Does copying famous paintings infringe copyright?

We all know that our country has always had a very long and splendid culture of writing and splash-ink landscape painting. Not only in modern times, but also in the past dynasties, a large number of celebrities copied many famous paintings and calligraphy handed down from ancient times. But in modern times, this will When it comes to copyright issues, does copying famous paintings infringe copyright? The editor of Legal Savior Network has compiled relevant content and hopes it will be helpful to you.

Does copying famous paintings infringe copyright?

Copying is not copying, and copying works is allowed It is original and should constitute a work within the meaning of copyright law. Copying works should have full copyright, but their rights should be subject to certain restrictions. Granting complete copyright and appropriate interest protection to copied works is in line with the laws of art and is beneficial to the public and the authors of the artwork. A clearer and more tolerant attitude toward copied works should be adopted in legislation to promote the prosperity of culture.

Copying is actually an artificial reproduction of the appearance of the original work by the author through observation, experience, and thinking of the original work, based on his own experience, using certain methods and techniques. in form and inner spirit. This kind of artificial imitation is essentially different from the physical reproduction methods such as printing, copying, rubbing, recording, video recording, ripping, and photographing. The former requires the participation of the author's high degree of experience and skills in the process, and due to the differences in the author's artistic accomplishments and abilities and even ways of thinking and thoughts and feelings, it cannot be completely consistent with the original work, but there must be some breakthroughs or transcendences (regardless of level). High or low), even two different copies made by the same person cannot be completely consistent. The latter, with its specific equipment and technical means, can make unlimited and basically consistent copies of the original work without manual participation. As long as the technical means are high enough, anyone can complete an infinitely close copy of the original work.

So, purely from the perspective of implementation methods, copying and copyright law before revision The enumerated "other" methods of copying works of art are quite different. There is a greater difference between the copying of artistic works and the copying of other copyright objects such as the copying of written works and the ripping of audio-visual works. The essence is that the former undoubtedly requires human spiritual activities (appreciation, thinking, judgment, etc.). selection, organization or even reconstruction) and the participation of subjective experience skills, and the latter can be completely unconscious. Furthermore, since copying is done by people with subjective spirit and consciousness, it is almost inevitable to add their own understanding and improvement of the original work (regardless of its level) in the process.It is inevitable that no matter how subjectively the copyist wants to "copy" the original work accurately, these differences can completely constitute the "originality" required by copyright law.

In fact, although the above analysis shows that copying works often do not infringe copyright as long as they have clear originality, but for now, it does not There are famous paintings that are still within the copyright protection period that people can copy. If the production rights have been infringed, you can choose to consult a lawyer. The Legal Savior Network also provides online lawyer consultation services. You are welcome to seek legal consultation.