I did a bit of research, K, thinking that perhaps the Copyright laws in foreign countries might be considerably different from our own. Most of the conventions were quite similar with some negligible exceptions.
The earliest attempts at protecting the rights of the artist were born in the form of tradesmen's organization formed around 1350-1360 AD. This would be nearly 150 years before the Mona Lisa was painted. I don't imagine plagiarism in the form of multiple reproductions for sale purposes could possibly have been much of a problem before the invention of movable type and sophisticated image etching and engraving methods.
Still, the most formal attempts at creating legislation specifically addressing the topic really weren't introduced until the 1920s in France with the advent of droit de suite, the moral rights of the artist. These basically asserted that an artist was entitled to some percentage of the proceeds of any subsequent resales of his original creations.
That is, if, after you sell it, your buyer sells it again for any amount, you would be entitled to a portion of that sale. If it is again sold, you are again entitled, and so forth.
The United States is a real holdout against this idea, which is fairly well rooted in many other parts of the world. Here, in general, there are some fundamental legal concepts which run against the easy flow of this idea.
For example, in general contract law, you could create a contract which would bind your buyer to use a duplicate of the selfsame contract in the event that the buyer might one day sell the artwork. However, contract law conceives of an end to the string after the second buyer. It seems there are prohibitions against trying to create contracts which bind a fourth consecutive party to any of the tenets of the contracts which bound the first three.
The first three would be you, the seller, followed by your first buyer, followed by the second buyer. The fourth party would be any third buyer. That person could not be legally obliged to honor the contract which bound the first three parties in the string.
I cannot remember the legal term for this, and my attorney is incommunicado; save to say it exists.
The upshot is, I still stand by my earlier claims in my previous two posts in reply to your query. I searched using the exact phrase "Mona Lisa" and found 8000+ websites on the Internet with very nearly every one featuring a reproduction of the painting and many featuring articles of apparel and comic reworkings of the image. I feel completely certain that not one of these people is paying a royalty to any supposed holder of copyright on the Mona Lisa image.
Still Barbara Niles is giving you good advice when she says, "Beware!" It is just a question of what there is in the world of which you must be wary. In general, it would be art images created in the last 100 years.
The question of how artists' heir and assigns will react to the expiration of modern copyrights will not really surface until the third decade of the next century. That is when the first expirations and dissolutions into Public Domain will occur.
|
|
