How to correctly sign and label lottery product?

[sur]

Сообщение от fabosch

Yes, and the living is not so easy after the fact. Just as long as this rarely comes to work

 In principle, this point we, so far, does the artist not to freeze. The artist, asked me to simply give it the right to reproduction, but I refused. Because rely on long-term cooperation and even a little bit of conscience, I also available. Therefore, I would be grateful for your views on how to be equitably shared revenues between a manager and artist.

[artcol]

Сообщение от Seriy

But it is somehow not supported and does not develop.

Because it is a forum about investing in art, and prints - it's another story.

[Seriy]

fabosch, rarely reach-with us. At artslante many artists who do not sell originals, only copies of Didge.
Selling the rights to the image and copy is always a separate contract. If such a contract is concluded, the right of the picture is clear and clearly, by law, belong to the artist-author and he can do with all that it sees fit. Nothing here is not muddy.
With the right heirs also regulated by the copyright laws.

Added after 2 minutes
artcol, why another? investment is the investment of money in the hope of profit. Who said that income should definitely come in the form of physical sales?
Forbes regularly publishes earnings of deceased artists, who have earned the most this year. In this case, no physical action, they certainly could not make - it only about the sale of copyright. The best investment the late Michael Jackson was the purchase of rights to all Beatles songs. No one can even estimate how much they now stand.

Posted 7 minutes
sur, on the forum at one time was the user who printed a fascinating report on gradual advancement of the artist. Alas, I do not remember the name, but I hope someone will tell the thread.

[artcol]

Сообщение от Seriy

fabosch, rarely reach-with us. At artslante many artists who do not sell originals, only copies of Didge.
Sale of rights to the images and copying is always otdelnyydogovor. If such a contract is concluded, the right of the picture is clear and clearly, by law, belong to the artist-author and he can do with all that it sees fit. Nothing here is not muddy.
With the right heirs also regulated by the copyright laws.

Added after 2 minutes
artcol, why another? investment is the investment of money in the hope of profit. Who said that income should definitely come in the form of physical sales?
Forbes regularly publishes earnings of deceased artists, who have earned the most this year. In this case, no physical action, they certainly could not make - it only about the sale of copyright.

Investments - it is like a passive investment and income, and business - are active. If you're talking about the income of copyright - it is a complicated scheme, and complex circuits, as we know, life does not work. At least until there are simple

Posted 3 minutes

Сообщение от Seriy

Posted 7 minutes
sur, on the forum at one time was the user who printed a fascinating report on gradual advancement of the artist. Alas, I do not remember the name, but I hope someone will tell the thread.

Rassypnova artist? This user has been offline iosif, it seems

[Seriy]

artcol, just you with these schemes do not face. In other branches of art, they have long and successful run, along with the sale. For example, the composer and poet who wrote the song, first sell the right of its first performance the singer is one income. Then the song played on radio, television and all expelled penny AUTHORS. To collect a penny of this waste-Russian Authors' Society. Sometimes a collection of copyright-many many times greater than the sum of sales of the song. Sometimes a collection of copyright only on one song, the author provides a long life of luxury. For example, "Bess metal Mucho" was written by 18 year-old girl almost in 1930, it registered its rights and it pozvodilo her comfortably live a long and happy life.
I think in every copyrighted work. Here at last year's Art-Manege selling limited edition Warhol unsigned - EM someone just buys the copyrights to such and such an image, a certain number of copies, prints and sells. So this business in Russia has already come.

[artcol]

Сообщение от Seriy

artcol, just you with these schemes are not encountered. In other branches of art, they have long and successful run, along with the sale. For example, the composer and poet who wrote the song, first sell the right of its first performance the singer is one income. Then the song played on radio, television and all expelled penny AUTHORS. To collect a penny of this waste-Russian Authors' Society. Sometimes a collection of copyright-many many times greater than the sum of sales of the song. Sometimes a collection of copyright only on one song, the author provides a long life of luxury. For example, "Bess metal Mucho" was written by 18 year-old girl almost in 1930, it registered its rights and it pozvodilo her comfortably live a long and happy life.
I think in every copyrighted work. Here at last year's Art-Manege selling limited edition Warhol unsigned - EM someone just buys the copyrights to such and such an image, a certain number of copies, prints and sells. So this business in Russia has already come.

1) face, and even more so.
2) The Warhol - is possible. There are many nuances.

[fabosch]

Сообщение от Seriy

fabosch, rarely reach-with us. At artslante many artists who do not sell originals, only copies of Didge.
Selling the rights to the image and copy is always a separate contract. If such a contract is concluded, the right of the picture is clear and clearly, by law, belong to the artist-author and he can do with all that it sees fit. Nothing here is not muddy.
With the right heirs also regulated by the copyright laws.

What you write is true and these things are no obvious challenge is not going to - the law is the law.
The point pravoprimenitelnoy practice. Here comes the "turbidity". While cases concern the living artists, yet somehow we can try to understand, but also retroactively. And what about the sale of the late artist now their work, say, the Russian Museum. In those days the sales contract did not stipulate any way those moments. Would you like to say that the Russian Museum with each of his albums, guide, booklet or postcard will pay royalties heirs 70 years after his death? Like fun - now it will burst from the flow of money. .
And what about the same act of buying the perfect private party?
This is the "turbidity" of the situation.
For example, I think that buying 30 years ago, the work of the late artist, I bought the property and property rights on its use. We do not make a written purchase agreement (and who made them in raneshnie times) and I can say that this question is stipulated in the purchase. If it does not believe we can challenge the very fact that my purchase of this work - I could steal it and I have as there is in the hands of a written contract. This is the "turbidity".

And as I understand, our jurisprudence is not yet ready to address these issues.

[Seriy]

fabosch, very often there are processes for the protection of copyright and all right won by the authors of the images. Just have to sue if someone believes their rights have been violated. In the above case, you have one owner-author of a photo, they can be the museum, and may not be. Let the heirs and justify suing.
Yes, it can be argued in court and the fact of purchase. That's why he and the court. If the heirs can prove otherwise. You know the current process of restitution, although the documents for the purchase of the money available. Ahn, say, under pressure .. And return the picture ... that's you and judicial practice.
IMHO, getting a job, you do not get the right author is the general situation, the status quo of the source. It is like buying sausage at the store, you will not get a patent for its manufacture. Furthermore, copyright law does not legally transferred, m e the author of the work is always the same and unchangeable. Contract may be directed to specific ways of publishing, broadcasting, specified in the Act, subject to specified conditions and for a certain period t e entitlements.
For example, under U.S. law, generally all the agreements concerning licenses to use works MUST have a deadline after which the law again returned to the author. I think we have too.
I am not a lawyer, but like in 2008 all contract on the property copyright must be reissued under the new Civil Code. If not renewed, shall be considered void.

And what a museum? More precisely, the publishing organization as an organization ... .. out model, which removed the girl, then redrawn for chocolate "Alenka" gained their rights through 30, and it's not even the author, as a model and not a photo.
TV and radio pay, and publishers will not pay? be.

[Wladzislaw]

Сообщение от "sur

How else would be if an artist does not repeat, and paintings like many ?......

Write a new good pictures.


Circulation numbered reproductions, in the end - this image losses.

[fabosch]

Сообщение от Seriy

In the above case, you have one owner-author of a photo, they can be the museum, and may not be. Let the heirs and justify suing.

From the authors of the photo problem is not that complicated. If you talk about of two-dimensional images (paintings, graphics), then there arises the copyright to retake, especially now there are enough large-format scanners - all of them can be written off, so the photographer in this scheme falls, as serves as a purely technical function

Сообщение от Seriy

IMHO, getting a job, you do not get the right author is the general situation, the status quo of the source. It is like buying sausage at the store, you will not get a patent for its manufacture. Furthermore, copyright law does not legally transferred, m e the author of the work is always the same and unchangeable. Contract may be directed to specific ways of publishing, broadcasting, specified in the Act, subject to specified conditions and for a certain period t e entitlements.

Read carefully my post, I did not write the words "copyright" - that vague term for the matter you are using. I wrote about property rights and the rights to use (as stated in the copyright law). Moral rights involve, including what you write, for example, the right to call the author of this work. These rights neutchuzhdaemye. According to the law can not be bought. Should I discuss these platitudes.
And it is not necessary for this conversation to attract restitution. This is a very different matter.

This, in essence that the 30-40-50, etc. years ago there was no addition of copyright law, which we interpret today. Consequently, it is unclear whether the supposed laws of physical sales of an artist selling his work right to use it (ie, reproduction, performance, transmission by wire, etc.)
This, in my opinion, a question to which no general answer to the law.

Сообщение от Seriy

I am not a lawyer, but like in 2008 all contract on the property copyright must be reissued under the new Civil Code. If not renewed, shall be considered void.

Thus, all museums can rusk - I doubt that they were doing. So imagine how they hand back all that ha bought the last 50-70 years < "- ~ 7 ~ ->

Сообщение от Seriy

What museum? More precisely, the publishing organization as an organization ... .. out model, which removed the girl, then redrawn for chocolate "Alenka" gained their rights through 30, and it's not even the author, as a model and not a photo.
TV and radio pay, and publishers will not pay? be.

So far, publishers are paying museums. Ce la vie ...