Earlier this fall I needed something for the walls in my room and I found posters of medieval art hard to find and when I did they were expensive. I have some high resolution medieval art from Dover and chose a couple and got posters made out of them. Only one turned out to a quality of my liking at a large size.
So Zazzle is having a 2 hour poster sale at 65% off starting at 2pm PST.
http://asset.zcache.com/assets/graphics ... tzen1.html
I have put the poster I did from the Hours of Mary of Burgundy available if you follow the link bellow, it does not show up in any searches because I am not sure Dover's opinion as to whether or not this falls in to their use clause.
http://www.zazzle.com/mary_of_burgundy_ ... 5348340642
If you get it and are pleased or displeased with it or the quality please let me know.
Zazzle poster Sale-Hours of Mary of Burgundy
-
Ottawa Swordplay
- Archive Member
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:51 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
- Contact:
-
Jan van Nyenrode
- Archive Member
- Posts: 781
- Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 1:01 am
- Location: Polderslot, Drachenwald, Netherlands
Hi,
If your looking for historicalpictures suitable for posters look over at
http://historywallcharts.eu/view/in-een ... t-15e-eeuw
or google 'Schoolplaten'. I personally like the ones from Johan Herman Isings.
Cheers,
Max
If your looking for historicalpictures suitable for posters look over at
http://historywallcharts.eu/view/in-een ... t-15e-eeuw
or google 'Schoolplaten'. I personally like the ones from Johan Herman Isings.
Cheers,
Max
Max I'm really only interested in actual medieval art.
Even for personal use one of the biggest challenges is getting images large enough. There is a minimum of 200dpi and 300 is more realistic and if the file is a JPG that might go out the window. So basically you either are stuck with a small poster
I'm gonna load a few more images and if the posters go on sale in the next few hours I will get some more and see how they turn out.
Even for personal use one of the biggest challenges is getting images large enough. There is a minimum of 200dpi and 300 is more realistic and if the file is a JPG that might go out the window. So basically you either are stuck with a small poster
I'm gonna load a few more images and if the posters go on sale in the next few hours I will get some more and see how they turn out.
-
Ottawa Swordplay
- Archive Member
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:51 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
- Contact:
I know this is moot now, but I actually have tons of hi res fechtbucher images on my hard drive. AFAIK, since they are just reproductions of material that is centuries into the public domain, the images cannot be copyrighted.
Honestly, my problem was having no time that day, and not having thought of which images I would most want posters of.
I may try and get my act together in anticipation of a similar boxing day sale.
The one thing I don't have and want most are images from I.33 in hi-res, and as posters would be awesome.
Honestly, my problem was having no time that day, and not having thought of which images I would most want posters of.
I may try and get my act together in anticipation of a similar boxing day sale.
The one thing I don't have and want most are images from I.33 in hi-res, and as posters would be awesome.
OttawaClassicalSwordplay wrote:I know this is moot now, but I actually have tons of hi res fechtbucher images on my hard drive.
Pick one or two and e-mail it to me and I'll give you an idea of how big it could be printed.
AFAIK, since they are just reproductions of material that is centuries into the public domain, the images cannot be copyrighted.
Actually that is not true. Unless it was published the copyright for works by deceased is 70 years from the time of first publication.
-
Galfrid atte grene
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1382
- Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: Maryland
Galfrid, you are absolutely incorrect. Not only does it enter in to copyright only after it is published but there is a strong argument to be made that the process of turning it in to a scanned file is a formatting change and therefore has a copyright, although much shorter.
So it can be a thousand years old and still be in copyright depending on when it was published.
So it can be a thousand years old and still be in copyright depending on when it was published.
-
Ottawa Swordplay
- Archive Member
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:51 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
- Contact:
Right, but if it's an image from a book that was published in say 1570, what then?
I don't know exactly what constitutes publication in this sense, but at least some of the fechtbucher were printed on presses with multiple copies sold to the public.
Earlier than Meyer, we have fechtbucher of which multiple copies were hand copied and put into circulation. Is that publication.
I am not advocating illegal printing of copyrighted materials, but if an image that is an unaltered picture from a 400-700 year old manuscript is now copyrightable, it is a perversion of the intent of copyright. Mind you, it is one of many perversions of the intent of copyright, so I shouldn't be surprised.
Wikipedia publishes plenty of images as public domain based on the fact that they are unaltered images of public domain works. I know wikipedia's content is open to question, but this is the legal stance they take, rather than information some random person has posted as content.
I don't know exactly what constitutes publication in this sense, but at least some of the fechtbucher were printed on presses with multiple copies sold to the public.
Earlier than Meyer, we have fechtbucher of which multiple copies were hand copied and put into circulation. Is that publication.
I am not advocating illegal printing of copyrighted materials, but if an image that is an unaltered picture from a 400-700 year old manuscript is now copyrightable, it is a perversion of the intent of copyright. Mind you, it is one of many perversions of the intent of copyright, so I shouldn't be surprised.
Wikipedia publishes plenty of images as public domain based on the fact that they are unaltered images of public domain works. I know wikipedia's content is open to question, but this is the legal stance they take, rather than information some random person has posted as content.
Firstly none of this is a perversion of the idea of copyright and outside of a few minor things modern copyright law is very reasonable. Copyright is intended to protect not just the creation of a work but effort put in to its publication.
For simplicities sake anything drawn, painted or written by hand does not enter copyright until it is published by some mechanical means. This makes it worth while for publishers to put in to print pieces previously not published. Before the internet this was very important, it still is but slightly less so with the digital technologies we use today.
If it was printed on a press over 100 years ago then the intellectual content is in the public domain but if someone publishes a copy and changes anything in the format then that version has its own copyright which I believe is 25 years. We don't know what that actually means in regards to digitized content. It is best to assume that a digitized form is a new format and hence is granted this copyright. There are very few entities that have produced enough under this area and most of them have open access to it. Take Google Books. They don't own the intellectual content in the books they have that are public domain but they probably do for the PDF files of those books.
One of the things about copyright law is that someone has to come forward and claim to own the rights to a piece before there is any sort of problem.
Wikipedia is a good example actually of diversity of copyright. If you look at the commons page for any image it will give you copyright information on that image. There are images in there that are copyright but with authorization for use, there are creative copyright and GNU copyrights which basically means you can't use the images to make money, and there are public domain images.
Wikipedia works under the notion that the person who uploads the image knows its copyright and can correctly identify it. There are actually a lot of images in public domain because in Europe anything published created by a person who died before 1940 and published before 1940 is in the public domain. So if you scan an image and call it public domain then you create it as public domain.
And that doesn't even go in to what a public institution says about their work.
For simplicities sake anything drawn, painted or written by hand does not enter copyright until it is published by some mechanical means. This makes it worth while for publishers to put in to print pieces previously not published. Before the internet this was very important, it still is but slightly less so with the digital technologies we use today.
If it was printed on a press over 100 years ago then the intellectual content is in the public domain but if someone publishes a copy and changes anything in the format then that version has its own copyright which I believe is 25 years. We don't know what that actually means in regards to digitized content. It is best to assume that a digitized form is a new format and hence is granted this copyright. There are very few entities that have produced enough under this area and most of them have open access to it. Take Google Books. They don't own the intellectual content in the books they have that are public domain but they probably do for the PDF files of those books.
One of the things about copyright law is that someone has to come forward and claim to own the rights to a piece before there is any sort of problem.
Wikipedia is a good example actually of diversity of copyright. If you look at the commons page for any image it will give you copyright information on that image. There are images in there that are copyright but with authorization for use, there are creative copyright and GNU copyrights which basically means you can't use the images to make money, and there are public domain images.
Wikipedia works under the notion that the person who uploads the image knows its copyright and can correctly identify it. There are actually a lot of images in public domain because in Europe anything published created by a person who died before 1940 and published before 1940 is in the public domain. So if you scan an image and call it public domain then you create it as public domain.
And that doesn't even go in to what a public institution says about their work.
Also they are doing 50% off again today for the next hour and a half.
http://www.zazzle.com/blitzendeals
http://www.zazzle.com/blitzendeals
-
Jeffrey Hedgecock
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1025
- Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Knights' Crossing- Ramona CA USA
- Contact:
I think what's under discussion here is "reproduction rights". That is, if a museum holds a manuscript (considered "art") or a painting, that museum claims the right to reproduce the piece in their collection. If you walk into the museum and snap a photo of their holding then make a post of it to sell, they will likely win in court if they sue you for violating their reproduction rights.
They of course aren't the creator of the piece, and may not have ever published it, but they still hold the "right" to reproduce it. The Met is quite sticky about this, others aren't so much. It's usually a matter of the financial ability of a museum to defends it's rights. This is why many museums have "no photography" policies, especially for special exhibitions, where multiple museums might have loaned pieces and managing the allowance of photography would be difficult, so they disallow it altogether. This also gives them the ability to sell those nice special exhibition catalogs.
They of course aren't the creator of the piece, and may not have ever published it, but they still hold the "right" to reproduce it. The Met is quite sticky about this, others aren't so much. It's usually a matter of the financial ability of a museum to defends it's rights. This is why many museums have "no photography" policies, especially for special exhibitions, where multiple museums might have loaned pieces and managing the allowance of photography would be difficult, so they disallow it altogether. This also gives them the ability to sell those nice special exhibition catalogs.
Reproduction rights are just a part of copyright. They are primarily important for living artists since they often sell the artwork but not the right to reproduce it.
Since we here are dealing with pieces that the reproduction rights of the originator are gone the physical owner of the work has rights as to the reproduction of the piece because they physically own it but once a reproduction of that piece is published that reproduction photo, plate or whatever enters the public sphere and will eventually go in to the public domain. So if the Met published a poster of one of their pieces by a long dead artist in 1923 that poster is now in the public domain. So you can copy it and do whatever you want with it but if you want a new photograph of the same piece they have at least certain rights.
And as with all things in copyright, unless you have a clear right then sometimes it ends up being about lawyers fees.
Since we here are dealing with pieces that the reproduction rights of the originator are gone the physical owner of the work has rights as to the reproduction of the piece because they physically own it but once a reproduction of that piece is published that reproduction photo, plate or whatever enters the public sphere and will eventually go in to the public domain. So if the Met published a poster of one of their pieces by a long dead artist in 1923 that poster is now in the public domain. So you can copy it and do whatever you want with it but if you want a new photograph of the same piece they have at least certain rights.
And as with all things in copyright, unless you have a clear right then sometimes it ends up being about lawyers fees.