Re. my Bev Doolittle print. look at this.

So i listed my framed print on ebay and this morning i received this email.

Since your feedback matters, we will give you an opportunity to remove this illegal item before we have to report it to Vero in 48hrs.. This item is a book page removed from the Art of Bev Doolittle. The act of removing a page, matting and framing it for resale as a mini print, is a violation of our publishers image copyright protection and is illegal to RESELL.

The Greenwich Workshop, Inc.
Exclusive Publisher of Bev Doolittle

 

WOW!!!

 

About 6 years ago I found a small framed Bev Doolittle print at a thrift and not knowing exactly what I had (whether original or not, etc.) listed it on Ebay with very few specifics. Her stuff was selling like hotcakes back then.

I got a very similar message an hour or so after I posted. In my case I think the listing was actually removed. I do not recall the "give you an opportunity to remove"... wording.

Wound up consigning it and it did sell for $90 or something. Thinking back and knowing what I now know, I think mine must have been a page from a book that had been matted and framed.

 

It's good to protect the artist but if you didn't do it...

 

Fairly sure it was was a page from the artist's book she published and would have gotten royalties on. (Not a copy, but a physical page from her book.) This seemed to be the trend when her stuff was so red hot. The books were expensive (several hundred, pretty sure) but somehow it was worth it for framers to actually cut pages out and frame individual pages.

Again, back then I didn't know what was what. And I'm no good with framing so it couldn't have been me!

The big tip off is size -- the framed book pages are much smaller.

 

Hard to argue with that but not sure that selling pages from a book that was purchased legally would constitute copyright infringement. I suppose if you represented them as art prints it would. Depends on how it is presented but I can't think matting and framing alone would legally create misrepresentation. Probably not worth fighting for but it is an interesting argument.

 

I removed the listing and will sell somewhere else. it may be a book print but it was professionally framed and matted so it looks very nice.
thanks for all the input.

 

For what it's worth, I think your image is better than the one I sold. Looks to be a nice framing job, too. Best of luck with it.

 

So if you purchase a book and then want to sell the pages then its illegal? How many royalties is an artist supposed to get on the same book? Like an Audubon bird pic ? Of course if you say its a page or illustration from said book, its still illegal ?

 

They say..." is a violation of our publishers image copyright protection and is illegal to RESELL. "

Not artist royalties , but the publishers protection.
Haven't you ever seen.." no part of this book may be reproduced in any fashion...blah blah..." written inside a book ?

Artist Roy Henry Vickers used to put a statement like that in all his calendars ....cuz they'd get chopped up and framed as his prints.
He was the artist and publisher !

 

If an artist, author, inventor, etc. isn't protected then why bother to make the effort in any field? It is their intellectual property is it not?

 

It is , but on certain things there's a time limit , until it passes to Public Domain.

Pharma companies know this all to well, & fight to keep their patents alive & generic manufacturers from copying their products.

Keurig Green Mountain now makes their coffee machines which only recognize their brand of K-Cups, so the generic brands will not function in those machines.

& there are many other examples...

 

I think the issue here is that the print is not a reproduction that infringes copyright. It was produced and sold by the publisher as a legal copyrighted image. It is now being resold. The publisher is claiming that it being resold in a format different than the original, is copyright infringement. I would argue that it is not, particularly if it is made clear that it is a framed book-plate or page from a legally purchased book.

I am not a lawyer but think this represents an interesting legal question. Just because the publisher is claiming copyright infringement does not make it so. I realize that this is not something worth fighting for, but would love to see the outcome if this were challenged.

 

I get that completely. I think it's 17 years. I believe the artist/publisher's point is if it is removed from the book that doesn't change what or where it came from. Back to buyer beware I suppose unless you bought it for yourself and not to resell but even that doesn't escape the point.

 

Looking up Doolittle I am flabbergasted that an artist and/or publisher can, with clear conscience, refer to a photo-mechanical or digital reproduction of an original watercolor, produced in editions as high as 35,000 as "original limited edition works of art". I cannot even conceive of how long it might take to pencil sign 35,000 prints, or how much your hand would hurt afterwards.

 

It sounds ridiculous to me too. I guess it falls into the "antique ivory" category of dumb things we have to put up with.

 

A bit of informal research seems to show that selling a page from a book you own is perfectly legal.

I found 3 types of cases where there were problems with it:

1) altering the page in a manner that tends to defame the work - making an innocent picture of a child look sexual, painting warts on a famous person's face, etc.

2) Using a cut out picture in public promotion of something the original is not connected with - advertising.

3) Selling a page from a book in a manner that confuses it with a print - fraud.

Some people also seem concerned that the seller might have visited a local library or archive with a sharp knife - a not unreasonable fear.

Many people seem confused about the warning in books not to buy a book without the cover - this is not because the publisher can prevent me from ripping the covers off my books, and then selling them if I want to, but because bookstores do not return whole copies of mass market paperbacks for credit, just the cover. The rest is supposed to be destroyed but many find their way into other peoples hands. So that rule addresses stolen property, not copyright issues.

I recently bought 7 or 8 pictures off ebay by Frank Brangwyn that are pages from various books. While I don't know about the books, most of his artwork is still under copyright. They were all clearly listed as book pages.

You could probably win this one, but it's probably not worth the fight.

 

One other issue here - I suppose the copyright holder could claim that in matting, framing, and labeling the picture a derivative work is created that would tend to reduce the market for the prints sold by the copyright holder. That might fly, but I really doubt it, since no matter how it's prettied up the fact remains the seller only has the one copy legitimately purchased to sell.

Please note that I am not an attorney and am not giving legal advice, just expressing an opinion .

 

They have no legal case. But they have the backing of feebay. You cannot prevail against feebay's stupidity on their venue.

 

I have bought empty record albums to upgrade my collections in the past. I would make sure the number on the jacket matched the record.