Owning an original painting comes with legal right to make its copies. E.g. you can legally sell t-shirts with it. Owning a copy in most cases does not give one a right to reproduce it.
Another way to profit from an original is to open a museum and sell tickets (or get prestige).
I think the museum example is an interesting case. I haven’t done the math on what portion of the value of artwork is based on the expected discounted profit from exhibiting it. I think this proportion probably varies wildly from artwork to artwork, since lots of ugly art that most people wouldn’t care to see gets sold for a lot too.
I heard about the case when an artist has sold the copyright of all his works to another person (including the works owned by other people, like previous buyers.) Basically it means that the right owner could forbid all other owners to ever exhibit an even look at their own works. But in reality in the case I am speaking about it was about right to make t-shirts with prints.
I also saw purchase agreements which deliberately state that the artwork is coming with all rights.
If that would make up a significant part of the value of many paintings they would lose value as they move towards the copyright expiring. As far as I understand most paintings of that age class rather gain in value then lose value as the years go by.
The works copyright has expired, but not the photography copyright. In other words, if you have a physical original you can control who and how can make copies.
How much would you pay to visit the Louvre and see the original Mona Lisa? (Maybe not much, but if you happened to be in Paris I’m betting you’d be willing to pay at least a Euro to visit the Louvre, right?)
And now how much would you pay me to visit my house and see a poster of the Mona Lisa I printed out myself at a Fedex Kinko’s?
Owning an original painting comes with legal right to make its copies. E.g. you can legally sell t-shirts with it. Owning a copy in most cases does not give one a right to reproduce it.
Another way to profit from an original is to open a museum and sell tickets (or get prestige).
I don’t believe the former is true—my understanding is that the right to make copies is independent of the original physical object (https://www.liveabout.com/who-owns-copyright-of-a-painting-2578104)
I think the museum example is an interesting case. I haven’t done the math on what portion of the value of artwork is based on the expected discounted profit from exhibiting it. I think this proportion probably varies wildly from artwork to artwork, since lots of ugly art that most people wouldn’t care to see gets sold for a lot too.
I heard about the case when an artist has sold the copyright of all his works to another person (including the works owned by other people, like previous buyers.) Basically it means that the right owner could forbid all other owners to ever exhibit an even look at their own works. But in reality in the case I am speaking about it was about right to make t-shirts with prints.
I also saw purchase agreements which deliberately state that the artwork is coming with all rights.
If that would make up a significant part of the value of many paintings they would lose value as they move towards the copyright expiring. As far as I understand most paintings of that age class rather gain in value then lose value as the years go by.
The works copyright has expired, but not the photography copyright. In other words, if you have a physical original you can control who and how can make copies.
https://www.quora.com/Are-famous-art-pieces-like-the-Mona-Lisa-copyrighted
How much would you pay to visit the Louvre and see the original Mona Lisa? (Maybe not much, but if you happened to be in Paris I’m betting you’d be willing to pay at least a Euro to visit the Louvre, right?)
And now how much would you pay me to visit my house and see a poster of the Mona Lisa I printed out myself at a Fedex Kinko’s?
I’m not sure what that has to do with what I said about copyright.