How do these websites get away with selling oil painting reproductions of artist work from artists that are still alive?

grifkin: What do you mean here by 'reproductions'? Do you mean where someone else, a copyist, has painted a new copy of a picture by a living artist ? Or do you simply mean that there are prints or posters published for sale? Or that the image is reproduced on T-shirts and other objects ?
(It may be that in some, if not all, of these cases nobody is depriving the artist).

I mean websites where there are oil paintings that are exact duplicates of oil paintings of living artists such as Thomas Kincade.

If an artist sells nonexclusive rights to someone then his/her work can be reproduced. A transfer of these rights allows artwork to be reproduced for a specified period of time. And the artist can sell these rights to more than one party.

With regards to Thomas Kinkade, there is a license agreement effective Dec 3, 1997 that was made between him and Media Arts Group, Inc where he gives the publisher rights to be "the exclusive manufacturer, sub-licensor, marketer and distributor of reproductions of the Artist's original artwork in all available derivative art-based products, such products to include but not be limited to wall art, calendars, stationery items, three-dimensional
derivatives and books..."

well I learned something new here tonight as I have 2 artistic sons and I have wondered about this as well

I understand that there are license agreements for certains things, but what I was specifically asking about are reproductions oil paintings such as these
http://stores.ebay.com.cn/mengyuangallery

I don't think Thomas Kincade would give permission to do these, do you?

Grifkin, according to the link I posted he has a license agreement that does allow his work to be reproduced and distributed. If you click in that link you can read the entire agreement.

Seems a pretty standard agreement but grifkin may wonder whether the painters employed to make copies of the artist's work, or their employers, are paying anything to the company that has got the reproduction rights They might do but my guess is that they don't. Yet they have not, presumably, been injuncted or sued for damages. And the reason for that is likely to be either a) nobody can find a clear precedent or law that says that an artist who paints a new painting which is a copy of Mr Kincade's work is liable to Mr Kincade's rights holders. It may be treated as though it were an original work by the copyist, notwithstanding that it is a more or less faithful imitation of an original.That may sound unjust or unfair, but that's quite an attractive argument to raise in a copyright case And it may not be worth the time and money pursuing the copyist though first instance and appeal(s) just to get a definitive answer: there's always a risk that you'll lose at some stage. You don't get popular with lay clients if that happens
or
b) whatever his rights the loss occasioned by this activity is not such as to be worth the cost and effort of pursuing. That might be just that, even if the copyist is in the USA, or, more probably, that the copyist is beyond the jurisdiction. In the latter case it is likely be impossible to get or enforce any judgment.

It would be difficult to pursue E-Bay because they are merely providing a service and not 'publishing' the offending work.

I think FredPuli hit the nail on the head with this comment.

quote:

b) whatever his rights the loss occasioned by this activity is not such as to be worth the cost and effort of pursuing. That might be just that, even if the copyist is in the USA, or, more probably, that the copyist is beyond the jurisdiction. In the latter case it is likely be impossible to get or enforce any judgment.