Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   original acrylic paintings (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=83972)

Archive 01-29-2007 07:43 AM

original acrylic paintings
 
Posted By: <b>mike</b><p>I have been painting baseball players and scenes for many years but have never shown or sold these works. I guess there would be many baseball enthusiasts who would enjoy them ? Does anyone have an idea as to what I should do to make them more available to the public? You can view some of my work at "past-time-art.blogspaot.com" <br /><br />thanks Mike

Archive 01-29-2007 11:14 AM

original acrylic paintings
 
Posted By: <b>mike</b><p>sorry but the website reference in my first posting had a typo. It should be past-time-art.blogspot.com

Archive 01-29-2007 11:25 AM

original acrylic paintings
 
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Nice stuff Mike. I'm not sure if by "making them more available to the public" you mean to see or to purchase. If you mean purchase, the BST thread on this board (link at top of page) gets a lot of traffic from vintage collectors.<br /><br />Joann

Archive 01-29-2007 11:45 AM

original acrylic paintings
 
Posted By: <b>Jim Dale</b><p>If you mean sell I don't know what the ramifictaions of licensing and copy right issues you run into. As a side note a friend of mine is an artist who paited a simple tree. The tree is the lone cypress at Pebble Beach and the Pebble Peach Company refused to let him market the piece without a royalty; I don't know if this would apply to the players (families \ estates) or not. But it is something that should be looked into before looking to sell your art work.

Archive 01-29-2007 11:58 AM

original acrylic paintings
 
Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>Jim<br /><br />There shouldn't be an issue with an artist painting an original work of a famous person. There have been numerous lawsuits about whether a celebrity has the right to block the reproduction of the artist's work. The leading case in California deals with a person producing T-Shirts of the Three Stooges with a drawing done on them by an artist with 25 years of art experience. The Supreme Court held that this wasn't art but merchandise, and wasn't constitutionally protected: <a href="http://www.rcfp.org/news/2001/0502stooge.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.rcfp.org/news/2001/0502stooge.html</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.rcfp.org/news/2001/0502stooge.html</a</a>> and <a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=4311" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=4311</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=4311</a</a>><br /><br />A number of states have specific rules regarding the protection of the right to publicity for persons, extending up to 70 years after death. <br /><br />Max<br /><br />Art, not merchandise:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/43/104755360_cde8637d5d_m.jpg"><br /><br /><a href="http://www.ettinger.ca" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.ettinger.ca</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.ettinger.ca</a</a>><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:19 AM.