Quote:
Originally Posted by sirseph
Actually, and forgive me for barging in, unless the purchase included a Transfer of Copyright as part of the sale the artist still owns the distribution rights. The patron can show it and/or sell that unique piece to others, but they don't have the legal right to copy it, distribute it, or license it. That's why art dealers will always ask for a COA (Certificate Of Authenticity) to show ownership before they buy anything. Think of it like the title of a car in that it documents the sale history. So the patron needs the permission of the artist to distribute copies such as posting it on the internet. This is made clear in both the Berne Convention and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) enforced by the U.S. and the E.U.
|
You would obviously know more about it than I do.
I guess I'm used to doing "work made for hire" so it tends to work differently in that context, but I'm obviously incorrect in this instance.
I suppose, upon more careful examination of the art in question, the discussion is moot anyway because the work itself is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works License. But that doesn't really get around the watermark rule on the forums.
I guess maybe the more pressing question is: how is this movie scene well known enough that people are commission work based on it and yet nobody knows the name of the movie?