Do You Make Money if Your Art Is on a Postcard
They did what with your postcards?!
- February 6, 2010
- by Alyson Stanfield
Jen Barbati was recently thrown a curve brawl from one of her buyers, which left her speechless.
Here'southward what we know
Two years ago, this buyer purchased a giclée of one of Jen'south paintings. It just so happened that Jen had a postcard made up with the same image. She happily gave the heir-apparent a stack of the postcards to hand out to her friends.
Fast forrad to late last year. Jen again runs into this person, who proudly proclaims that she had liked the image so much that she started framing the postcards to auction off in fundraisers for her nonprofit organization. (Re-read that sentence. She'southward been auctioning off framed images of Jen's postcards without Jen's knowledge or consent.)
Jen is so shocked that she can't say anything. If she had but been asked, she gladly would take donated. Jen is a wild animals artist and this is an system she strongly supports!
The woman is a pillar of the community. And, over again, Jen supports the cause. It fits nicely with her niche market place and she wants and needs to stay on skillful terms. Still, Jen wants to make certain that this adult female knows that it was pretty uncool to practise this without the artists' knowledge.
Here's what we don't know
We don't know whether Jen's proper name (which was printed prominently exterior of the image) was cropped during the framing.
Likewise, we don't know whether Jen was given credit in any form.
Here'due south what nosotros can deduce
Nosotros're pretty certain that this woman intended no malice. She only wasn't thinking about Jen–simply herself and the organization.
We as well know
Nosotros know that anyone tin option up a postcard and frame it and we'd accept petty control over it.
We also know that it would accept been best to accost this with the buyer/purloiner when Jen first learned of information technology (tardily October).
Here's what Jen's going to do
Jen said she is going to contact the woman and ask for a coming together. When I asked her if she was comfy with that she said "Yes! I do much better in person than on the phone or in writing." Great! Jen knows her strengths.
Jen is going to open up her conversation with this adult female by telling her 1) that she's thrilled she likes her giclée so much and 2) that she was very happy to hear that her postcards were helping to enhance coin for such a valuable arrangement. This is of import. Jen isn't going to lead an set on. She is genuinely happy about these things and she wants to make sure this is conveyed from the showtime.
And so she's going to say something like: "I'k curious. Can you lot tell me how the postcards were framed?" And "How do your auctions piece of work? Was my name printed anywhere? Was information technology on the back of the framed paradigm?" She's not going to assume anything. She needs answers before she tin can continue.
Armed with these answers, Jen volition be able to know which management she needs to take the conversation. She wants to allow this adult female know that she would like to support the organization however she can–as long as she's given proper credit.
While I'm not an chaser (Allow's be clear on that!), I did advise Jen to use the term "copyrighted prototype" in a non-threatening way. This person didn't make the copies of the image, so an chaser would have to address if any laws were cleaved. Just she needs to know that the artist owns the rights to the image.
Certain, Jen could let information technology become–exist happy near helping to contribute to this organization. But folks, if we don't educate others nearly how art and artists piece of work, nobody volition. It's part of your job (yes, job) to brainwash people. Jen is doing all artists a favor by talking to this one person instead of staying silent.
Any more communication for Jen?
24 thoughts on "They did what with your postcards?!"
Source: https://artbizsuccess.com/framedpostcards-auction/
Since no copyright infringement is involved, in that location is not to much one tin say well-nigh this. The postcards were given away, and since what one does with items after they are released is upwardly to the end-user every bit long as rights were not infringed, especially since no contract was made. Ms.Barbati might want to offer to do limited sets of pictures for this organization for fund raising purposes where she can specify how they are to be framed,etc. as per contract and then she would exist able to be paid for her work. When you hand out postcards for free you give upwardly any rights as to how they will be displayed, sold, or resold : kind of like used CD's or DVD'south. Bottom line is she gave the cards abroad to promote her business, in that location was not a contract involved.
In the futurity and for her meeting, she might would offering a set or number of sets of her prints( Express edition, which she should print and perchance frame) to this organisation, specifically done for them. Also on future postcards, she might would insert copy to the event " these are for artist promotional apply but not for resale", which unless she finds someone reselling them doesn't hateful much, but would put her in a better position if this situation comes up over again. No copyright infringement was done here.
Well that is a shame but Jen had every opportunity to do this herself. In fact, she can control how many copies are out there. She should be happy that there is at present a decent distribution of her pictures with a perceived value. This should assistance her future business and she should cease being worried and use this situation to her best reward.
Yeah, does not audio like any sort of infringement at all. The customer could have taken an original painting she had purchased from the artist so given it to charity for an auction with no mention of the artist that created information technology, or she can turn effectually and sell it for a higher turn a profit to a 3rd party. As long every bit the person is non reproducing it themselves they are free to exercise anything with prints that are purchased or given to them. I hold the proper approach would be to come from a place of generosity, and encounter how Jen can also support the non-profit and perchance gain a little control on how she is shown in that loonshit.
I can't see that at that place is anthing this lady tin mutter about. She gifted the postcards which were in outcome sold on as a second manus item much like a Picasso might be traded. Or indeed much every bit the buyer would accept the correct to sale for clemency the original piece of work. Her copyright has non been breached. If she does not want this to happen she would need to make the gift conditional.
I just heard most this story on Twitter. While no laws may have been cleaved, it'south unfortunate that Jen Barbati has to deal with it at all.
At that place's an important issue of trust here, specially since a nonprofit organization is involved. Nonprofits need donations and volunteers to survive. If an system gains a reputation for a lack of generosity themselves, they risk undermining their relationship with their customs.
Since at that place'south a personal human relationship between the creative person–who holds copyright on the original image–and the person auctioning off the reproductions, I'chiliad surprised Jen's buyer didn't do her the courtesy of asking permission.
I suppose the moral of the story is that artists need to put a copyright find and "not for resale" on the dorsum of their postcards.
I hope the story has a happy ending, and I completely agree, Alyson, the conversation needs to happen. Teaching is critical.
I agree, there isn't really any infringement. She gave the woman a stack of postcards to give out without placing limitations on how ether in print or verbally.
Since the woman meant no damage and Jen would have agreed and positively supported the move if she'd known then I would recommend some damage limitation.
Perhaps something along the lines of asking if she could sign them to aid raise more money and then sign them on the front. She could continue to supply express edition signed and numbered sets to the clemency after. She gets her name out, supports her charity and gets a taxation suspension, her friend gets to go along raising money simply in a more acceptable way to the creative person and the auctions will heighten more money because the prints are limited. Everyone wins.
Technical infringement or not, I know that I wouldn't be too happy to notice out that this was happening to my work! I remember this is the perfect way to handle things. People can be clueless about beingness an artist and who ameliorate to teach them than united states of america? While what this woman did wasn't against the police force, information technology betrayed a trust between the creative person and the client, whether it was purposeful or not. The artist owes information technology to herself to tactfully arrive clera that she's not comfy with her postcards being auctioned in this fashion, but that she would be happy to help on her own terms!
Unless she lives somewhere with a droite de suite law, I don't see an issue. People can resell property if they desire, and that includes altruistic to auction for charity. And actually a droite de suite for art *all the same* wouldn't employ considering these were postcards and non original works. As long as the postcards were listed as such (and not works of art) and the artist name is still on them, there's really no result. Copywrite law in no way restricts secondary sales of non-original fine art items in their original state. This is how, for example, paintings terminate upwardly in auctions by their owners and resold to someone else. I've resold work I've bought (ordinarily on eBay) when times were rough. At no indicate did I call back I had any obligation to inform the artist (because at the time our Artist Resale Correct wasn't in forcefulness, but regardless, as a private sale information technology wouldn't employ anyway).
What the person couldn't do is reproduce the prototype. Which they didn't. No rules or laws cleaved hither I'k agape.
However, information technology was an sad oversight that the buyer didn't contact the artist – y'all just never know if the artist could have been willing to donate something else! I would be pleased if prints/postcards of my piece of work helped a charity and would tell the person (and perhaps the charity) to please allow me know in future in example I could contribute something of more potential monetary value.
omg, I can't believe I actually typed "copywrite". *slaps forehead* Pitiful! Copyright. I should know ameliorate!
Yep many people take my greeting cards and frame them and hang them on their walls too. Who knows what kind of hideous frames my art cards are in, but we can't always control what ends up happening with postcards and greeting cards. I think you should offer up some decent art work for them to sell, seeing as you support the system and so you lot will have more than control over how your piece of work is presented and sold.
It'south important that this woman exist gently educated on the ethics of using an artists' image without their consent. No, she didn't do anything illegal, and yes, the cards were a gift. Only let'south say they were framed poorly, or the artists name was partially cutting off, or the postcards were used for an arrangement that the creative person is opposed to, than her public epitome could be damaged. It's important for artists to have control over how their artwork is displayed. I'd have a kind, gentle talk with the woman and explain nicely why it was ethically wrong to exercise this – in an effort to aid keep her from hurting other business relationships she may accept.
It may exist helpful to consider printing your name and/or website not but on the forepart of the postcard, but tastefully over the image itself, in an surface area of "dead space" or some other way where the overall is still attractive. Information technology fulfills the advertising purpose of having your proper noun on forepart, and prevents this sort of thing from happening. Certain, you could mat over fifty-fifty that, only if information technology means cropping an extra inch of postcard to practise information technology, the resulting image is going to wait funny, virtually likely.
I totally hold that this coming together needs to take identify, if for no other reason than to inform her for the future.
I once had a client boasting to me about how proud she was of some family pictures I had taken for her. She was boasting because she had entered i of them into a local photography contest. As her own. And she won. I was then shocked that I couldn't even find words to express how I felt. She honestly had no idea that she did anything incorrect. She assumed that she could enter it as her own since it was "her" granddaughter.
There is a HUGE need to get the general public educated on photographer'southward rights in general. It is a battle that nosotros togs are losing.
Perhaps this could be a lesson on farther publicizing Jen's own work. A flip side to this type of thing is shown by safari photographer Melissa Cook, who makes greeting cards for her company Scene East. They approach nonprofits, have a program where the organization becomes a sponsor of the product, and they get donations for every one purchased. Just some other fashion to recollect of handling things like this before whatsoever abuse of property happens.
Jen could offer to sign some of the postcards, thus making them more valuable in the eyes of potential buyers, peradventure increasing the price the nonprofit can inquire, and helping to ensure her proper noun is prominently included on the framed postcards.
Surely this 'buyer' knew full well what she was doing. the whole story sounds iffy at best, however the higher up comment makes a lot of sense.
The law for copyrighting an epitome changed in 1991. I have seen the bodily documents from Washington. The law is, that by the meer fact that the fine art was created, makes it automatically copyrighted.
why are women always then worried about being nonthreatening and gentle? The woman was a professional, and if she doesn't know that she violated both professional courtesies and ideals and, maybe, copyright police force, she should. I don't recall you practice her any favors by beingness manipulative, and the artist doesn't do herself any favors past being then fearful virtually simply straight-out telling her it wasn't okay. I'm not advocating meanness, just it would be so refreshing to meet someone advise directness and honesty that isn't couched in all this nonsense.
This reminds me of ii separate situations that happened to me. In the offset one, I was shopping at one of my favorite gift shops in Geneva, IL and noticed there was a pocket-sized frame for sale with a image that looked exactly similar ane of my prints. I took information technology to the store owner and she told me that she had done this. She said that liked my work so much, she cut it out of an invitation to an art show for me and replaced the photo that came with the frame with my work.
The second situation I had like this was when my neighbor came back from a women'southward retreat up north with about 30 attendees and proudly showed me the folder that was handed out. The guest lecturer had taken postcard invitations to i of my solo exhibitions and pasted information technology to the cover of all of the folders. Without contacting me or request my permission.
In the offset case, I considered this totally unacceptable, just in the second case, I would have at least appreciated a request. I would have probably been okay with information technology, if they had included information well-nigh where to purchase my work and said that the embrace art was courtesy of the artist Ann Teliczan.
My "day" job is a evolution managing director for a not-turn a profit. What this women did is not ethical. Does the 501c(3 know that they received profits on your art without your noesis? Did they have a release from you? Fifty-fifty though the persons intent was to do good the system-you lot have control over your images. You also have the correct for a tax deduction for an sale detail, which past law you must get a receipt for and they must supply to you lot.
I would write to the evolution office of the non-profit and ask for a in-kind donation form. I would as well suggest them to deal with you direct for future items and you lot would like recognition for your art that they directly benefited from. Tin they upshot a press release to thanks for the auction items.
I would non let this women continue to use your cards. As a an artist we all desire our piece of work out in the public but not in an this mode
I think what you said at the finish near educating the customer most art and artists is then key to many of the troubles we take in this business organisation. All artists do good when we work together to limited the value of what nosotros do. Unfortunately, many artists are uninformed about copyright law and the ideals of the business organisation.
While this issue may not have been truly illegal, that doesn't mean it was ethical, and I think the artist'southward plans to handle it are exactly correct.
Yep, pedagogy is primal. Not just for the public in general, just for artists too. I meet artists violating copyright laws all the time by using someone else's photographs that they simply copy rather than using it to learn about the subject so making their own compositions. Especially with wildlife art. Few artists have actually stood in front end of a tiger or elephant to take a photograph and so where do they become their reference material? It's of import for everyone to understand these issues.
I've merely produced i postcard and I designed information technology in such a way as to suit being framed, with blackness and gold border and title. If someone wanted to sell one, I can't see that it would be whatever of my business unless they are misrepresenting information technology.
I'g non really sure I tin can run into a problem in the story related above unless there is a clear instance of the work be misrepresented in some way (did the postcard include a signature on the epitome?).
I read with involvement the whole story.
I am a poor creator and make Wild life cards and publish, people appriciate these but I do know where to sell. These are interesting for children too. Kindly giude me.
Om