GG : Pictures and copyright question

[Kate Clunies-Ross <goldbergs@TALK21.COM>]

Good afternoon, F minors

Recently we discussed the making of t-shirts with Gouldian designs, and it
was pointed out by  Mary Jo that as  a photographer's work is copyright, we
should not (without permission) use their pictures in any design we intend
to market or publish for payment in any way.

While this of course is perfectly reasonable, a question does occur to me
and I would be glad if anyone could clarify the legal position.....I am no
legal mind!

What would happen if I painted, say, a portrait of Glenn Gould ? I mean  of
course a painting that was in no way a copy of any particular photograph.
On  looking recently at the Glenn Gould Foundation's  new website's FAQ
section, I see it stated that whilst such an original work is the property
of the artist, if I wished to promote it (I presume this would include
selling the original painting) or duplicate it for sale, then I would need
the permission of the Glenn Gould Estate.

Why is this? I always thought an artist owned the rights to his own work,
and nobody else.  Am I wrong?  Here we would be talking about what is, after
all, a work of the imagination, made long after the subjects death. It is
not something he comissioned, agreed to, or even knew about, even if his
existence inspired its creation. Yet the Estate seem to be claiming a share
in it.....and any other works in the future that as yet do not even exist!

Even if Glenn Gould was still alive . he would not  necessarily own the
copyright of a  painting of him (perhaps if he bought it from the artist,
the position would be different)

I can understand the Estate's wish to prevent defamation of Gould's name and
reputation, but  this is not simply what their stated purpose appears to be.
Presumably their interest would also extend to written works about Gould (I
guess that the name of Tim Wynne-Jones "Maestro" was altered, in part, to
avoid any comment from the Estate, even though the portrait was in my
opinion done with affection, and in no way  was misleading or harmed Gould's
memory). And laudable as their wish may be, I am not sure how possible it is
to prevent people writing just what they like, true or untrue, if the
subject is dead. The laws of libel (in Britain anyway) simply do not apply
to a dead person. Look at some of  the rubbish that was published after the
death of the Princess of Wales; I know many people found this offensive,
whether or not they were Royalists!

Please note I am not seeking to criticise the Estate in any way. I am simply
interested to know what the position would be if I _did_ paint a portrait of
GG.

I haven't done so yet, by the way. I have so far only drawn a caricature of
him, which I doubt anyone would want to buy, and wouldnt be worth anything
anyway! ...but it looks quite good on my T-shirt.  And thats where I came
in...

Kate