Legal Question in Intellectual Property in Oklahoma

If I purchase an original piece of art, do I own the subsequent rights (photography reproductions, etc.)?


Asked on 3/09/10, 9:30 am

2 Answers from Attorneys

Kenan Farrell KLF Legal

Copyright is completely separate from ownership of a physical artwork. The owner of the copyright (the artist) retains the exclusive right to reproduce the work. You may approach the artist, however, to purchase or license reproduction rights.

Read more
Answered on 3/14/10, 12:42 pm
Bruce Burdick Burdick Law Firm

Under 17 U.S.C. 202, which only applies to post-1978 works, transfer of the copy does not include transfer of the copyright. But under the 1909 act, things were different.

Let's say painter sold painting to patron (client), and the painting had not been published at the time of the sale (the hypothetical is not clear about when the sale took place, either with respect to absolute dates or in relation to critical events). Under the so-called "Pushman" doctrine, there was an implied conveyance of the common law copyright as well, although some states passed statutes limiting the application of the Pushman doctrine, which the 1976 act abrogated (but only prospectively, not retroactively).

Statutory copyright would arise upon either publication with notice or registration; publication without notice would inject the work into the public domain. In whom would any statutory copyright vest? In the transferee of the common law copyright, not the author. The assignee of the common law copyright might claim statutory copyright by virtue of the assignment. American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U.S. 284 (1907), and when statutory copyright preempted common law copyright on the effective date of the 1976 act, by operation of federal law, the assignee would be vested with the statutory copyright.

There is another issue that can turn the above on its head, and that is if the piece of art was specially commissioned as a "Work Made For Hire". If so, it is probable that the copyright went to the purchaser not the painter.

So, bottom line, Mr. Farrell is probably right but not necessarily. Depends on the facts of your specific case. Best thing is for you to consult a copyright lawyer and review the facts. Of course, the value of the painting must be sufficient to justify such a consultation, which will likely run you a couple hundred dollars per hour.

Read more
Answered on 3/14/10, 2:37 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Intellectual Property questions and answers in Oklahoma