The (Un)official Royal Carnage forum picture page

[Demilich]

Susperia, have you ever whored out any of your own art on RC?

I like it!

 

[J.]

actually, the painter's claim to copyright has most likely expired. that is, if paintings hold the same copyright laws as books and such. the painting is probably of public domain so anyone can use it at any time

something i learned back in the day

 

[Demilich]

i thought copyright expired 50 years after the creator's death?

 

[J.]

correct, though i thought some works or countries hold it to 70 or 80 years. this Mikhail Vrubel apparently died in 1910

 

[MFJ]

yeah, the painting is public domain... i know this. still, going to give him the credit.

back to the pictures. following lurch's trend...

 

[Carbonized]

yea, it's all on Wikipedia (naturally) but even so it would depend on the copyright in Russia. But it's generally accepted that 70 years after the artists death it becomes public domain although the increment of time can vary by region.

of particular note:

Artworks

In short: Consider only those works whose author has died more than 70 years ago to be in the public domain.

Another important class of possible unpublished works are artworks, in particular paintings. Because an artwork is not published by being exhibited, and also neither by being created or sold, one needs to know when reproductions of the artwork (photos, postcards, lithographies, casts of statues, and so on) were first published. That then constitutes publication of the artwork, and from then on, the work is subject to all the rules for published works. If one cannot show that such copies of the artwork were published, the work must be considered unpublished.

For most artworks, a year is usually given, but this is normally the year the work was made, not the year it was published. Figuring out whether and if so when a particular painting was published can be difficult. One should consider only artworks whose author has died more than 70 years ago to be in the public domain. Even that rule can be wrong: if a work of an author who died more than 70 years ago was first published between 1978 and 2002 (inclusive), it will still be copyrighted in the U.S. until the end of 2047! However, such cases appear to be rare.

Works of authors who died less than 70 years ago are in general not in the public domain. Exceptions are U.S. artworks for which a publication prior to 1923 is proven. The proof is mandatory; uploaders making a "public domain" claim on (a reproduction of) an artwork where the author died less than 70 years ago are required to prove with verifiable details that the work is indeed a U.S. work and was first published before 1923 in the U.S. To show that a U.S. work was published, one could look for printed works that contained reproductions of the artwork: art prints, art books, a catalogue raisonné of the artist's works, exhibition catalogs, and so on. Reasonable effort should be made to find the earliest publication. If any is found from before 1923, that's good enough and the work is in the public domain, even if the author/creator died less than 70 years ago. Remember, though, that "publication" means "lawful publication", which implies the consent of the author of the original.

If only a publication after 1922 can be asserted, the U.S. work should not be considered to be in the public domain, even if one suspects that it was published before 1978 and had no copyright notice or it was published before 1964 and the copyright was not renewed because the necessary conditions are too hard to verify. For instance, to show that a painting did not have a copyright notice, one would basically need to have access to the original canvas and examine it closely; the notice might be on the back...

Edit: damn those are just too damn big hah @MFJ+Lurch
Edit II: Yea that artwork is an excellent choice.
Edit III: I need to slow down and look at what the hell I'm trying to post... typos + screwed up quote, bah

 

[MFJ]

hahaha yeah, don't get me wrong- i'm not really attracted to those titties either.

 

[Doom]

While the demo has a lot of keys and acoustic guitars, the focus is more on dueling harmonic/melodic guitar riffs with this EP.

Sounds nice! Definitely want a copy.

 

[Susperia]

actually, the painter's claim to copyright has most likely expired. that is, if paintings hold the same copyright laws as books and such. the painting is probably of public domain so anyone can use it at any time

something i learned back in the day

No. Not unless it's 70 or 75 years past it's creation or the author's death. Painters (or any author of a work) have instant copyright to their work the day they make it.

 

[skeptik]

Why don't you read the rest of the thread you moron?

 

[skeptik]

i thought copyright expired 50 years after the creator's death?

correct, though i thought some works or countries hold it to 70 or 80 years. this Mikhail Vrubel apparently died in 1910

yeah, the painting is public domain... i know this. still, going to give him the credit.

.

 

[Susperia]

I was just correcting J and making sure he knows how it is. But thanks for being an asshole.

And who reads the rest of the thread before responding to someone?

 

[skeptik]

Whore.

 

[MajestikMøøse]

RC is so snuggly and friendly.

 

[skeptik]

I'm going to kill myself.

 

[MajestikMøøse]

Me too!

 

[Necromunchkin]

You know, something about breasts with their own gravitational field frighten me.

 

[Trylakos]

 

[Trylakos]

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

That was as epic as the actual movie.