Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
copyrighted images of helmets?
#1
Painting copyrighted color schemes?

This NY Times article says the Univ of Alabama is suing an artist for copyright violation because his paintings of football players too closely copy the UoA football color scheme. There have been some copyright discussions from the artists on here. I don't know if this entirely applies, but in the helmet database thread, there are copyrights that pertain to some of the helmets, though I don't know if the rights to use the image of the helmet are held by, eg, museums, or if the images being posted are copyrighted. If the former, if you paint a picture of a soldier with a distinctive helmet whose image is protected say by the BM, then are you in trouble?

How about the Dura shield design? Does that museum own reproduction rights to it? that might concern Depeeka.
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Reply
#2
Ave Richard,

as far as I know, in Germany any 'copyright' is basing on a piece of 'artwork' like text, painting, photograph, song or some software. Without any doubt, the designers and craftsmen who built the Roman gear are dead since more than 70 years, so the finds themselves are basically without any copyright.

Regarding photographs of that originals, it's another story. So publishing photos without permission is a problem. Therefore you'll often find outline drawings made after a photo. That drawings are no simple copy, but a kind of artwork themselves.

Another possibility: A special find may be regarded as a trade mark to a museum, when used as a logo. I've read, a German museum was suing a company who made reproductions of a special Viking dragon head fibula, which also was the museum's well known logo since many years. So using an Universities colours by a third party in their own business might be a violation of trade mark or copyright, depending on the terms of the local law.

Last thought: India is a reversed Bermuda triangle. Countless copies are popping up and even experts won't find out whether it is a copy of a copy of a copy or something made by the same manufacturer but sold under different company names... And in contrary to the US, the country of unlimited chances to make a living on suing others :wink: , most Asian copyists stay far away from the grasp of 'our' legal authorities. The most likely thing to happen is that the manufacturer won't be able to sell that copy to certain countries.
Greetings from germania incognita

Heiko (Cornelius Quintus)

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Reply
#3
You can't photograph a clown in makeup and then publish it commercially without their permission; the makeup is the creation of the clown which they hold the copyright to and should reap the rewards of. In the football fiasco above it sounds like a bunch of collective clowns are enforcing copyright, but it will be an interesting case to see if the artist can defend his work on the basis of it being reportage and is protected by the First Amendment. However, there being no First Amendment in most other countries he would probably have a more uphill struggle outside the US (the UK in particular). His "significant creative contribution" is clearly undeniable though as I get the impression he also took the photographs used to model the paintings on. He could argue that the fact the university knew what he was doing and even gave him special privileges and access, while knowing fully what he was doing and why he was there, means they implicitly gave permission for him to use the colours. He'll win I'm sure, and if his lawyer can find a case then he may be able to counter-sue for something or other.

How that applies to what some of us here do I don't really know, but if a copyright owner gives permission for use then I dare say the artist is very safe. Unfortunately, intellectual property rights have been extended to discoveries which include DNA (the dumbest law of all time), but they need to be under patent protection first, I think. I doubt an historical artefact can be patented nor a claim be made for the creation of it, otherwise the owners of historical buildings would be able to sue pretty much anyone publishing a photo or reproduction of it. But, unless justified for the common good, to reproduce a photo made by someone else would be breaking the copyrights of the person who took the photo. So no, you shouldn't really reproduce a photo of a helmet, but you could use the photo as reference for your own original reproduction of the helmet. At least I have no problem doing that, but note that I refused to copy a company's version of a corinthian helmet when it was suggested I do so the other day and will only use original artefacts as reference.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply


Forum Jump: