http://missameliasminiatures.com/
-Original Message-
From: h-costume-requ...@indra.com [mailto:h-costume-requ...@indra.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 07:00 PM
To: h-costume@mail.indra.com
Subject: h-costume Digest, Vol 9, Issue 150
Send h-costume mailing list submissions to h-costume@mail.indra.com To
subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume or, via email, send a message
with subject or body 'help' to h-costume-requ...@mail.indra.com You can reach
the person managing the list at h-costume-ow...@mail.indra.com When replying,
please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of
h-costume digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Brocade and Fair Usegalities (Carol
Kocian) 2. Re: copyright law thing... (Elena House) 3. Re: Brocade and Fair
Usegalities (Lavolta Press) 4. Re: copyright law thing... (Lavolta Press) 5.
Re: Friday at Costume Con (Cactus)
-- Message:
1 Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 11:35:45 -0400 From: Carol Kocian To: Historical
Costume Subject: Re: [h-cost] Brocade and Fair Usegalities Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; forma!
t=flowed On May 13, 2010, at 3:08 PM, R Lloyd Mitchell wrote: Coming late
into this discussion, I have found myself wondering about how commercial
companies (say Waverly) go about reproducing fabrics from the historical
perspective (say Winterthur or Williamsburg). Permission to copy?? Permission
to sell? Historical houses seem to go the reproduction method...when they can
afford it...all the time.? What makes the diff when the reproduced fabric
is used for costume purposes? A licensing agreement between Colonial
Williamsburg and Waverly. Or the historic site might hire the fabric company to
make the reproduction. I don't think there is a difference if the fabric is
used for costume purposes. Once I buy my yardage, they don't care if I use it
for curtains, a gown, or a slipcover for my unicorn. The difference is that
there are more home-decor enthusiasts than costumers out there. When looking
for a market for reproductions, they go for the bigger group. Costum!
ers will enjoy a source of period jewelry, but the museum will!
select the pieces that will also appeal to the general public. -Carol
-- Message: 2 Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 12:04:48 -0400
From: Elena House To: Historical Costume Subject: Re: [h-cost] copyright law
thing... Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I've had to
learn way more about copyright law than I ever wanted because I got into
producing royalty free stock illustrations for an international company.
Dealing with the copyright side of my work often takes much more time than the
actual work. Since it is a truly international company, contributors have to
abide by ALL international copyright laws, which means that we wind up having
to follow a set of rules that are much stricter than those of any single
country. Let's say that countries A through Y consider a sketch made by an
artist of an existing work of art to be an original work of art. However,
country Z considers this to be copyright infringement, therefore no artists
cont!
ributing to this company can sell sketches of an existing work of art. OK,
fine, but multiply that by about 1978302187091, and you'll get some idea of the
thorniness of the situation. Even if I create a work of art without reference
to absolutely anything including live models, in my own uninfluenced style, I
am still open to prosecution in some countries if the end result reminds
someone of some work of art they saw somewhere. An examination of previous
copyright infringement lawsuits indicates that to be legally safe, artists
should simply never ever ever look at anyone else's artwork, period, because if
they can prove that you reasonably could have seen the existing work of art
(not DID, but could have) then you are screwed. Now, I want to protect my
intellectual property. I've had it stolen in the past, and I didn't like it. I
put in the painfully time-consuming research time to make sure that I'm not
violating copyright. But I read the draconian copyright laws that my !
fellow artists either A) want to implement or B) incorrectly think hav
e!
already been implemented, and it makes me want to find another business
entirely. Many--not all, but many--basically take the attitude that if anyone
so much as thinks about their artwork, much less sees it, they should get a
whopping big payment for it. It's insane, and it's killing art. Traditionally,
artists have been encouraged to look at as much art as possible. While being
trained, we're told to copy this painting or that style, to get a feel for how
it was done. This has been going on for centuries, and has produced great works
of art. If you study--even very off-handedly--the artists
