Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

WIBU to print an artist's work at home?

296 replies

zatarontoast · 02/10/2020 11:49

Asking as I really don't know if this is appropriate or not. I follow an artist on Instagram who does oil paintings and I really wanted one so enquired about the price. At £500 for a small size it is way beyond my budget or what I could justify in spending. But... I still want one. She doesn't do prints, so I was thinking I could print one off at home for my own use. I don't know much about these things so don't know if this is considering stealing or is just a no-no in general? My rationale is that she isn't losing by me doing this as I wasn't going to buy it anyway.

OP posts:
Rhayader · 02/10/2020 21:33

I once did something similar. There is an artist who designs T-shirts’ with funny pictures and they upload the images online. I emailed asking if I could buy prints or even a digital version of a few of the images and got no response. It was when I was a student so quite a long time ago and I’m not really sure if it was that wrong 🤷‍♀️ You should definitely ask if they sell prints.

NiceGerbil · 02/10/2020 21:34

'YABU! Copyright and who wants a shit print- out?'

People who love a work of art but don't have the means to buy it.

This thread is really depressing.

So you're a teenager who is having a shit time and something speaks to them. They want to print it out and keep it under their pillow.

MN NO you bastard that's totally out of order.

emilyfrost · 02/10/2020 21:35

People who don't have money who see something that speaks to them. Makes them feel love, joy. Or sadness. Anything.

NiceGerbil That could be applicable to anything; an expensive car, a nice handbag, a diamond ring.

Life isn’t fair. You don’t get what you want all the time. If you can’t afford something, you can’t afford it; it doesn’t mean you can steal it.

Interesting that you’re uncomfortable with that but apparently perfectly okay with theft.

PomBearsArentNaice · 02/10/2020 21:36

@NiceGerbil

Wonton if someone wanted to print out something I'd produced in the course of my work and put it in a little frame because they liked it so much I would have zero issues with that at all.

It loses me nothing and it gains then something.

MN is a bit odd sometimes.

Any takers on the top 40 tape recording thing?

The top 40 thing ? Blush. I wasn't confident at recording things as a teenager but my friend was and she did me some lovely mix tapes

So now am feeling bad because I spent my teenage years listening to the fruits of copyright theft??? Blush

PomBearsArentNaice · 02/10/2020 21:37

@NiceGerbil

Pombears you will notice the eyebrow.

It wasn't me who said that. I was saying WTF

Oh am sorry, I must learn to read more carefully
Elsewyre · 02/10/2020 21:38

@emilyfrost

People who don't have money who see something that speaks to them. Makes them feel love, joy. Or sadness. Anything.

NiceGerbil That could be applicable to anything; an expensive car, a nice handbag, a diamond ring.

Life isn’t fair. You don’t get what you want all the time. If you can’t afford something, you can’t afford it; it doesn’t mean you can steal it.

Interesting that you’re uncomfortable with that but apparently perfectly okay with theft.

If you like an expensive car and are able to copy it yourself go for it.

Kits are available

BoingBoingyBoing · 02/10/2020 21:43

@NiceGerbil

She could save the picture on her phone and look at it every morning instead.

That ok?

The point of art is... Multi faceted.

I feel uncomfortable with the idea that in general. People who don't have money who see something that speaks to them. Makes them feel love, joy. Or sadness. Anything.

According to this thread can't print off a low definition copy and look at it in their room when they're feeling sad or whatever.

I do not understand. Seriously.

It's really, really easy to grasp.

The picture is somebody's work and if he/she is a working artist it's their livehood as well. It's not, in any fucking way, acceptable to go "oh, but I really really like it so I should be able to get it for free".

If you can't afford something, you don't get to just take it. That's a really basic rule of being not a wanker.

wontonwoman · 02/10/2020 21:48

Sorry if I came across harsh I guess it just annoyed me somewhat working in the arts myself. I'm experienced, qualified etc and yet you'd be surprised how many people want something for nothing and tell you the exposure will benefit your career. Erm no, I have bills to pay just like you do! 🤦🏽‍♀️

GlummyMcGlummerson · 02/10/2020 21:51

I do wish someone would answer my questions about if it's ok if the OP used the artwork digital image as a screensaver, computer/phone background or in a digital photo frame

Piglet89 · 02/10/2020 21:53

@GlummyMcGlummerson do you mean is it lawful?

Piglet89 · 02/10/2020 21:57

Under section 17(2) of the Copyrights Designs and Patents Act 1988, copying in relation to an artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form, including storing it in any medium by electronic means. So no, under the legislation I think that’s also an infringement.

AestheticWitch · 02/10/2020 22:08

Some people can buy , some people can't. The OP would never afford
to buy. Why would anybody begrudge the person who can't afford the joy of seeing the art? She won't own it, she just wants to look at it.

I have postcards and prints for that reason. And books of art. The artist could produce prints but won't.

OP, just do it and ignore the miserable mumsnetters on here.

BoingBoingyBoing · 02/10/2020 22:12

@AestheticWitch

Some people can buy , some people can't. The OP would never afford to buy. Why would anybody begrudge the person who can't afford the joy of seeing the art? She won't own it, she just wants to look at it.

I have postcards and prints for that reason. And books of art. The artist could produce prints but won't.

OP, just do it and ignore the miserable mumsnetters on here.

The artist has every right not to produce prints. Getting prints done is a pain in the arse and devalues the originals.

It's not miserable to have a certain degree of respect for other people and their work.

Voice0fReason · 02/10/2020 22:12

I just don't get why people want a second-rate version of the real thing. OP can't afford an individual piece of art, so wants to print a cheap copy off the web and thinks that's in any way comparable? It's really not.
You've answered that in your own statement. She can't afford it. A low quality small printed copy might be perfect for her. Is it comparable to the original? probably not, but it doesn't have to be in order to appreciate it.

If you can save the image on your phone then stick it on a digital photo frame.

I'd print it. I wouldn't sell it or use it for any other purpose but I would pin it to my noticeboard if it was an image that I liked.

anditgoeson · 02/10/2020 22:28

@AestheticWitch how did you come by these postcards, posters and books? Did you buy them by any chance or did you download them all from the internet?

The OP isnt in love with this work. She doesnt think it's worth the money for a start. She quite likes it. Posters are making this an emotional issue and over sentimentalising it to justify a morally dubious act.

In fairness I think the artist could have done her a print, I would have, but then I dont think the artist should feel obliged to of she doesnt want to either.

In regards to some of the other posters. Where has this entitled attitude towards art come from? Because it brings you joy you have a god given right to it? Art isnt something that springs out of the air and comes to life to bring joy to the world. It is a result of somebody's thought and labour. It belongs to the person who created it. If it makes you feel something then great, recognise and respect the person and the process and give something back to it in an exchange as we do with all things that we want but that dont belong to us.

Notthetoothfairy · 02/10/2020 22:59

@JunkCrumpet

That's called stealing. If I stole clothes or makeup using the same logic as you, would you think it's ok? Obviously not. Stealing is wrong. It's shocking how often adults need to be told that on this forum.
Really not the same thing. The analogy here would be if the OP tried to make the same clothes or make up at home herself (she is not planning on physically stealing the oil painting!)

OP, people are telling you that a print of the picture will look awful because they don’t agree you should do it, rather than because that is necessarily true.

anditgoeson · 02/10/2020 23:05

OP If you really want art for your home then the NGA have made thousand of works of available to download completely legally and for free.

There are some beautiful pieces on there and I'm sure you will find something you like that you can print off and display in your home.

www.nga.gov

anditgoeson · 02/10/2020 23:11

@Notthetoothfairy that is not the correct analogy. If the OP wanted to paint the picture herself then that would be the correct analogy. If the OP could somehow print make up and use it then that would be the correct analogy, but she cant. These comparisons are ridiculous.

StillCoughingandLaughing · 03/10/2020 05:06

All the posters saying this is a breach of copyright law are at best being very strict in their interpretation of the law and at worst being desperately naive. Copyright law is designed to protect artists (and by artists I also mean writers, musicians, actors etc.) from people using their work to make a profit. Someone printing off a low quality copy of an unprotected image won’t even make the radar in legal terms.

For all those crying, ‘But it’s someone’s livelihood!’, save your ire for those who are genuinely trying to make money from someone else’s creativity (e.g. unauthorised reproduction of an image for posters, greetings cards, T-shirts etc.) The OP has no intention of doing that, is not making a profit and is not getting a free version of something she could be buying. A print-out, even a very hi-res one, is in no way comparable to an original.

The OP has stated several times that the artist does not do prints (although a worrying number of respondents have missed this). If the OP prints a low quality copy of an unprotected image, she has not obtained something for free that would have cost her £500 otherwise. She has something different; something inferior. The artist still has the original and can still offer it for sale at £500. No loss.

If someone makes high quality copies without the artist’s permission and sells them for £100, the artist could theoretically lose out if someone chooses to buy the print when they were originally planning to buy the original. But that’s not what’s happening here. OP was never going to spend that £500. Someone else still could - no one has stolen the original. In fact, the artist has deliberately chosen not to authorise £100 prints, so has essentially voluntarily restricted the income s/he can potentially make from the picture.

when you put something on display those who look at it think 'that’s as good as that artist gets.'

That’s lunacy. On that basis, when someone buys a legitimate, but cheap, poster or postcard of an oil painting from a museum gift shop, they are somehow doing the original artist a disservice because the next time the boiler man or plumber comes over, he could mistakenly believe said artist only paints onto A5 gloss paper.

Crystal87 · 03/10/2020 06:18

Do it. Who the hell would know or even care? It's not as if you're printing off hundreds and selling them.

Piglet89 · 03/10/2020 07:06

@StillCoughingandLaughing

All the posters saying this is a breach of copyright law are at best being very strict in their interpretation of the law and at worst being desperately naive.

I’m saying it is a beach of copyright law because I have read the bloody law and it is an infringement. I’m not even interpreting the law strictly; it’s clearly an infringement and there is no permitted use. If @zatarontoast told the artist she can’t afford the original oil painting, she’s gutted she doesn’t do prints and asked her could she just print out the Instagram photograph of it and frame it, for a small agreed fee perhaps if the artist doesn’t initially agree - if the artist agrees, then that protects her against infringement. But infringement it is.

Copyright law is designed to protect artists (and by artists I also mean writers, musicians, actors etc.) from people using their work to make a profit.

This is incorrect. @SourcePlease hasn’t said it yet, so I’ll do it for her and also answer the question.

Copyright law is not intended only to stop others from using the artist’s work to make a profit. According to the Intellectual Property Office, the intention behind it is simply to “protect your work and stop others from using it without your permission”.

www.gov.uk/copyright

In addition, according to the U.K. Copyright Service:

“The law gives the creators of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, sound recordings, broadcasts, films and typographical arrangement of published editions, rights to control the ways in which their material may be used.”

copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

Preventing people profiting from your work may be part of that policy, but “commercial use” copying is not the only issue against which the law guards. For example, if the OP did ask the artist’s permission to print out a pic of the painting, the artist might refuse because she’s concerned the resolution or whatever would make it look crap, because much of its artistic merit lies in the original materials (the texture of the oils on the canvass, the brighter colour etc). The artist might be worried someone could come to the OP’s house, see her framed print out of the Instagram pic and say “Jesus that looks shit...who’s it by? Won’t buy their work!” This example should explain why artists want to have control over how their work, into which they have probably put a lot of effort, should be used and displayed.

IP law can be complex and many bold statements have been slung about on this thread by those for whom a little knowledge has proved a dangerous thing.

zatarontoast · 03/10/2020 07:18

Thank you all for the replies, it has made very interesting reading. I'm not going to print off anything but just want to respond to a few things. I don't in any way feel entitled to the art/picture. I love it and the symbolism means a lot to me, it is of a place my family have no right of return to (which is not relevant really) but I don't love it enough to spend £500 on it simply because it is not going to feed/clothe my children. The artist has been asked and already said she won't do prints so there is no way I would ask her for digital image as this does not seem to be the path she wants to go down. I will continue to look at it on Instagram and I'm very glad I didn't set it as my Facebook profile picture (I tried do but it was too big) as I now know this is wrong too. Every day 's a school day on MN, thank you again Smile

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 03/10/2020 07:36

Thanks, Piglet. Copyright and IP is immensely complicated.

ravensoaponarope · 03/10/2020 08:30

@PopcornPeacock

Artist here. People doing what you are suggesting is the reason many artists struggle to make a living. If you do print off a poor quality print for yourself, it devalues the artist's work as a whole, as other people viewing it will think it is the actual standard of that artists work.

If you did it to a piece of my work and I discovered what you had done, I would take you to court for theft.

It is NOT appropriate, it is a mean, cheap act by a mean. cheap person. Save up your money, buy a piece of art honestly, and enjoy it knowing you have supported an artist.

It is unfair to say it is an act by a mean, cheap person and that they should save up. Some people are poor and could never afford £500 for a piece of art, however much they tried to save up.
Piglet89 · 03/10/2020 08:45

@ravensoaponarope but is the OP herself such a poor person? Or could she afford it if she saved? That’s the relevant question. It might take a while but she might be able to do it.

In all seriousness @zatarontoast you’ve said you wouldn’t ask her if you could print out one of her paintings because that didn’t seem to be the route she wanted to go down. You formed this view because she doesn’t sell prints of her work. But she might not sell prints for many other reasons (eg the hassle of producing them; someone else upthread has said it’s a pain in the arse to do so).

I would just ask whether you could print it out and try to agree on a small fee if necessary; no harm in asking.