Selling real art on SL..

i hear sream is a nice seller ............ but i don't know how to get one ear in sl

When I first started in SL, a friend of mine who is a pretty good Furry artist heard about SL from me, and he tried to sell his art here, or to get commissions to make original portraits of people's avatars. He eventually gave up, because the pricing in SL for anything was so insanely low that even a modest RL commission to do original art looked like an insane amount of L$ by comparison. He never got a single commission, even though we had beautiful examples of his work in several galleries in SL.

In general, unless your work is incredible, or unless you're happy to sell your work for just a dollar or so per print, a real-world artist can't possibly get enough sales at a high enough price to justify trying to sell their own work inside SL. It's like trying to sell a real Van Gough or Rembrandt painting at a flea market. Price it for what it is really worth, and no one will buy. The people at a flea market don't pack that sort of money, and aren't looking for high end goods. Price it at the market rate in SL, and you're giving your work away essentially for free. Either way, you lose.

Personally, I don't mind the idea of people selling hard-to-find, pre-copyright art in SL. Like a specialty shop selling art suitable for builds in some ethnic culture or anotehr. But in such cases, I can't see justifying a very high price. But as far as anything that has the most remote possibility of having a valid copyright, I avoid that like the plague. I could have made a fair penny when I was getting started by making t-shirts that had popular Anime or Game or Rock Band characters on them. But I declined to sell works that by all rights should have been licensed from the copyright holders. I don't buy that sort of art, either.

Yes--CIA World Factbook maps (and the rest of that content) are public domain and free to use. I sell some of the CIA World Factbook maps in my store (CMD Gallery).

I'm sorry to hear that. I will certainly check out your shop as I collect art from SL residents for my castle across from NCI in Kuula. Sadly, I don't have a hard time believing you, as on more than one ocassion, I've purchased artwork in world from an artist, and gotten a happy IM saying that "Thank you! You're the first person to buy my art!"

I think that SL--like the real world--has room for both original works and reproductions of classic works. (I own both in RL.)

It's in Deimos across the water from Nicky Ree's.

The painting itself might not be copyrighted but the photograph of it probably is.

Along with his friends Boris Vallejo, Frank Frazetta, Michael Whelan, and Rowena Morrell, no doubt

Interestingly enough there is art from the pulp age of SF/Fantasy in the public domain now because copyright laws at the time required renewals, many of which were never made. However, its a huge pain in the ass figuring out what is and what is not public domain there.

US Copyright law requires an element of originality for something to be eligible for copyright. An exact photographic copy of a painting in the public domain does not qualify. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
http://www.panix.com/~squigle/rarin/corel2.html

I've purchased some original SL art also, as well as copies of RL works by the same artist. I guess I'm taking it on faith that his work is original and his own although i don't recognize it as anyone else's.

I have also downloaded my own public domain works to hang in my home, with a little cringe, as I recognize the photo of the work is probably copyrighted. However, since it's purely for my own enjoyment, not profit, i rationalize it as being okay.


Edited to add:

Oh, Carl, thanks for the info on the copyright as it pertains to an exact copy. I can enjoy my pre 1923 Klimts with a clear conscience.

It's all fun and games until sombody gets probed.

To the OP. Generally the answer is no. Some famous art works may have risen to the level of public domain - the Mona Lisa may be one of those works, but for a Kincaide (barf) I think it's probably a copyright violation and the artist could file a DMCA or go through whatever process he or she needs to for the artwork to be removed.

Public Domain status is not a matter of how famous a work is; what matters is how old the work is. Copyrights are only for a limited term. In the case of the Mona Lisa (finished in 1506), copyright has long expired. However, Thomas Kinkade is a living artist and his work will remain protected by copyright until 70 years after his death. At which time, people will be asking "What were they thinking?!"

Pooh. Carl beat me at every turn in responding to posts here.

Anyone want to place any bets on whether Disney will invest another few million dollars to lobby for a second extension act in about 10 years?

I do the same thing - sell my own. Very rarely do I actually sell anything. I do it more for my own enjoyment.

Overall. people here really seem to prefer to have the classics, or ripped off versions of more famous modern works. To me, that seems kinda silly. Why decorate your house in SL with the same stuff you can get in RL?

IP law is an interest of mine



I'm sure they will. Perpetual copyright on the installment plan (as their critics called it).

Hopefully he'll be a note in a history book by that time, so future generations can avoid making the same mistakes we did. I said "famous" because the OP referenced the Mona Lisa, but you're right, and I made it look like something had to reach a certain level of fame to be public domain, which is certainly not the case. Bad drafting on my part. thanks for the correction.

i came across some mark ryden prints for sale in a store recently in SL.

it was all titled "goth"-something... one print was from mark's "meat" series' and others i recognized from other publishings. pretty sad really. (they didn't even have the respect or brains to call them by their rightful names.

They've probably got the characters registered as trademarks too. That should keep them protected for as long as the company continued to use them.

Occasionally I will do a reproduction of old master but its obvious its not the original because I am not capable of reproducing the exact color via mouse with my digital equipment.
Very few of these have ever sold and I rarely have put it out because it is old peice from
2003 with my rl name.
Art from where I stand and have experienced rarely is sold when I put it out.
Everyone wants photos and cgi or googled art images from public domain.
Yes some sell it but unless they are reproductions they are public domain images.
If you know anything though about art or textures and for example you compare
Still Life by Paul Cezanne http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Paul_C%C3%A9zanne,_Still_Life_With_Apples,_c._1890.jpg/799px-Paul_C%C3%A9zanne,_Still_Life_With_Apples,_c._1890.jpgl and FD Spark's Cezane fruit bowl the coloring and shading is slightly different which was
based on image similar to this from 2003 made by mouse with my Psp 7 in 2003
http://www.dl.ket.org/webmuseum/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/sl/cezanne.sl-apples.jpg
Yet I did see image on web without my name that looks exactly on someone else's site.
I don't know if it was mine or they did the same.
It is publicly recognized image yes I spent hours reproducing it but because
I am who I am I can't claim really rights to it.
The files I had to prove I did the reproduction and how died when my 486 computer
died.
I have image I share it that I did but computer is being weird I will and have I think
posted my version.
Who owns copy right of image I don't know.
A lot of artist starting out do reproductions of Masters when learning that is how I taught myself.

It is illegal to sell artwork that is duplicated by an art gallery in a reproduction unless permission has been granted by that said gallery. It is illegal to sell a reproduction of an artwork that has not had specific permission for reproduction. Please don't do so. It is theft. It is as aggravating as downloading music from the web without paying for it - it is theft. You can argue this until you are blue in the face BUT it is theft.

There Professional old master reproduction artist and art students do it all the time who do reproductions of art work all the time.
Where is it crime to reproduce work that is hundreds of year old works of Cezannes, Van Goghs,etc for educational purposes, reproduction purposes as long as the buyer is told it is reproduction and not sold as original when it is created by hand with similar skills?
It is common practice for artist to study and reproduce art images while learning as part of educational process.
Gallery owners of public domain peices only own the item, and if they actually owned total rights no one would ever see a Van Gogh, Cezanne,etc those who could visit the museum.

Perhaps, but what they are selling is a reproduction of the image of the painting. If that image has unique value, then even selling an old master would be against copyright.

Example 1 - An image of the Mona Lisa that pretty much looks like any other image seen in an art book or history book. Safe to copy/sell.

Example 2 - a photographer gets permission to take a photo with an extremely high def camera with special lighting to as accurately as possible show the Mona Lisa down to brushstrokes, with the photo used in a book on art technique. You would be violating the copyright on the photo in the U.S.

Other problem - a country that is extremely defensive of its national treasures may reserve the right to haul your butt to the public square of their capital and stone you to death if you copy paintings from their country. You might want to check before doing a lot of traveling - or giving out your RL name.

1) That only applies to art still under copyright. Anyone can reproduce art in the public domain.

2) For copyrighted work, an art gallery would rarely be who grants permission to reproduce. Normally, the only thing a gallery would sell would be the painting itself. Reproduction rights are not normally sold with the physical painting. Reproduction rights must be purchased from the artist (or other copyright holder). Onwership of the physical work of art does not convey ownership of reproduction rights.



Again--this only applies to artwork that is still covered under copyright. Eventually, all works fall into the Public Domain. In the US, anything published before 1923 is in the Public Domain.

The example you have given is almost the exact opposite of how US copyright law works. An exact reproduction of a painting is not going to be covered by copyright, as copyright requires a degree of originality. On the other hand, a photo of the Mona Lisa from an angle, using unusual lighting, would be covered under copyright (again under US law) because the photographer made artistic choices in the composition of his photograph.



There are also countries that will "haul your butt to the public square of their capital and stone you to death" if you are an unveiled woman, gay, not the right religion, etc. Screw them.

My RL name is Carl Henderson.

The issue is whether what the photographer brings to the photo is in itself unique enough to be copyrighted on its own and has nothing to do with how exact it happens to be (unless you are making an argument that a photo can be so exact that it is a perfect stand-in for the Master that is no longer under copyright). A series of exact photos taken with the purpose that I mention (specifically to understand the brush strokes and how they were applied) would provide such uniqueness - an issue that I have also dealt with in RL, when working with a publisher. Of course, in RL it may take a court case to make that determination final or my opinon the prevailing one on a specific photo. And far more likely with a nationally released industrial magazine than a L$ 100 digital picture.

I made the final comment to make the point that U.S. copyright law does not necessarily match that of the other countries. Your comment isn't merited unless you are simply trying to be an ass. My real life name is Curtis Russell, a CPA in Maryland. So what?

in Feist, requiring only a "modicum of creativity", it is made clear that it is the decisive factor.

Following on the precedent set in Feist, in "Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp." (1999), the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled that ruled that an exact photographic copy of a public domain two dimensional work of art was uncopyrightable: "In this case, plaintiff by its own admission has labored to create 'slavish copies' of public domain works of art. While it may be assumed that this required both skill and effort, there was no spark of originality -- indeed, the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity. Copyright is not available in these circumstances."

Even the American Association of Museums agreed that the case was probably rightly decided under US law. Barry G. Szczesny, AAM Government Affairs Counsel wrote, "Just about every museum attorney looking at the case objectively thinks it came out the correct way according to U.S. copyright law * that's why no museum had ever brought such a suit. The U.S. Copyright Office informally agrees. Thus, no one saw any real chance for reversal on appeal. In addition, an affirmation by the Second Circuit, arguably the most influential court on copyright issues, would be even more damaging."



If you are talking about selected close-ups of the brushwork in a section of the painting, then such an image would likely pass the "modicum of creativity" test in Feist. That's far from the same thing as an exact reproduction of the entire painting, though.



I have no idea how you could have interpreted my last comment as an attempt to be rude to you. That was not the intention.