WIBU to print an artist's work at home?

[zatarontoast]

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.

"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."

I can't afford a ferrari so I don't get to just steal one. That's how the world works.

Art is massively undervalued in this world. It takes a lifetime of learning to be able to produce good art and for some cheap bastard to think they are entitled to it just because it's too expensive is not fucking on.

@BoingBoingyBoing agreed.

This is also why the law of copyright is drafted in the way it is.

The crucial element is permission from the creator of the work. The reason for this is that, when someone who wants to use the work must ask the creator’s permission first, it places a modicum of commercial power in their hands - which is how it should be, as they made the work. It gives them options: they can say “Sure, print it out free on this occasion because it’s such a de minimus use” or they can suggest “Yes, you may print it out if you pay this fee”.

I used to be a working artist but gave up because of people like the OP and others suggesting it doesn't harm artists to rip off work.

It totally does. People would also complain that my work was too expensive and that they could "do it themselves". Off you go then, if you think the cost of what you are buying is just about materials then you are very welcome to acquire the skill and take the time required to both produce the work and properly mount/frame it to a professional and archival standard. And no, your "exposure" won't pay the mortgage so you can fuck off with that too.

Art is massively undervalued in this world

It's more that it's not accessible to a lot of people. Yes undeniably for the materials, time, investment in skill that a piece takes its worth the price tag, ie £500 in this case; but that's unaffordable to many, they have no interest in engaging in the art world because it's something they are unlikely to ever to be a world they can be a part of. My friend is an artist, enough to make a comfortable living from it so extremely fortunate in that regard, but she is met with snobbery from other artists. She has branched out into putting her art onto prints, pins, cards, totes, bags, t shirts etc and they sell well- but some say doesn't it devalue the original, who would want to spend hundreds when loads of people have a £10 version hanging up. If someone doesn't offer prints I'd imagine they either don't have the time/resources and are missing a trick, or they have that attitude. Places that sell mass produced prints have also devalued art I guess, if you can get a really nice canvas for the living room for £30, unless you're passionate about art or its something extremely unique and you have the disposable income, it's just not comparable.

In this case OP I would message them and see what they say, what have you got to lose? Say I love your work, I cannot afford the £500 but would be really interested if you were to ever produce prints.

It’s more that it's not accessible to a lot of people.

Let’s unpack that a bit by extending the fact pattern in the OP’s situation. The OP contacts the artist as you’ve suggested and asks again for a print. The artist thinks “OK, people are asking for prints but I don’t want the hassle of producing them; I’ll get a copyright licence drafted to allow people limited rights to copy my work for a certain fee, eg to print it out to look at in their homes. I might make a nice little steady income that way”. She finds the name of a sole practitioner lawyer who wants to charge her £500 for drafting the licence - and she’d really struggle to afford that fee. She’s very unlikely to complain on social media that “IP legal advice is too expensive: it’s inaccessible!” and have many people support that complaint. Because, commercially, society tends to think legal advice is worth it whereas art works aren’t.

Why should it be any different for artists? Why should they be expected to behave like charities or devalue what they think their creations are work, just in the name of accessibility to the public?

Art is pretty accessible: you can go and look at it free in many of the galleries in London for example.

@Piglet89

It’s more that it's not accessible to a lot of people.

Let’s unpack that a bit by extending the fact pattern in the OP’s situation. The OP contacts the artist as you’ve suggested and asks again for a print. The artist thinks “OK, people are asking for prints but I don’t want the hassle of producing them; I’ll get a copyright licence drafted to allow people limited rights to copy my work for a certain fee, eg to print it out to look at in their homes. I might make a nice little steady income that way”. She finds the name of a sole practitioner lawyer who wants to charge her £500 for drafting the licence - and she’d really struggle to afford that fee. She’s very unlikely to complain on social media that “IP legal advice is too expensive: it’s inaccessible!” and have many people support that complaint. Because, commercially, society tends to think legal advice is worth it whereas art works aren’t.

Why should it be any different for artists? Why should they be expected to behave like charities or devalue what they think their creations are work, just in the name of accessibility to the public?

Art is pretty accessible: you can go and look at it free in many of the galleries in London for example.

Are you joking? People complain about the about the cost of legal representation all the time!

I comlplain way more about my solicitor costs than anything else ever!

Stealing? Ha ha ha. What non sense. Next you're going to say that if I printed out a funny MN thread for my own personal use to read later i am stealing or if I record a TV program and keep it more than 30 days. If it's for your private use only do what you want if you feel ok explaining it to God

Art is massively undervalued in this world.

Sort of. It's either massively undervalued (so valuable it should be free for everyone) or it's enormously inflated and used as money-laundering, tax evasion.

I do feel a little for people who love art and can't buy it. But most can access art in museums, galleries, or look at photos of it. The idea that one should be able to possess something because they want it or love it is a step too far.

do what you want if you feel ok explaining it to God

Not usually a defence that goes down very well with the polis, or in a court of law, to be honest.

Art is pretty accessible: you can go and look at it free in many of the galleries in London for example.

One of the things wrong with the country is that there are people who think that giving free access to something in London makes it "accessible". Not to most of the country, it doesn't.

I can't afford a ferrari so I don't get to just steal one. That's how the world works.

Pretty sure you could print out a picture of one though.

@StillCoughingandLaughing can’t drive a picture.

Dh is an artist and found a website that were using his images adapted to sell paint by numbers kits!
If it’s for personal use she won’t know but it’s not a good way to show your appreciation.
She may not have the equipment needed for prints or know the contacts.

@Igotthemheavyboobs ok people do complain about lawyers’ fees. But CRUCIALLY they don’t say “yeah that quote is too expensive; I’ll not buy the legal services, thanks.” They generally pay the bills while complaining. It’s not comparable to the artist’s situation.

@MereDintofPandiculation ok: art may be less available to view free or for an affordable fee outside major conurbations.

It’s not the job of commercial artists trying to sell their work to fix this problem. As @ArabellaScott says:

“The idea that one should be able to possess something because they want it or love it is a step too far.”

No, but people do search Google for free legal advice rather than engaging a solicitor every time.

Comparisons with cars, furniture, clothing etc. make no sense. If you steal a Ferrari, the owner of that Ferrari has lost both his/her physical possession and the opportunity to profit from its sale. If the OP prints a picture of an original watercolour, the artist still has the watercolour AND the option to sell it. S/he hasn’t lost a sale.

Does that make it right? Maybe not - but it makes it very different.

@StillCoughingandLaughing same way they search for free art, I’m sure. The advice they may get if that advice is free is unlikely to be brilliant, to be honest (unless they really need it because they’re in a sticky situation eg immigration law) and so they get it from a reputable law centre.

Quality, free legal advice on a commercial matter because you can’t quite afford the fee? Good luck.

You also won’t get high quality free art. You’ll get a cheap print.

That’s true.

But this is beside the point, really. The OP asked whether she could or should print out the image of this artist’s oil painting. I explained it’s not lawful and the policy behind that; and I still think that policy is correct. You have pointed out that the situation with the Ferrari being stolen and someone’s copyright being infringed are different; that’s right, they are and that’s why they’re governed by different areas of law that protect the owner of the property (be it real or intellectual) in different ways.

But no, I personally don’t think what the OP suggested in her original post is morally or legally right, which is why I suggested an alternative course of action.

Also, you’ve said “you’ll get a cheap print”. Yeah, you will. But the OP’s original post proposed an unlawful way to effectively get a free print without the artist’s permission, which I don’t think is right.

YABU - photographer and artist in my family - their websites and instagram clearly copyright their work.

Yeah, I mean the artist should definitely copyright watermark images or her work, which she posts on Insta.

@StillCoughingandLaughing

No, but people do search Google for free legal advice rather than engaging a solicitor every time.

Comparisons with cars, furniture, clothing etc. make no sense. If you steal a Ferrari, the owner of that Ferrari has lost both his/her physical possession and the opportunity to profit from its sale. If the OP prints a picture of an original watercolour, the artist still has the watercolour AND the option to sell it. S/he hasn’t lost a sale.

Does that make it right? Maybe not - but it makes it very different.

It make sense in terms of "if you can't afford something, just steal it". Nope, you don't get to do that.

I'm aware theft is not quite the same thing but ultimately you are still exploiting somebody's work without paying for it. In that regard morally there is no difference.

Art is pretty accessible: you can go and look at it free in many of the galleries in London for example

Lmao! Yeah sure, really accessible...

Btw I agree artists should be paid fairly, but art isn't accessible to a lot of people.