Does selling a sculpture based on a copyrighted painting violate that painting&#39;s copyright? I am planning to sell a physical sculpture based on Michelangelo's Creation of Adam. There would be some additional features besides just the sculpture, but those are irrelevant for the purposes of this question. The painting, for those unfamiliar: The sculpture would be 3d modeled and then 3d printed. To give a sense of what I'm talking about, here's a link to a 3d model that I found. Unless I can license that particular model, my plan is to pay another artist to create a similar model that I would then have ownership of. But, here comes the problem: According to this Wikipedia page, &quot;The Holy See owns all copyrights in the works published under its name or created on its commission (art. 5).&quot; Since this painting was commissioned by the Vatican for the Sistine Chapel, they own the copyright to it. So, I have several questions: In general, if a painting is copyrighted, can a sculpture be created based on that painting without violating the painting's copyright? If not, would the religious nature of the scene be a good legal defense? I.e. this sculpture was inspired by the story of God creating man (not copyrighted), rather than inspired by a specific painting of God creating man (copyrighted). If I do somehow violate copyright, how likely is it that the Vatican would actually sue? How far does their jurisdiction extend? If I commission another artist to create a sculpture based on the painting, could I be violating the copyright of the artist who has already created a sculpture based on the painting? If it matters, I am based in the US, though I would ideally like to be able to sell outside of the US. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you!
&quot;The Holy See owns all copyrights in the works published under its name or created on its commission (art. 5).&quot; Since this painting was commissioned by the Vatican for the Sistine Chapel, they own the copyright to it. The first sentence just says the Vatican owns all copyrights that exist, it doesn't speak to whether any copyrights exist in the first place. Earlier in that article, it says &quot;The law provides for copyright 70 years after the death of the author, or 70 years after publication for works with no named author.&quot; I don't know off-hand when Michelangelo died, but I'm pretty sure that it was more than 70 years ago. So if there is a copyright, it has long since expired, and who owns it is a moot point. The painting is well in the public domain. If there were a valid copyright, a sculpture would be a derivative work and would require a license.
A document, or an image of a document, created using a font would not be considered to be a derivative work of that font. If it were, our system of licensing fonts would need to be significantly different. In any case the part of the license which reads: [This license] allows the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and redistributed freely as long as they are not sold by themselves. It specifically permits such use of the fonts. By &quot;derivatives&quot; the license seems to mean modified versions of the fonts, which it permits the licensee to create and use subject to certain restrictions. This seems to be confirmed by the license text which says: The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the fonts or their derivatives. The plain meaning of this is that derivatives of the fonts are used to create documents, not that they are documents themselves, and that in any case &quot;any document created using the fonts&quot; is not subject to the license restriction.
Generally, it's illegal. You are creating a derivative work and you are not allowed to do that without the permission of the copyright holder. Some jurisdictions may have exceptions, such as fair use under US law. However, this generally protects uses that are intended to comment on or parody the work. It doesn't sound like that is the purpose of your image modification. NOT including: faceswaps, modifications that would shame or affect negatively the reputation of the actors on the image. That doesn't make it legal. I share it in a way that I don't make any economic profit out of it, and clearly stating that it is a modified image (not sure if inside the image, or in the caption under it) and state who is the legal owner of the original image. That doesn't make it legal, either.
You don't seem to be distinguishing properly between "original artwork" and photographs of it. A 19th-century painting will be out of copyright, so you can set up an easel copy it yourself, or even take a photo if the owners don't mind; your copy can be used however you please. However, other people can't use your photograph without your permission. Similarly, if you want to reuse a photograph used in an art book, the important thing is the copyright on the photograph, not the painting.
Not very novel What you are talking about is a derivative work. This is arguably the most famous example: It's an interesting example because Leonardo da Vinci did not have copyright in the original but Marcel Duchamp and Francis Picabia do have copyright in the derivative. Even though the changes are physically small, they are enough. A crucial factor in current legal analysis of derivative works is transformativeness, largely as a result of the Supreme Court's 1994 decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. The Court's opinion emphasized the importance of transformativeness in its fair use analysis of the parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" involved in the Campbell case. In parody, as the Court explained, the transformativeness is the new insight that readers, listeners, or viewers gain from the parodic treatment of the original work. As the Court pointed out, the words of the parody "derisively demonstrat[e] how bland and banal the Orbison [Pretty Woman] song" is. For an author to have copyright in the derivative they must: Meet the (low) threshold of originality for copyright to exist. Make their derivative lawfully - either because they have permission or because their use falls under an exception to copyright like fair use or fair dealing. However, they do not have copyright in the original elements. For example, I could take the Mona Lisa and give her different clothes, a different background or a hat I will not be infringing their copyright. If I give her a different style of moustache? However, there is an issue with "I have copyright on the contents of the post" when you don't. Even if your work is derivative, you do not have copyright in the original parts and do not have the right to licence them. So, for example, this post is a derivative work of the Wikipedia page linked to above and I have copyright in my original contributions because: They meet the threshold of originality I have permission to make the derivative either through the Wikipedia licence or because my use is fair use. I can give Stack Exchange a licence for my work but I cannot give them a licence for the original work including, for example, the image and quote above. So, someone could quote my entire answer subject to the licence or fair work, but they couldn't copy just the image or quote.
I'm just going through high-level concepts with this answer, it's possible I miss a detail. Architectural works are indeed copyrightable works in accordance with Berne Convention Article 2(1). Both Big Ben and Eiffel Tower are no longer under copyright due to their architects dying more than 70 years ago. French moral rights do not expire (UK moral rights expire with the economic rights). Most relevant to this question are the rights to attribution and against derogatory/damaging/prejudicial treatment defined by Berne Convention Article 6bis(1). Copyright law is on a per-country basis and under Berne Convention Articles 3 &amp; 4, foreign works are accorded equal rights to domestic works. French moral rights apply within France. Taken together, in the UK these architectural works are in the public domain. In France, economic rights (copyright) have expired, but moral rights still exist. Miniature replicas should be fine, but be sure to include attribution.
When the site says &quot;a license is highly recommended&quot; I can think of one possibility. A web site can be so designed that it uses a particular font if that font is already installed locally, but falls back to some other font if it is no0t, rather than embedding the font. Since the font in question is provided free for personal use, those who individually download it could use such a site. The designer of a font holds copyright on it, and may license it under whatever terms s/he chooses. If a person wants to design a web site with this as an embedded font, then it must be licensed from the rights-holder on whatever terms the rights-holder offers or will agree to. There does not seem any option but to pay the licensing fee if this font is to be used in a commercial site or product. Using it without permission would be copyright infringement. The rights-holder could sue for damages. Whether it is worth paying that fee is a matter of judgement for the site designer. But there does not seem to be any provision making a license optional for a commercial developer.
This may well be infringement, but I agree that you should start by reaching out to the instructor. You don't want to pay a lawyer if the matter can be be adjusted peacefully. In the US there is a special limited exemption to copyright for "use in classroom instruction" which might apply in such a case. I am not sure if there is a similar provision in Canadian copyright law. But the instructor is likely to change his practice if you notify him of your objection, even if he has the technical right to use the photo. At least it is worth finding out. If he won't, then you can always consult a lawyer.