• unrelatedkeg@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Going by US laws (life + 70 years), all of Picasso’s art is all still copyright protected in the US until 2043, so it’s even less of a difference than you may realize.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t know where the line is because with art restoration you’re actually modifying a physical object. I guess a better comparison would be modifying an arcade cabinet or something.

      • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s not the most robust analogy, but I actually really like your comparison to painting restoration; to do it well, one must understand the techniques and materials used in the original (even stuff below the visible surface).

        Not a lawyer, but I think the original work is still copyrighted, and that restoration wouldn’t (or certainly shouldn’t) constitute a new artwork. Though now I’m wondering about that terrible Jesus painting restoration from a few years back — it’s certainly different from the original, and whilst it might not seem reasonable to call it a new piece of “art”, it’s certainly inspired a great many people(to make memes)