduction of Mob Dick (minus your own creative contributions) into my own edition, I am not violating your copyright because you don't have a copyright to the text of Moby Dick, even in the event that your new edition as a whole does have a copyright claim.

Take the example of Mona Lisa too. A derivative work, which incorporates another work, can have its own copyright, but the copyright applies only to the new contributions in the derivative work. You don't get a new copyright on the use of the prior work. If I make a collage that includes a copy of the Mona Lisa in it, I might have a copyright on the collage, but I don't get a copyright claim on my use of the Mona Lisa and I wouldn't have any legal claim against someone who copied my copy of the Mona Lisa from my collage.

OP's example is where someone is using photography to create something that's as close to a copy of the original work as possible. US copyright law was not intended to protect this kind of reproduction, it was intended to protect new creative works. That scans or photographic are considered as copies rathet than their own works is established legal precedent too.

[Anonymous No.15733021]

>>15731593
>The Mona Lisa has no copyright. But if I take a photo of it, the PHOTO ITSELF BELONGS TO ME

A photograph of the Mona Lisa could be a new derivative work. If you take a picture that has the Mona Lisa in it, or you
take a photograph that adds some kind of creative spin to the Mona Lisa somehow, you could have a valid copyright claim, to your photograph as a whole. However, OP is talking about a specific kind of case, which is where someone is trying to reproduce a copy of the Mona Lisa as close as an identical copy as possible (even if, for a photgraph of a painting, the copy is in a new medium). This kind of photo would be considered a copy of the original, not a derivative work, and this intetpretation is confirmed by the actual legal precedent.

This isn't something worth arguing about because you can easily DuckDuckGo this topic and read about it. If you think otherwise, show a US court case where someone won a case against someone who violated their supposed copyright on the kind of photographic reproductions that OP is talking about.