ethics and copywrite law

Create a Post
JBergelin

JBergelin

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Posts
374
Loc
Big Rapids, Michigan
Recently i have had two instances where i wondered about the "art" and whether i should frame it.

1)Customer brings in a giclee. apparently she had purchased a fine art print/poster and sent it off to a company to have it made into the giclee. $10. for the poster $100. for the image. Famous painter, famous piece.

2) Customer brings in a piece to be framed that was originally a holiday card. She had taken it to a local quick copy type place and had it enlarged.

Do you frame these items? If not how do you explain to the customer?
 
I'll read the responses with interest. My gut response is of course I'd frame it! There is nothing illegal in framing something for a customer so why stick my nose in where it doesn't belong? I don't think the customer plans to sell the work; just enjoy it! I try to remember when I'm traveling down the highway of life to ignore what's not in my lane!
kaffeetrinker_2.gif
 
1) sounds like a print transfer... where's the problem? Doubt that the lady paid the $2-3,000 to have the poster photographed and retouched and printed out by the inkjet to make it a "Giclee".

2) She brought you a picture to frame. In what capacity are you aiding and abedding her blowing the thing up? How did you colude with her to enlarge a copy righted image? You didn't. Review case history of Bev Doolittle vs. The Framing World

If the customers paid for their images, and use them themselves and do not sell the altered images for a profit..... they get to do what makes them happy.. even if it means using them as toilet paper.... which I think is the term observed by the judge in the afore mentioned case.
 
I understand and appreciate your concern, but concur with the responses so far. It is for private use, one copy, not being resold and you should go forward without concern.

Dave Makielski
 
A lot of the reason people come to us is because they want to enjoy what they have. It is either sentimental or they just like it and want it to look even better. You are not breaking any ethics by framing what they want you to.

Now it would be unethical to sit back and let someone think they have something really priceless, when you know for a fact that it's worth less than a penny... and you do this just to reap the profits of framing it elaborately.
In that case you need to inform them, and if they still decide to frame it... then do what they say!

By the way don't mix up my term priceless... I mean something can be priceless to a person even though it is worth nothing to anyone else... But if they think it's priceless; as in worth a ton of money and it's not, then you need to let them know.
icon21.gif
 
Actually, it is the company who created copies of a copyrighted piece and the customer that are in copyright violation. Mere ownership of a print, card, etc. does not give you permission to have copies made even if you do not intend to sell them. If it is a copyrighted piece of art, only the copyright holder can give permission to have it copied.
 
Just frame it. You have no part in any illegal act, which would only cover the reproduction, distribution or sale of the piece itself. All liability lies with the customer and the company that reproduced the image.
 
Then how does this train of thought extend to the person who brings in an Eagle feather or those hits of acid or that fantastic pot leaf they want framed? If it is illegal to have these items and it is illegal for your customer to violate copyright laws, aren't we in colusion somehow?
If the police came into your store and saw the pot leaf or the eagle feather nicely framed... wouldn't you be breaking the law by having this stuff in your possession... knowingly accepting illegal items and not notifying the law.
Sort of like knowing that the painting that just came into your store to be framed was a stolen piece. Wouldn't you be an accessory to a crime by not notifying the police of its existance?And wouldn't you also be breaking the law by knowingly having images that violated copyright laws in your possession?

Just something to think about.
 
Originally posted by framah:
Then how does this train of thought extend to the person who brings in an Eagle feather or those hits of acid or that fantastic pot leaf they want framed? If it is illegal to have these items and it is illegal for your customer to violate copyright laws, aren't we in colusion somehow?
If the police came into your store and saw the pot leaf or the eagle feather nicely framed... wouldn't you be breaking the law by having this stuff in your possession... knowingly accepting illegal items and not notifying the law.
Sort of like knowing that the painting that just came into your store to be framed was a stolen piece. Wouldn't you be an accessory to a crime by not notifying the police of its existance?And wouldn't you also be breaking the law by knowingly having images that violated copyright laws in your possession. Just something to think about.
Click to expand...
I've never done a pot leaf or an eagle feather, but some years ago, I framed several blotter hits in 16 X 20 8-ply mats with a 1/4" window for a gallery in Greenwich Village. I was cautioned to handle these only with gloves because they were probably still "live". The show was a success, the gallery did not get busted, I did not get high, so I don't see the harm in taking drugs and converting them into art.
 
Originally posted by framah:
... it is illegal for your customer to violate copyright laws, aren't we in colusion somehow?
... Wouldn't you be an accessory to a crime by not notifying the police of its existance? And wouldn't you also be breaking the law by knowingly having images that violated copyright laws in your possession?

Just something to think about.
Click to expand...
OK, I thought about it. Who wants to call the police and tell them, "Someone just bought me a enlarged copy of a Christmas card to frame!" And then let us all know what they say? :eek:
shutup.gif
;) :D
 
We have a photocopier - self service. One day I caught a lady taking pages out of our Winn Devon catalogues and photocopying them, there were pages everywhere.

She claimed she was sending then 'overseas - for a charity'.

I took her money for the photocopying so far and then ripped her copies up. Bloody cheek!
 
Mah and others: Isn't life complicated enough already without worrying about something that you didn't create originally, might have in your possession for maybe 10 days, then will be hanging in someone's home and never displayed in public?
Relax. Have a glass of wine.
kaffeetrinker_2.gif
Rick
 
Yeah, Rick.. I agree with you. I was just speculating about how far this could go. Personally, if someone brought all "that stuff" in for me to frame, I'd have to close the store for a few days to come back down.
shutup.gif
shutup.gif


But suppose someone actually did bring in a painting to frame that had been stolen. What would you do?

Copyright stuff doesn't bother me at all as long as they don't want ME to print it. If so, they have to have either proof they painted it or a letter from the artist allowing me to reprint the work, no exceptions.

And as to your suggestion I have a glass of wine.. right after work I'm heading to a wine tasting event at a gallery where my photos are being shown and i'll have one for you as well!!
thumbsup.gif
 
This is flaying away at a dead horse. This has been dicussed ad nauseaum. The trouble is that many only remember the outcomes that make them right. If you tell a lie and no one catches you ,isn't it still a lie?

With that in mind if you violate the copy rightlaw ( Privacy Act) regaurdless of what you or I think is legally correct you can be held accountable.

I think that is exactly what is beening bantered about when Some Judges are accused of "Legislateing From the Bench". We may not like a law and may even think it unfair but if the letter of the law is violated we can be prosicuted.With that in mind there are PRESIDENCES to deal with.

Baer sighted one concerning a Bev Dolittle case and I must confess I am not familiar with it nor it's outcome.

However I am familar ( Almost first handedly) with a a Suit brought By a local artist named Patty Bannister. She has produced a series of doe eyed engeinues in Victorian settings. They were being copied in much smaller sizes and even the advertiseing slicks were being sold some time ago.
Mrs. Bannister or her husband /Manager hired an attorney ( and I think a private investigator,which I feel fairly sure paid my shop a visit unannounced as others where).The test was this person asked if any Framing shop would be willing to frame obviously much smaller sized images for them to resell.

The key words were "OBVIOUSLY SMALLER" and they intended to resell them.I balked others didn't and she prosicuted and won a suit against several FRAMING shops.

The reasoning being if you knowingly reap a profit ( if only from the framing) you can be held in Violation of the Privacy Act.In fact it has been a long time but when friend who works for the FEDERAL PROSICUTERS office sent me a copy of the entire law ,it has provisions for being help liable if you knowingly denie the originator the POSSIBLE profit from the potenial sale of the originals.Hence if you in any way aid in the sale of bogus reproductions and the originator can show that those sales ( even if cumlatively with others) caused them to lose profits from the sale of a Copyrighted Original without gainning LISCENCE from the originator you can be prosicuted.

But having said all that legal Mumbo Jumbo I have also been told that in single cases of the same action you may want to roll the dice and take a CHANCE that the originator isn't going to PROSICUTE . This is since with out that action you can violate the law( which you are indeed doing) until brought to Court.

Howver be advised that IF you Lose a suit you can be fined up to $10,000 per incident and or imprisioned . So weigh you chances and roll the dice.

Who knows you may get a Judge who feels the law is bad as you do and wants to legislate.But the originator can take this all the way to the Supreme Court and times are changeing.IMHO
BUDDY
 
I would like to learn more about this case. I can't find a single blurb about it in any newspaper or anywhere else. Can you share some more specific information about when the lawsuit took place, where, or specific frameshop?

My legal research is unfortunatly limited to the internet. That search isn't all inclusive but I would think that I would be able to find something?

A while back there was a topic about being sued for not properly framing something and having the art destroyed from questionable framing. I started searching on the internet for any lawsuit by a frame shop. I didn't find anything. NOTHING! I found one moulding company that was sued for some employment violation. I saw where one moulding company sued another for replicating one of their patterns. I didn't see a single suit about a frame shop being sued. I'm not saying it doesn't happen BUT baised on that information, I'm not going to frame with fear.
 
I run into problems with Copyright infringement all the time with my instruction booklets and know a lot about it. It is the company or person who actually made the copy giclee who is breaking the law.

Anyone who makes copies of copyrighted material is breaking the law. You may want to tell your customer about the infringement when she picks the picture up. She may not realize that what the company who copied the picture did was highly illegal. If it were me, I would want to know so that I wouldn't be an accessory to another persons crime in the future. Explain to her that she didn't do anything wrong and this is why you framed her picture without question, but as an expert art dealer it is your duty to inform her of this illegal practice by the company who made the counterfeit. She may thank you, and if she doesn't care you did your duty. It will be her own fault if in the future she gets into trouble for dealing with the bottom feeders of the Art industry.

If you think about it, this practice is taking money out of your pocket and the pockets of the artists who created the art. To buy an artists giclee print would cost substantially more than the $100 your customer paid for the counterfeit. In reality it is stealing.

[ 02-04-2006, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Pat Kotnour ]
 
The test was this person asked if any Framing shop would be willing to frame obviously much smaller sized images for them to resell.
Click to expand...
A sting operation? done by the victim? who was not a victim until they dangled the bait? Wow, so the artist makes 'illegal' copies themselves and then shopped around the framing?

Oh no, they would have to arrest me for assault long before they could have brought me up on copyright infringement!
 
Eric either I failed to explain adequitly or you made an assumption that was way off the mark.

Many Publishers USED TO produce slicks that in reality were minature copies of the original. Most now have some sort of labeling on the face to prevent copying ,however that isn't always true especially back then.

Still you assumed that the PI was produceing the actual copies in my case and/or that they were the ones responsable for their production.Niether would be correct.

This practice wasn't limited to Mrs. Bannister's work. I once personally witnessed a gallery /Framer at a Craft Fair in Canton, Mississippi selling framed copies and matted prints of Paula Vaughn and a couple of other artist at not one but two booths. And when I questioned the legality they swore that they had the the artist permission which I knew was not true.But these small copies were slicks and pages from a catalog. This was also a litigation for Naegels as I remember.Available yes! Baited ,by no means.I think the thing prohibited here was useing an image for something it wasn't intended for,and there by either makeing a profit or denieing the origiantor sales they could have made.The Nagel issue even included who had the rights to the white face imagery and a couple of other artist doing the same style were mentioned in a series of Copy right articles.( that may help locate the back issues of ABN)

The reason for mentioning that line was if you knew the originals ,you knew they weren't offered from the Artist in sizes that small so when you did take the bulk work you knew you were framing Copy right infringed knock offs.There by clearly makeing you an excssory after the fact. ( I
think that is the legaleze?)

I don't even know ,if as some would have you belive ,you could even claim ignorance as a defence.

I tried to find the case historys but I haven't succeded as yet but it was widely published at the time in Art Business News,so maybe one of TFG's slueths can find it.

BUDDY
 
I really like Art Business News. I cut the pictures out and put them in my photo frames.

Am I breaking the law?
 
I came across a news item that seems apropos of this discussion, and then some. Congress is working on a "Trademark Dilution" bill that would severly limit the "fair use" rights that the public, artists, etc. now enjoy. Here is a link to information about it:
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2128
This is scary. It is being opposed by a number of important groups, and there is also a link to a letter they sent to congress in this regard.

:eek: Rick
fire.gif
:eek:
 
Rick unless I am misunderstanding the link ,I think that under the current wording of the "Trademark Dilution" law what Walter Mondale said was a violation of the law.That is true even though very few of us agree with that interpetaion of the law and wether he or anyone else was truly prosicuted for violateing the LETTER of the law.

That does sound very similar to what some of us have been discussing.And as much as there is a move to change the law so that it is more relavent to what should be intended,if one of those hard nose defenders of their "TRADEMARK" groups Files suit for cases like those mentioned ( ridiculus as they sound) they probably would win in a court that ruled on the letter of the law and not what we or even the judge felt it should be.Sad as that may be.

So Jay my opinion about your useing the ABN images doesn't matter( not that it should)LOL .You'd be a lot better off explainning your use in detail to a Bonifide COPY RIGHT ATTORNEY and seeing what they thought.

Is my prospective a little clearer yet?
BUDDY
 
Buddy, thats not going to happen. I'm a man on the edge. Just last night I drove home without my seatbelt on. Ohh and there was at least 1/4" of snow on the ground WITH slick spots. I'm just crazy like that.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top