putting a famous painting in a movie

C

c.g._eads

Veteran
Can I put a famous painting in my movie? Say Tobe Hooper's "Nighthawks" (the famous painting of a lit bar with a couple and a bartender with no doors)? If it's a replica?

If I do have to pay money, what's the going rate on putting paintings in your movie?
 
This painting is by Ed Hopper

nighthawks_enlarged.jpg


Tobe Hooper did The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.


This is a good question I have never seen asked.
 
haha, sorry

yeah, this script that I'm writing incorporates a lot of famous paintings through the years. And I don't want to finish it only to be told that each painting will cost me a million dollars to have in my film.
 
My understanding is that copyright expires in a work of art 75 years after the artist's death (or thereabouts--the likes of Disney have been lobbying hard to keep upping the term so they don't lose the rights to things like Mickey Mouse...so maybe it's 100 years now?). Anyway, the upshot is things like the image of the Mona Lisa is definitely in the public domain. However, photographs of the Mona Lisa are likely NOT in the public domain. And unless you can paint your own copy or take your own picture (the Louvre won't let you take pictures), then if you use a "reproduction" of such picture, you're violating the photographer's copyright. Round and round we go. It means you probably just can't buy a reproduction from a poster shop and shoot it as the painting because that poster is itself a "work of art" subject to copyright, even if the original work is technically in the public domain. That's my understanding anyhow. Complex area.
 
Well, that would be correct. If you paint it yourself, I think it's not copyright infringment. I don't know if it fits under, "artist representation" or not.
 
I'm not an advocate for piracy but I'm so sick of copyright issues that are absurd. :undecided Why does taking a picture of the Mona Lisa [which is in the public domain] give the photographer the copyright? If that's the case, PURCHASE a poster of the Mona Lisa, do a canvas transfer onto canvas, take clear acrylic add brush strokes and sign your name - your an artist making a reproduction of a painting that's in the public domain.
 
Well, I agree that copyright can be cumbersome, especially regarding the more vague situation of a photo of the Mona Lisa...but take this example. A guy takes a beautiful photo of the statue of David (a work clearly in the public domain now), as the sun goes down in Florence, and from an angle that creates shadows and contours on the sculpture, showing it off as the spectacular work of art it is. Shouldn't that photographer have the work he expertly created protected? He flew to Florence to photograph the statue, and we get to see David from here in Canada because he took that picture. The picture is his, even if David now belongs to the world. I guess it gets very difficult to split hairs and say that a photograph of the Mona Lisa is not equally deserving of protection. Any photograph is a piece of "art" and subject to copyright. Note that the photo of the painting by Ed Hopper above bears the copyright insignia in the name of the museum that houses the painting. That painting isn't in the public domain yet (Hopper died in the late 60s), but once it is, the photo of that painting will still be protected by copyright. That's my understanding at least.
 
It could also be that paintings such as that one (where it is so well known and can be found sold in poster shops for $5.99) might fall under product placement and cost little or nothing to be used - just credit. This really is a gray area! I would suggest you find out who does own the copyright and write to them, you might be pleasantly surprised and at the worst the answer would be "no" or "too much".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top