Since our lively discussion of sourcing my privately published art history, I have discovered

[CTyankee]

something interesting:

The National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC has made all of the art in its gallery available for writers and researchers. Here is the relevant link: https://www.nga.gov/open-access-images.html

Not only can you have access, the museum will offer assistance in your research.

I have been to that wonderful museum and I recommend anyone interested in art to visit if possible.

I don't know the history of the museum's thought process but at its essence is this: they want art, as I do, to reach as many people as possible, in the belief that art is valuable in people's lives, it is uplifting.

So if you feel the need to sneer, direct it to the museum, and let them know of your deep concern.

[hlthe2b]

1. "Sneer?" Heavens, I'd hope not and I could not agree more.

And yes, the National Gallery of Art is not only a gift to us all, but its mission is invaluable.

[CTyankee]

2. Oh, I don't mean you. I couldn't agree with you more about that museum.

It has a place of honor for uplifting an entire city (along with The Kennedy Center). Before that D.C. was a kind of cultural backwater, as if government workers didn't need art in their lives. I worked on Capitol Hill at the time, moving from New York, and was struck by the lack of a vibrant arts community.

[OhNo-Really]

3. Thank you. This is great news

Omgosh! They have removed copy rights for a huge selection of the best artists works! We can use a huge selection of them for free!

Just choose the “downloadable filter” see below

So I went here
https://www.nga.gov/notices/open-access-policy.html

They are available for download on this link nga.gov object pages. See Policy Details below for specific instructions and notes for users.

That takes you here

https://www.nga.gov/collection-search-result.html?sortOrder=DEFAULT&artobj_downloadable=Image_download_available&pageNumber=1&lastFacet=artobj_downloadable.html

Then opened “Display Options”
https://www.nga.gov/collection-search-result.html?sortOrder=DEFAULT&artobj_downloadable=Image_download_available&pageNumber=1&lastFacet=artobj_downloadable.html

Chose downloadable “no copyright “
Impressionist
Etc and after all filters addressed has to touch the circle arrow to the right of the URL at the top to complete the search/selection.

Anyway, as a self-taught artist that is convinced I cannot draw, I can use my iPad and Procreate App and use works from the greatest artists to learn how they worked.

This is a wonderful share!

Thank you so much CTYankeee

Wow

[CTyankee]

4. thank you for the extensive breakdown of what is available from the National Gallery.

It is very helpful to working artists such as you.

[OhNo-Really]

5. I'm over the moon happy for this Birthday Present!

Last edited Sat Mar 4, 2023, 01:18 PM - Edit history (1)

If you have an iPad, the “no in app purchases” user friendly, Procreate App is only $9.99 and their customer service from the Tasmania community is like a 15 on a scale of 1-10.

You can view this self-taught elderly artist Procreate Art here. It is not AI. It works like the expensive leading photo editor program only much easier.

My Art
https://www.flickr.com/photos/woe1

You will see yesterday’s post.

Tap the X in the upper right hand corner to see whole collection.

When Flickr collection page opens, just above first pic to the left, there are 2 choices of “how to view”

Choose the single solid block then scroll down. Otherwise, the collection can’t be viewed in its entirety.

I’m kind of proud of learning a new skill in my 70s ☺️🥹

Everyone can make art!!

Living proof here. Haha

[hippywife]

6. I just looked at your former thread...

and the people telling you that you can't use copyrighted art in the manner you wish are correct. Looking further at the breakdown OhNo-Really posted, unless I'm missing something here, there appears to be a selection on the site to use non-copyrighted works, not ALL of the works.

Either way, if they were opening up ALL their work for writers and researchers, it would not preclude permission to reproduce the images.

And, as a matter of fact, they even state this in their guidelines for this program, that it's only for works legally in the public domain:

https://www.nga.gov/notices/open-access-policy.html

Why Are Some Images Unavailable?

If an image of a work is not currently available under open access, it is for one or more of the following reasons:

* the work is still under copyright, or the copyright status is unclear
* privacy or publicity issues exist
* the work is not fully owned by the National Gallery of Art
* contractual restrictions specified by the artist or donor preclude open access
* the work has not yet been photographed or the image quality standards of the existing photographs do not
conform to National Gallery of Art criteria

Edited for clarity.

[OhNo-Really]

7. Yea, one of the "filters" is "downloadable images"

From The National Gallery Open Access Policy

“ With the launch of NGA Images, the National Gallery of Art implemented an open access policy for digital images of works of art that the Gallery believes to be in the public domain.

Images of these works are available free of charge for any use, commercial or non-commercial, under Creative Commons Zero (CC0).

Users do not need to contact the National Gallery for authorization to use these images. They are available for download on nga.gov object pages. See Policy Details below for specific instructions and notes for users.”

https://www.nga.gov/notices/open-access-policy.html


All images are available for viewing, however.

This is an online HUGE gallery

[OhNo-Really]

8. The filters as described in previous comment hone In preferences

[hippywife]

9. Yep.

All images are available for viewing, however.

Just as they would be to view in person in the museum, but NOT for other uses that break copyright law.

Having been an artist for a very long time, in one form or another, I'm just amazed that people think anything they find on the internet is considered "public domain" or is available for use by anyone. How would they feel if someone appropriated THEIR art for something that they don't profit from, or even support?

Good ethical and legal rule of thumb, even in the AI age: is it yours? Did you create it? NO? Then don't use it.

[OhNo-Really]

10. I agree 100%

The ability to use digital images to self-teach and not sell is permissible.

However, access to these great works is a huge boon.

I will create digital palettes automatically with my Art app. There’s a great deal of color theory hidden in the works of masters.

[CTyankee]

11. What if your "use" is framing it and putting it on your wall because you love it. If you are the

artist what have you lost? Then, suppose someone else saw it on your wall and bought a reproduction of your work. Of course, if you sold your original and it was purchased you would have your money, but many people can't afford original art. I have bought several works in oil by a local artist in Wisconsin where we once had a house. It was wonderful having her art on my wall there and now here in CT. And I loved it.

Similarly, museums sell copies of art in their museum. And I have a key fob of the little footbridge by Monet that I bought at the Musee d'Orsay's gift shop in Paris. I love it because I see it each time I use my supermarket card attached to it. Occasionally some people see it and comment on it. Maybe they would be interested in seeing it again. Where? Google or maybe a little video on YouTube.

I write about art because I love it and have had my readers comment that it made them appreciate art more and actually made them happier. That artist or those artists may then be sought out on that despicable Google. Beauty is thus proliferated in the world.

[hippywife]

12. ...

What if your "use" is framing it and putting it on your wall because you love it. If you are the artist what have you lost?

Control over my work. What if I don't support you or an organization you work for and don't wish to be associated?

Of course, if you sold your original and it was purchased you would have your money, but many people can't afford original art.

And if people go around reproducing it willie nillie for any reason they wish, the value of the original decreases. That's why many artists make prints available, often times in a run of limited copies. I'm totally good with people who are starving stealing food, not so much someone else's intellectual property. And it is considered theft under law.

Similarly, museums sell copies of art in their museum. And I have a key fob of the little footbridge by Monet that I bought at the Musee d'Orsay's gift shop in Paris.

And that's because either they're granted permission to reproduce, or it was no longer copyrighted.

I write about art because I love it and have had my readers comment that it made them appreciate art more and actually made them happier. That artist or those artists may then be sought out on that despicable Google. Beauty is thus proliferated in the world.

It doesn't belong to you, so you don't get to decide how and where it's used. Why not just ask your favorite rock band to play at your event for "exposure?" It's the same thing.

As I said, the bottom line is if it's not yours and is copyrighted, you don't have permission to use it until the artist or whoever controls the copyright grants permission or until it expires.

Copyright in the U.S.:
https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/


How long does copyright protection last?

The length of copyright protection depends on when a work was created. Under the current law, works created on or after January 1, 1978, have a copyright term of life of the author plus seventy years after the author’s death. If the work is a joint work, the term lasts for seventy years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire and anonymous or pseudonymous works, copyright protection is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. Works created before 1978 have a different timeframe. Learn more about copyright duration in our Duration of Copyrights Circular.

Terms of copyright vary in different countries and are internationally enforced via the Berne Convention:

https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/


If you want to use and spread art, either get permission or use works whose copyright is expired. If you love and appreciate art and the artists, it's the legal and ethical thing to do.

[CTyankee]

13. Some people (not me) like to take pictures on their cell phones in art museums.

Would you do that?

[CTyankee]

14. "That's why many artists make prints available, often times in a run of limited copies."

I didn't know this. I would vastly prefer to obtain copies that way.

And I suppose I could find out which art is in the Public Domain by contacting the Museum where it is held. I'm very happy to do this and it sounds reasonable to me.

[CTyankee]

15. In my unpublished book on art and music I reference a album cover art which the artist granted

permission to Marvin Gaye for his album "I Want You." The art originally was entitled "Sugar Shack" (by Ernie Barnes). Do you think BOTH works would need to be credited or just the music company who acquired the rights to sell the record in that album?

[CTyankee]

17. We will have to agree to disagree here, I believe.

Cornell Law School asserts:https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=U.S.+copyright+law+section+107+and+108

I believe "assert" is relevant here. I am sure you do not agree.

I wish you well in all your future efforts, hippiewife.

[hippywife]

18. On this topic...

I will not "agree to disagree". I'm just done playing your game of looking for reasons to justify your desire to continue when in two threads you've been told why it's inappropriate and illegal, with all the information you need.

Talk to a copyright attorney coz I'm done.

[CTyankee]

16. these restrictions are reasonable and understandable (where there is doubt that the museum can

grant the access).

Why did the National Gallery do this, do you think? They must have a reason, don't you think?