Pyotr Konchalovsky

[LCR]

Сообщение от OlgaV

portrait naisanny artist who belongs to - the artist or the model?
In terms of copyright - the artist and his heirs.
From the point of view, vyskazannnoy in this forum - the right to now be owned model, ie Pebbles. But vzmozhno only if the portrait was presented to her by the artist, ie officially, with a dedication.

In addition, interesting opinions uchastnnikov, and the more the heirs on:
WHO should belong PORTRAIT: Artist or model?

As you yourself write, in terms of copyright portrait, painted by the artist, belongs to him and his heirs.

In the event that we are interested, I relied on the following facts:

- This portrait was in the apartment Benedikt;
- He was seized with the confiscation of property Benedikt.

From this I concluded that he belonged Benediktov, ie was either purchased or donated - the author or someone else.

I admit that the portrait actually belonged Konchalovsky and was at Benedikt's temporary storage, and that they demanded his return, but then they must necessarily be supporting this document, no?

[LCR]

Сообщение от OlgaV

No!
Liana! I've already written about. You do not need any documents to confirm the deposit.

I meant that if the portrait belonged Konchalovsky, and after the confiscation of property they Benedikt - Konchalovskie - to reclaim their rights to work and demanded her return (from whom? The NKVD?), Then had to apply, etc. ie without administration of writing such a thing could not do), that's about what documents I said.

[LCR]

Сообщение от OlgaV

By the way is the wrong job "Man on the background at home" again, not sold - even on Ebay. And it means that your struggle is not in vain. Nobody wants to buy this work. Though a small victory, but a well-deserved!

Irina And I suggested this idea - a miracle! Here I will ask my lawyer to implement it, and if this case to get something, tell the forum.

But in case of success in poddelschikov have great chances to become the accomplice

[Евгений]

State Central Museum of Contemporary History of Russia
1.Konchalovsky PP Flowers. 1934 Oil on canvas.
National Art Museum of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)
2.Konchalovsky PP Portrait of writer Sergei Vladimirovich Mikhailov with his son. 1943. Oil on canvas
State Vladimir-Suzdal Museum of Art-reserve.
3.Konchalovsky PP (1876-1956). Portrait of Dmitry Petrovich Konchalovskogo.1909g.Holst, maslo.109 x 77
Odessa Art Museum.
4.P.P. Konchalovsky. "Flowers". Early 20 th century.
Samara Art Museum.
5.P.P.Konchalovskiy.Natyurmort1910 th

[SergeiSK]

But from the Sochi Art Museum.
"Roses in a jug," 1936, oil on canvas, 71h59 see
In the lower right corner of the artist's signature in black paint: "P Konchalovsky"
Received from the sanatorium it. Ordzhonikidze Sochi.
Even in the museum is one of the options for "Lilac", but the photos yet, will do later.

[Pavel]

Stupidity kind! if you work in a museum that it should be proud. Wash model was overcome greed, such dengi.Pust lies somewhere lezhit.Izyali to save, ze to prodat.Ne izyali would propala.Gospoda noblemen were not very fond of art.

[Синица]

Сообщение от OlgaV

WHO should belong PORTRAIT - artist and his written, or MODEL?

Has not yet made a separate topic, I will say here --
artist, of course, prinaldezhit.
The artist with the model of their arrangement - he either pays model to work, or it amicable agreement, or "order" model.
A portrait of himself can already sell or donate.

[color="# 666686"]Added after 5 minutes[/color]
I own портретик here does not redeem the artist - all put out (to whom he is, except me, should be).

[Pavel]

Each krtiny istoriya.Esli own custom portrait, the model poses and pays, then the portrait belongs to the model, the customer, but then it can pass from hand to hand and that is another story. Rat and rabbit at all, and nothing was stolen. If the model is simply a model, the picture belongs to the author, again for some time, and then to someone who is at the moment, if not observed istoriya.Esli, as in this case, the work in the museum, the question is closed. The museum is not connected with commerce, but with persistence.

[Евгений]

Сообщение от Pavel

Wash model was overcome greed, that kind of money.

Paul, once again ask you, start a new topic and write that the soul desires.

[Eriksson]

Сообщение от Pavel

Stupidity kind! if you work in a museum that it should be proud. Wash model was overcome greed, such dengi.Pust lies somewhere lezhit.Izyali to save, ze to prodat.Ne izyali would propala.Gospoda noblemen were not very fond of art.

Paul!
You must be attentively read the previous posts. Indiscriminately blame the old woman, naterpevshuyusya from the Communists and NKVD, in that it "was overcome greed, at least, inhuman.

The more likely it unknown to those passions that flared around her name on this esteemed site.

From my point of view, picture, of course, can not belong to the model, moreover, that while she was a maximum of 10 years and of course, no one she was not paid for the "sessions". For the same reason - once Konchalovsky not pay - the picture can not belong to the heirs of the artist.

If the picture was in the house Benedikt, then - of course, in the form of a gift or in extreme cases - the result of the sale. However, even if the painting was sold to imagine that Konchalovsky in this case ordered to "check" the composer Benediktov, extremely difficult.


The painting was seized, confiscated - hence its considered property, and there has no value, it is an artistic value or not. As property unlawfully seized during the political repression, the picture must be returned the owner, the house where this thing is.

The only question is whether there is in the nature of the act or an inventory of seized property? How realistic is to find such a document in the archives of the KGB? It is also doubtful that even a copy of the inventory of confiscated kept at the very Pebbles - who would have betrayed her child? Absurd!

Gentlemen I'm not "moved on" - I'm just not a lawyer, not a citizen of Russia, and indeed, the hands are short. " Fight with the state, even in the name of spravdlivosti - alas, not my cup of tea. We must face the truth.