There is an idea associated with the art

[iosif]

I confess, every day was going to take a camera. Even took one day, but still forgot to take pictures. It touched the sculpture "Osip Mandelstam. Goldfinch wounded" from the stand of the gallery "Zero." Galina Bystritskaya pleased with the picture of the rural road. Vera El'nitskaya - as always attractive work. Oleg Zakomorny with excellent sculpture. But actually I was expecting more from the exhibitors. The embarrassing seemed to replicating the natural (and sometimes not own) finds. It is very noticeable when watching a painter for several years. Even just walking once a year on Artmanezhu. We have always been on the stand a lot of people say a lot of pleasant. A little unpleasant, too, said, but inoffensive. And many artists photographed the work of Igor. I hope - to make them then admire. I made a couple of times "live" call Igor mobile and handed the receiver to admirers of his talent. To recharge, so to speak. So far, once again I apologize for mikroreportazh with an art exhibition without pictures. Can someone lay out? Special thanks to Grandpa for the visit and for the book.

[Glasha]

I too, felt a part of his work (I'll show them, tomorrow it could find the post and add a photo here), but "very" part only because he is too different, I would say, an artist-orchestra, the flute, the drum but in general gives the melody)). But interesting, iosif, something you talked about the "difference" of his work art /specialists? Your to do with this, I know you wrote.

Here, add that I like very much at Sapunkova, for example, from the graphics:
1.Pismo (directly Akaky) 2.Devochka and dog 3.Narod 4.Sroslis (like pictures of Sergei Eisenstein) 5.Nyu-nude.
Well, simply, a man-fountain!

[DSF]

And I have after visiting Artmanezha have the same impression that the pretty girls there was much more than pretty pictures

[LCR]

Joseph

I guess I vspohvatilas late, but if it is still possible, make sure otsnimite entire exposition on your bench, it can be very useful to you, and the artist, and even the future of his successors.

In general, my advice to all - always fully otsnimat all exhibitions.

Good Luck!

I decided to explain one of the reasons I think few people know it.
After his death the right of the image and divulgatsiyu (first show) work pass to his heirs, and never before exhibited paintings are under state protection. Thus, even their rightful owner (for example, a person who has bought them or received as a gift) has no right to stand without the permission of their successors. Therefore, to prove that such a pattern has already been set, is very important. Here

[Vladimir]

Сообщение от LCR

Thus, even their rightful owner (for example, a person who has bought them or received as a gift) has no right to stand without the permission of their successors. Therefore, to prove that such a pattern has already been set, is very important. That's

Not a fig! Liana is Russia's laws on such a thing? And if you purchase the artist's photographs from his work, this will count for the first show?

[Tana]

According to Ukrainian laws is precisely because is the basis for a claim to court the daughter Yablonska (in the relevant subject is the whole story), although the claim was lost.

[LCR]

Сообщение от Vladimir

No fig yourself! Liana is Russia's laws on such a thing? And if you purchase the artist's photographs from his work, this will count for the first show?

Yes, and in Russia's law (Civil Code, Part IV), and in the EU.
And of course, picture of the artist with his work does not change anything. In the extreme case, it may be evidence that the picture is not stolen, and that is not a fact.

But there are nuances. By law, the fact that the painting was exhibited, gives its holder to a free exhibit and publish it.

But in France there is the Law: Some lawyers believe that if the artist signed his painting, which means that he was ready to show it, and that ground has been some court decisions that give the owner the right to display their works without asking the consent of the copyright holder and did it without paying. Kok is the case with the signature in Russia, I do not know.

Actually, you should ask Selena, she certainly knows all this is 1000 times better than I am.
But still, about the first show I am sure that I say


I found the story of the Civil Code:

Article 1268. The right to disclosure of a work
1. The author has the right to release his work, ie the right to carry out the act or consent to the exercise of that first makes the work accessible to the public through its publication, public display, public performance, broadcasting or communication to cable or any other way.
This publication (the release of the light) is the issuance of copies of a work is a copy of a work in any material form, in sufficient quantity to meet the reasonable needs of the public because of the nature of the work.
2. The author, who handed over to another person under a contract for the use of the product is considered consent to the disclosure of this work.
3. The product is not promulgated in the life of the author, may be made public after his death by the owner of an exclusive right to work, if the disclosure is not contrary to the will of the author's work, express them in writing (in a will, letters, diaries and the like).

[Meister]

Сообщение от LCR

The product is not promulgated in the life of the author, may be made public after his death the holder the exclusive right to work

and purchase of work does not give me the exclusive right of ownership to work? she's kind of like moving into my property.

[dedulya37]

Meister,
2. The author, who handed over to another person under a contract for the use of the product is considered consent to the disclosure of this work

At least I understood that Buy and have an agreement transferring the ownership of the product.
But!
The copyright of the artist or his heirs belongs to them by law and disclosure must agree with the owners of copyright right.

[Meister]

Сообщение от dedulya37

The copyright of the artist or his heirs belongs to them by law and disclosure must be reconciled with copyright holders.

then theoretically heirs may overwhelm the owners claims and claim huge kickbacks for the right show? sounds absurd, frankly.