Looking for specific stock photos

[Lessevolvedman]

dunno if its what your after but.. https://www.artcyclopedia.com/
is a pretty nice starting point to online works by such painters

//lessevolvedman
http://www.lessevolvedman.com.au

[Joseph W. bourke]

You might want to try Corbis – they’ve got collections that span the gamut of world photography, art, and illustration. Here’s a link. What’s cool about the site is that once you set up a login, you can use the art for your comps, then get prices for licensing.

I’ve licensed several photographs from them over the years, and, while they’re not cheap, the quality is dead-on. Licensing fees vary according to usage and market, so you generally need to talk to a rep, but I think there may be some automation built into the licensing part of their site. Good luck:

https://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx

Joe Bourke
Art Director / WMUR-TV

[Brant Mills]

Thanks for the responses – for what I’m looking to do Corbis showed a photo of the Mona Lisa by a specific photographer broadcast worldwide for over 6 thousand dollars. I was just at the Louvre last month and you aren’t allowed to take photos or video in that area (for obvious reasons of light causing the photos to fade in photography.)

Then I found this on Wikipedia. (which could mean its not accurate anyway)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_image_resources#Visual_arts
“Visual arts
Note: Accurate photographs of visual artworks lack expressive content and are automatically in the public domain once the painting’s copyright has expired (which it has in the US if it was published before 1923). All other copyright notices can safely be ignored.”

Does that mean that of any major artwork that was created prior to 1923 any photo regardless of when it is taken is free game? If so – then why would anyone pay that much for the rights to use a photo of a portrait when its free to use anyway? Is Corbis making that much money off the quality alone – or does the photographer actually claim some rights to the work – i.e. digital reproduction rights etc.? It makes since that the paintings’ representations would be in the public domain.

I really want to make sure I’m covered, but conflicting information like this always makes me second guess myself.

Does anyone have a definitive answer on this or know a good entertainment lawyer well versed in digital rights management? Thanks again – I really appreciate this!

~Brant

[Brant Mills]

that should have read: (for obvious reasons of light causing the PAINTINGS to fade in photography.)

Yes – I’m a grammar Nazi – I’m even anal about my own posts 😉

[Noctral]

Hello,

As a former art student i can say that 70 years after the compilation of a work of art, it becomes royalty free. Also you can shoot a video of it and sell without paying copyright. This also explains the huge amount of classical music cd’s in a music store.

[Joseph W. bourke]

The issue you have to beware of in using a photograph of a work of art is that the photographer owns the copyright (or has sold it to someone) for his/her photograph. You can’t just steal someone’s photo of a painting which has no copyright, thinking it’s free and clear. The basics of copyright law can be found here:

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc

It seems pretty clear that you can’t just snag a photograph simply because the subject of the photograph is copyright free. If that were true, the Beatles version of “My Bonnie” could be used copyright free simply because the song was written a hundred years ago.

Joe Bourke
Art Director / WMUR-TV

[Brant Mills]

Of course – I know you can’t just take someone’s work. Though – were you to make a cd copy of the ORIGINAL recording (were its copyright expired) of the song you referenced and not the Beatles REDONE version – you would be fine. My question was more along the lines of permission to use the photos directly from museum sites (which I can just ask them for permission and see what they say) vs. spending thousands for the rights to broadcast an image taken by someone who may or may not have legal claim to the copyright to begin with. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Thanks.

[Joseph W. bourke]

Brant –
I think that if you contacted the museum with the usage request, and they said yes, you’d be fine. I work at a broadcast TV station in which our News department regularly requests and uses footage and stills from a huge variety of sources. Most of the time we have to put a CG’d source on our footage, but sometimes the material falls under the fair usage doctrine, and we can use the material without sourcing it.

All in all, I think it depends on what your final usage is, whether you are making money from it, or copying and distributing it (with or without money changing hands), and whether or not you ask the perceived copyright holder for a one-time usage. It’s a tricky business, and I’m not a lawyer, but I think the best bet is always CYA.

I worked at a cable TV station several years ago, where we were given verbal permission by a composer to use his music in a show open. Imagine our surprise when, a year later, we were sued to the tune (no pun intended) of 100,000 dollars for violating his copyright. He ended up losing the suit, but it cost us a lot of money in legal fees. CYA.

Joe Bourke
Art Director / WMUR-TV