Artworks in videos
Artworks in videos
Can I use the picture (e.g. paintings) bought from galleries or shops in videos? Do I need other permission or license to use an artwork in videos?
Hi again Anna,
The short answer is almost certainly yes, you do need permission as long as the artwork is in copyright. If you then made the video available to the public (say, on Youtube) then that would amount to a second infringement. The relevant parts of the law can be found in highlighted parts of sections 17 and 20, shown below:
However, we now have the new fair dealing exception for quotation, which covers artistic works. It is not at all clear how the courts will interpret this. It is possible that if your motive for videoing the work was for the purpose of criticism or review, then filming it in this way might well constitute 'fair dealing' provided that you were careful to cite the artist responsible for it.
The short answer is almost certainly yes, you do need permission as long as the artwork is in copyright. If you then made the video available to the public (say, on Youtube) then that would amount to a second infringement. The relevant parts of the law can be found in highlighted parts of sections 17 and 20, shown below:
If the artwork was only incidentally included then that would not be infringement, under either section 17 or 20. So for instance if the artwork was hanging on the wall of your sitting room, and you made a video of a birthday party there, in which the painting could be seen in the background, then that would usually count as incidental inclusion. However your posting suggests that the inclusion would be deliberate, so this doesn't help you.17 Infringement of copyright by copying.
(1) The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.
(2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form. This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.
(3) In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of a copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work.
(4) Copying in relation to a film or broadcast includes making a photograph of the whole or any substantial part of any image forming part of the film or broadcast.
(5) Copying in relation to the typographical arrangement of a published edition means making a facsimile copy of the arrangement.
(6) Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work.
[ ... ]
20 Infringement by communication to the public
(1) The communication to the public of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in—(2) References in this Part to communication to the public are to communication to the public by electronic transmission, and in relation to a work include—
- (a) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work,
(b) a sound recording or film, or
(c) a broadcast.
- (a) the broadcasting of the work;
(b) the making available to the public of the work by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.
However, we now have the new fair dealing exception for quotation, which covers artistic works. It is not at all clear how the courts will interpret this. It is possible that if your motive for videoing the work was for the purpose of criticism or review, then filming it in this way might well constitute 'fair dealing' provided that you were careful to cite the artist responsible for it.
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Hi Anna,
If I have understood your question correctly, you want to know if the same rules would apply to products which are themselves derived from an original painting.
Products which are also artistic works, such as prints and posters depicting original paintings will usually also be entitled to copyright protection if they have been made with the permission of the owner of copyright in the painting. However if the original painting is out of copyright, a claim of copyright in a reproduction of it, such as a poster, is highly dubious. This is because the law requires that in order for copyright to apply, the work (so of instance, a poster) must be original. However if it it is just a facsimile copy of an earlier work then it can't meet the originality test, unless the creator of the poster has imbued his work with something of his own 'spirit' and creativity - something new and unique that only appears in the poster and not in the original painting. As you may imagine, this is unlikely to exist in most cases, but that won't stop the manufacturers of posters etc from putting a copyright notice on their product and hoping that will protect them. I think most producers in this position would want to avoid taking the matter to a court in case they lost - which I would argue is highly likely - and thus their business model would be seriously undermined.
I hope this is what your question was referring to. If not, please come back to ask again.
If I have understood your question correctly, you want to know if the same rules would apply to products which are themselves derived from an original painting.
Products which are also artistic works, such as prints and posters depicting original paintings will usually also be entitled to copyright protection if they have been made with the permission of the owner of copyright in the painting. However if the original painting is out of copyright, a claim of copyright in a reproduction of it, such as a poster, is highly dubious. This is because the law requires that in order for copyright to apply, the work (so of instance, a poster) must be original. However if it it is just a facsimile copy of an earlier work then it can't meet the originality test, unless the creator of the poster has imbued his work with something of his own 'spirit' and creativity - something new and unique that only appears in the poster and not in the original painting. As you may imagine, this is unlikely to exist in most cases, but that won't stop the manufacturers of posters etc from putting a copyright notice on their product and hoping that will protect them. I think most producers in this position would want to avoid taking the matter to a court in case they lost - which I would argue is highly likely - and thus their business model would be seriously undermined.
I hope this is what your question was referring to. If not, please come back to ask again.
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Hi Andy,
You're right, that's exactly what I meant. Thank you for the reply! I'll reconsider using those derivative products.
I've heard that the copyright protection to paintings is relatively stricter than other works. My folks are making some videos where some kinds of paintings will appear. Can you give me more advice how to use them safely in public media?
Thanks ahead.
You're right, that's exactly what I meant. Thank you for the reply! I'll reconsider using those derivative products.
I've heard that the copyright protection to paintings is relatively stricter than other works. My folks are making some videos where some kinds of paintings will appear. Can you give me more advice how to use them safely in public media?
Thanks ahead.
Hi Anna
Offhand, I can't think of any reason why someone might describe paintings as having stricter protection than other copyright works. As far as the statute is concerned, the protection is exactly the same. The only aspect about paintings which differs from other works is something called the Artist's Resale Right (ARR). Because an artist who produces single, one-off paintings can't earn money from royalties like, say, an author or composer, the ARR is intended to award the artist whose work is subsequently re-sold for a fairly substantial amount (currently over €1,000) a small percentage share of the sale price. However that has nothing to do with copyright protection, per se.
As for how to avoid infringing copyright, it largely depends on why someone wishes to include a painting in a video to start with. If the purpose falls within the parameters of criticism or review, then there is a fair dealing exception for that purpose. The main requirements of the exception are that the author (or artist) is acknowledged and no more of the work is shown than is strictly necessary for the purpose. What this means in practice is difficult to define in general terms, but for instance if the purpose of the video is to show the artist's brush work or depiction of fine detail in a painting, having a close-up shot of a particular area which demonstrates this would probably amount to fair dealing, whereas a wide shot of the whole of the painting which failed to highlight the brush work or detail would probably not be acceptable. If the aim is to discuss the overall composition or the use of colour, say, then clearly a shot of the whole work might be necessary, but it should not be in shot for too long. I have already mentioned incidental inclusion, but the fact that you say that "My folks are making some videos where some kinds of paintings will appear" tends to imply that incidental inclusion would not apply here, unless the location meant it was inevitable that having a painting in the background could not be avoided. It seems unlikely that these videos will meet the criteria for news reporting. And lastly, I touched on the use of quotation in any earlier answer in this thread. There is nothing more I can say about this, because we have no case law by which to judge what might be fair dealing with regard to 'quoting' artistic works.
Just to give you a flavour of how the courts look at both the criticism/review and incidental inclusion aspects, here is a judgment of the High Court concerning some newspaper photographs (artistic works) which were included in a TV broadcast. The same principles will apply to videos you wish to make which show paintings: Fraser-Woodward v Brighter Pictures & BBC.
Offhand, I can't think of any reason why someone might describe paintings as having stricter protection than other copyright works. As far as the statute is concerned, the protection is exactly the same. The only aspect about paintings which differs from other works is something called the Artist's Resale Right (ARR). Because an artist who produces single, one-off paintings can't earn money from royalties like, say, an author or composer, the ARR is intended to award the artist whose work is subsequently re-sold for a fairly substantial amount (currently over €1,000) a small percentage share of the sale price. However that has nothing to do with copyright protection, per se.
As for how to avoid infringing copyright, it largely depends on why someone wishes to include a painting in a video to start with. If the purpose falls within the parameters of criticism or review, then there is a fair dealing exception for that purpose. The main requirements of the exception are that the author (or artist) is acknowledged and no more of the work is shown than is strictly necessary for the purpose. What this means in practice is difficult to define in general terms, but for instance if the purpose of the video is to show the artist's brush work or depiction of fine detail in a painting, having a close-up shot of a particular area which demonstrates this would probably amount to fair dealing, whereas a wide shot of the whole of the painting which failed to highlight the brush work or detail would probably not be acceptable. If the aim is to discuss the overall composition or the use of colour, say, then clearly a shot of the whole work might be necessary, but it should not be in shot for too long. I have already mentioned incidental inclusion, but the fact that you say that "My folks are making some videos where some kinds of paintings will appear" tends to imply that incidental inclusion would not apply here, unless the location meant it was inevitable that having a painting in the background could not be avoided. It seems unlikely that these videos will meet the criteria for news reporting. And lastly, I touched on the use of quotation in any earlier answer in this thread. There is nothing more I can say about this, because we have no case law by which to judge what might be fair dealing with regard to 'quoting' artistic works.
Just to give you a flavour of how the courts look at both the criticism/review and incidental inclusion aspects, here is a judgment of the High Court concerning some newspaper photographs (artistic works) which were included in a TV broadcast. The same principles will apply to videos you wish to make which show paintings: Fraser-Woodward v Brighter Pictures & BBC.
Last edited by AndyJ on Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007