https://ericalevi.coventry.domains/games/performingPublic.html
This scenario is part of the online course Copyright and Creative Reuse in Education, designed by Bartolomeo Meletti (Learning on Screen).
The author takes no responsibility for the content of this page, which is not intended as binding legal advice. The views are about copyright in the UK Higher Education sector context.
Copyright protection starts as soon as a work is created.
The duration (length) of copyright is very complex. It depends on various factors, such as the type of work when it was created, whether it was published or unpublished, whether the author is identifiable and the geographical jurisdiction where the law applies.
Once your copyright has expired, a work falls in the public domain, and anyone can use or copy it. Any reproduction of work in the public domain may be freshly subject to copyright.
Since copyright law is territorial, one work may be in the public domain in one country but not another. In the UK, the copyright expires as follows:
| Work type | Expiration | ||
| Literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works | 70 years after the death of the author | ||
| Film | 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons: director; author of the screenplay; author of the dialogue (if different); composer of the music specially created for the film | ||
| Sound recording | 50 years from the year in which the recording was made or, if published, 70 years from publication | ||
| Broadcasts | 50 years from transmission | ||
| Typographical arrangements | 25 years from publication |
The author takes no responsibility for the content of this page, which is not intended as binding legal advice. The views are about copyright in the UK Higher Education sector context.
Merano v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art is a copyright case in the United States. Please note that the judgment falls under a legal jurisdiction other than the UK.
In 1982, the photographer Lawrence Marano shot an image of Eddie Van Halen in concert.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art used the image in an online catalogue for the 2019 exhibition “Play It Loud: Instruments of Rock and Roll,” which featured the late musician’s famous “Frankenstein” guitar.
Marano sued the museum for copyright infringement, arguing that he never granted permission for the photograph to be used.
What do you think was the judgement?
Read the whole piece in this online article.
Dafoe, T. (2021). “The Met wins a case against a photographer who claims it posted his image of Eddie Van Halen online without permission”. [online]. ArtNet. 5 April 2021. available from https://news.artnet.com/art-world/metropolitan-museum-of-art-copyright-van-halen-1957058 [accessed on 28 January 2022].
The author takes no responsibility for the content of this page, which is not intended as binding legal advice. The views are about copyright in the UK Higher Education sector context.
Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, 2021
https://ericalevi.coventry.domains/games/workInspiration.html
The author takes no responsibility for the content of this page, which is not intended as binding legal advice. The views are about copyright in the UK Higher Education sector context.
Cariou v. Prince, 2013
Cariou v. Prince is a copyright case in the United States on whether Richard Prince’s appropriation of art treatment of Patrick Cariou’s photograph was a copyright infringement or fair use.
Please note that the judgment falls under a legal jurisdiction other than the UK.
Prince copied several of Cariou’s original photographs and engaged in various transformations, including printing them, increasing their size, blurring or sharpening, adding content (sometimes in colour), and sometimes compositing multiple photographs together or with other works.
What do you think was the judgement?
Continue to read the article on this page on Wikipedia.
The author takes no responsibility for the content of this page, which is not intended as binding legal advice. The views are about copyright in the UK Higher Education sector context.
Rogers v. Koons, 1992
Rogers v. Koons was a copyright case in the United States dealing with the fair use defence for parody. Please note that the judgment falls under a legal jurisdiction other than the UK.
Jeff Koon made a sculpture based on one of Art Rogers’ photographs. It was for an art show on the banality of everyday items.
After removing the copyright label from a postcard of Art Rogers’ photograph, he gave it to his assistants with instructions on how to model the sculpture. He asked that as much detail be copied as possible, though the puppies were to be made blue, their noses exaggerated, and flowers to be added to the hair of the man and woman.
What do you think was the judgement?
Continue to read the article on this page on Wikipedia.
The author takes no responsibility for the content of this page, which is not intended as binding legal advice. The views are about copyright in the UK Higher Education sector context.