0

The art in question is https://www.instagram.com/p/CIfsO2ZD7Rj/ . I Think the concept artist, Jean Giraud, is dead.

0scar
  • 32,029
  • 10
  • 59
  • 135
Nïu Dávinci
  • 1

2 Answers2

3

While better fitted to our friends at law.SE, the general gist is: No.

Art is protected by copyright, and any adaption (derivative work) requires the OK from the right holders per se. Only 70-75 years after the death of the author (or publication for company works), a work enters the public domain and the copyright expires.

There are some exceptions (fair use/fair dealing/...), but media transformation is not one of them.

Giraud died in 2012, his estate or heirs - or whoever he/they sold the commercial rights to - own the right to ok derivative Works till around 2087.

Trish
  • 20,169
  • 10
  • 43
  • 92
  • Yes, better asked at law se, however, if the work is a 3d model inspired by a 2 image then it can be argued that it's a new work. This concept came up when people were thinking about selling 3d prints of existing sculptures; in that case, the answer was a definite no. – user77232 Dec 08 '20 at 18:09
  • @user77232 *inspired by* is ok, but *3d representation of a 2D art* is not. There is a rather blurry line between *inspiration* and *derivative* – Trish Dec 08 '20 at 18:42
  • yes; and this is why we have lawyers :) – user77232 Dec 08 '20 at 19:28
0

This is something that might have a precedent, where the line is blurry, someone might have already tried, and in that case the judge's decision in that court case is the official interpretation of the law towards that specific scenario.

There might also be definitive laws regarding "derived works"...

Like the others, I would ask the Law SE for help.

poorandunlucky
  • 51
  • 1
  • 4