Anyone know what happened to this site?

Home Forums General Art Discussion Anyone know what happened to this site?

This topic contains 29 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  gbl 9 years, 11 months ago. This post has been viewed 1921 times

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #8105

    Francis
    Participant

    Robert gave me a portrait of myself at the Birmingham show calling it 1960`s

    #8106

    gbl
    Participant

    If you can show that you commissioned the work, that is one thing; merely modelling for a painting is another.

    Who is talking about just "modelling" for a painting??For pre-1989 'commissioned work' (paid for): A person automatically owns the copyright in UK law - simple! He or she may only need proof, if say for example; they are being contested by another party about the legitimacy of that commission.

    #8107

    member555
    Keymaster

    This is actually not as simple as Francis wants to make it. The fact is that a fairly large number of Robert’s works are not copyright of the Estate. In my archive, I have over 140 such works. The majority are commissioned pencil drawings, mostly the ones that Robert produced by the hundreds in the 70’s. They are easy to determine as commissioned works, and therefore the copyright is with the commissioners.In addition, there is a large body of oil portraits, not only of people but also of dogs. For many years Robert had a sign in the studio window saying

    #8108

    Francis
    Participant

    Who is talking about just "modelling" for a painting??

    Maybe I misunderstood this?

    I expect there will have been a few women who paid him in, er...'goods' for a portrait!

    This is actually not as simple as Francis wants to make it.

    I think what you've said is quite simple ,member 555: in a small percentage of largely insignificant works before 1989 the copyright rests with the commissioner. The point I'm establishing is that in the vast majority of Robert's paintings of people ('portraits' if you like), the sitter has no rights merely because they are the subject matter of the painting (as gbl's post seemed to suggest).What isn't so simple is that even in the cases of commissioned works how anyone could use that copyright, as the moral and intellectual rights belonging to the creator or their estate allow them to prevent unsuitable usage.

    #8109

    member555
    Keymaster

    Prelude:

    don't the Lenkiewicz foundation own the copyright to all of his work (when they inherit it that is)?No, they don't.

    Francis 7 Nov:

    Yes, they do. Unless there is a written and signed agreement saying otherwise, including commissioned portraits.

    Francis 11 Nov:

    in a small percentage of largely insignificant works before 1989 the copyright rests with the commissioner

    An interesting change, necessary because the law was overlooked, but more clarification is needed.The issue of copyright is important. When the copyright passes from Estate to TLF the board of TLF needs to know exactly what works they possess the copyright for. It is irrelevant if Francis or whoever considers some works “insignificant”. Besides, one might note that one of the works termed “insignificant” by Francis (and for which TLF will not hold the copyright) sold recently for £17,000 at W.H. Lane. A remarkable price for an “insignificant” piece, if I may say so. But “significance” is not what matters here.The point is that the copyright laws need to be known and followed by TLF. Francis, as the chairman? of TLF (if that is the case – on TLF’s website no information on this is given. TLF’s post adress is that of Francis’ gallery if that is any indication) is obliged to know and follow these laws. TLF says on their website under ‘Copyright’:“All written works by and graphic works by Robert Lenkiewicz are copyright of The Lenkiewicz Foundation Trust.”It is not clear if TLF

    #8110

    Francis
    Participant

    This should help you on your question over moral rights, member 555:http://www.withersworldwide.com/news-publications/638/who-owns-commissioned-artworks.aspxThe lawyers always sum it up best.I'm only here to give my own views, as I always have done as a fan and supportrer of Robert's work; I don't speak here for TLF for obvious reasons. However, the principle here is clear. The creator of an artistic work or his estate automatically owns the copyright and moral rights. There are exceptions before 1989 in commissioned photographs, engravings and portraits. The law was changed to recognise an anomaly.I'm not going to debate individual works without knowing the facts as to how they came about, but the law deems a commission as by a 'hired hand'. It's usually applicable to commercial employment. How many of Robert's works can be classified this way is debatable. Are they first and foremost an image of an individual or a work by Lenkiewicz? Copyright in its limited newer definition is now restricted to 'economic rights' but the assertion of copyright now includes moral and intellectual rights which are inalienable.

    #8111

    gbl
    Participant

    The lawyers always sum it up best.

    Yes they do, but with respect, it seems that you yourself are going off in a tangent in our debate?…You have now introduced ‘moral rights’ into the question of copyright ownership, but ‘moral rights’ are mainly about the proper use and respect of an artwork (not to mistreat it).Moral rights do not change the status of copyright ownership, nor do they override who the rightful copyright owners are – ownership of this is still unchanged; to quote from your withersworldwide link: “With Moral rights artists retain a non-financial interest in the work, in contrast to copyright which can be fully transferred.”“The main moral rights for artists include the right to be recognized as artist when the work is exhibited or published”, “the right not to have authorship of a work falsely attributed”, and the right to object to the derogatory treatment of the artwork.”“In conclusion, it is clear that although commissioners of artworks may have property rights over commissioned artworks the law does not grant them full-unencumbered rights over these objects.”

    #8112

    Francis
    Participant

    You have now introduced ‘moral rights’ into the question of copyright ownership,....(Also written is: “Note that moral rights only apply to artworks where those works would otherwise be protected by copyright.”: is this a typo - does the author mean ‘would othewise not be protected’?).

    No, they don't. That's the point - copyright is now used as a term that includes not just 'economic rights' but also basically protects the reputation and integrity of the work and its creator. That's why TLF's websites says all works by Robert Lenkiewicz are copyright of Lenkiewicz Foundation Trust. Even if there are a few works where the economic rights belong to the commissioner, it doesn't mean they have carte blanche to exploit those rights.

    #8113

    gbl
    Participant

    it doesn't mean they have carte blanche to exploit those rights.

    No, they obviously cant abuse their copyright priviliges or the artwork itself (hence 'moral rights' etc), but if they wish to display, publish or reproduce etc. then they have those rights as copyright holders.

    Even if there are a few works where the economic rights belong to the commissioner

    Surely there will be a great many of these, since ROL's main trade was a portrait painter

    #8114

    Francis
    Participant

    Freud and Bacon have produced numerous commissioned portraits during their careers. Interestingly, every one of them is listed in the publications as being copyright the artist (Freud) or estate (Bacon). Just one example:http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/freud/work_maninachair.htm

    #8115

    art3366
    Participant

    Copyright to an image can only be transferred by a written agreement from the artist. If you have a written agreement from Robert Lenkiewicz it would be a rarity.In the absence of a written agreement (contract)the copyright still rests with the copyright owner.

    #8116

    marlowe
    Participant

    Interesting debate. I don't think many artists would appreciate anything they painted being used without their permission. Society of Portrait Painters artists like Trevor Stubley certainly seem to feel that way:http://www.trevorstubleygallery.co.uk/popup_pages/lord_dainton.htmI'd suggest it may well come down to the definition of a 'portrait'. Freud would certainly see his paintings classified as 'works of art' rather than a hack commissioned portrait, which is usually for wedding photographers etc.In any case, it will all be academic in the not too distant future as copyright on commissions expires 50 years after it was made (rather than the usual 70 years after the artist's death). Anything Robert did as a commission in the 1960s hasn't got long to go...best make the most of it! 😉

    #8117

    gbl
    Participant

    Copyright to an image can only be transferred by a written agreement from the artist.

    It is well known that a written agreement is currently needed, and has been the case ever since the 1988 copyright act art3366. But we are discussing commisions done before this act came into force, ie; July 1989. Intelectual Property Office:"Prior to 1 August 1989 though, the copyright in photographs, portraits and engravings (and only those types of work) which were created as a result of a commission were owned by the commissioner and NOT the creator.

    #8118

    gbl
    Participant

    Freud and Bacon have produced numerous commissioned portraits during their careers. Interestingly, every one of them is listed in the publications as being copyright the artist (Freud) or estate (Bacon).

    I think they all take a 'generalised' stance from the begining especially regarding art laws and copyright laws etc. Estates of late artists in perticular, in time-honoured tradition, adopt the stance of: 'everything is ours untill proven otherwise'! Take the Warhol foundation, they are notorious for disputing anything and everything outside of thier judgement, including those people who said they had a genuine Warhol print and the foundation refused to even acknowledge some artwork as genuine, giving the people a hard time in the process as they were just a individuals who couldn't hire expensive lawyers. So intimidation helps these estates/foundations make all the rules - isn't that always the case with big organisations against individuals? I couldn't say much about Freud or Bacon, but they have obviously based it on today's copyright laws in general terms in order to be on the safe side. Then, if there were any problems then they could probably just look into it if any should arise.

    #8119

    gbl
    Participant

    When foundations turn bad:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Art_Authentication_BoardAlthough not about copyright, the Alan Yentob documentary is interesting (if it can still be downloaded): http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article718831.ece

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.