medieval art and copyrights

Hi, I've just joined as I am beginning a new job assisting the writing and possible printing of a book on a particular biblical subject as seen in medieval art. My question is on copyrights of the reproductions that the author wants to include in the book. Many of the pictures are from post cards (they are much better than the poorly illuminated originals in churches) and museums and publications in Europe. Anyone know more about this?? Really would appreciate some help

Copyright is really complicated, but, basically, most reproductions will likely be copyrighted. The post cards should indicate that. For instance, I am looking at a postcard of a painting of Geoffrey Chaucer by an unknown artist. It is marked "© National Portrait Gallery". So if you wanted to use that, you'd need to contact the NPG for permission.

One of the issues in copyright is that the absence of the "©" symbol doesn't mean that the image isn't copyrighted. So if there is any indication of a photographer, source, etc. you should make every effort to track it down and get the okay.

Any images that have been published elsewhere are undoubtedly copyrighted, either by the author/publisher/photographer, or by someone else who gave permission for their use. The publication in which they appear should list those on the copyright page.

I have sometimes seen on the copyright page of books with many photos or excerpts a disclaimer that the publisher attempted to track down the rights holder, but couldn't. I don't know if that would protect you.

Surely the publisher of the book has a legal department you could consult with? If this is a self-published book, the author really should spring for the funds to consult an intellectual property lawyer.

Adding to what lilithcat has said, it depends a lot on which country the work is being done in. In the United States, the current (but not authoritative) precedent is that reproductions of out-of-copyright two-dimensional artworks (such as paintings) that involve no significant creative element of their own (such as photographs that attempt to show the original as exactly as possible) are not protected by copyright (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel.

However, this is not necessarily true in Europe, where copyright law is generally somewhat stronger than in the US. In Europe those pictures from postcards and publications would probably be protected either by copyright or by "related rights", but under EU law the length of protection for non-creative photographs may be less (such as 25 years from creation, for example) than that for text or music, so an older postcard or publication might be OK - depending on how the country implemented the Berne Convention and EU directives.

This could turn out to be a rather expensive book: $50 or even $100 is not an untold sum for permission to publish a photograph of a work of art that happens to be owned by a library or the like. I just used an illumination from a manuscript owned by the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale in Rome, and I was lucky to get away with just sending them a copy of the completed book.

Check in the online catlog of individual museums for images that fit you topic. Skip the British Museum or Library because they'll charge you an arm and a leg. The Victoria and Albert has recently relaxed their copyright restriction on their works. Check out their site. Many less well known museums are eager to have their work out there and are much better at responding to questions. I'd provide my list but it is likely outdated by now. It will pay to look around! All the good stuff from the BM and BL has been published 100s of times anyway.

There are whole firms of attorneys whose bread and butter is copyright law. If you notice the small print before the title page of many books where acknowledgment is made for copyright they say something like how they have endeavored to acknowledge all copyright etc but there may be some instances where they might have failed, that is a case of CYA. There are people who make a living out of selling non-copyrighted pictures but available pictures of all best known works are copyrighted.
If you visit museums or churches you will notice that they have signs up prohibiting photography. The adverse effects of flash photography may be a reason for prohibiting photos but the fact that images are copyrighted is another. About 10 years ago Nippon Television refurbished the frescos in the Sistine chapel. As far as I know the price they charged was copyright on the images. This is why tourists are not permitted to take photographs of the "Last Judgement" or other frescos.

You're right Liam, Nippon tv did sponsor the work on the Sistine and I know they have copyrights on the guide books etc. for a period of time. Thanks so much you all for the info. It really is complicated and as many of you suggest a good lawyer might be the best bet. The person I'm working for hasn't gotten a publisher yet but I will pass on the information you've given me for her files. Thanks again

misskate there is a book that may be helpful to you that was written by Susan Bielstein at the University of Chicago Press who worked getting permissions for images of artwork. It is called Permissions, A Survival Guide

Great news Marensr, I will get on to that ASAP. Thanks again to all you wonderful people for sharing your knowledge.

Here in the European situation - assume any photo the be copyrighted unless it's explicitly stated that it isn't. However, there is also such a thing as fair use (much like quoting) if you publish on the subject. It's a mine field! Best advise: always ask permission.

(Sorry for being late to this discussion.)