Almost certainly, yes. The copyright laws protect the image of cartoon characters. When you sell it for profit you are stealing the right of the character's author to sell his own work.
1435 7ad rocks from joe
No, the painting is not copyright. The longest duration available is 70 years after the death of the creator. Vincent van Gogh died in 1890, meaning the last copyright expired in 1960. Copies and photographs of the painting created by others of his works could still be covered by copyright, which means you are not free to use someone else's image. And exact copies can be considered as attempts at fraud or forgery.
Completed in 1894, the work is in the public domain.
Unless other arrangements have been made (such as a work made for hire agreement), the creator of the work is automatically the copyright holder. Transfer of the physical item does not transfer the rights: if you buy my painting, I am still the copyright holder.
The artist is concerned with protecting his or her copyright.
When you purchase a painting, you own the physical artwork but not necessarily the copyright. The artist typically retains the copyright unless they transfer it to you in writing.
The copyright date on something is when it was CREATED or first published, and the copyright lasts for about a hundred years after the author's death, so YES, anything with valid copyright date of 2002 or 1993 are till in effect. On the other hand, it is a good question whether a famous painting still has its own copyright and whether a photograph or digitization of that famous painting may have its OWN copyright dates, as derivative works of the original.
As long as the painting is entirely original, no.
Altering a copyrighted painting to teach a technique is still copyright infringement as that falls under derivative works.
If the painting is still protected by copyright, you would need a license to create a derivative work.
Copying an image for which you are not the copyright holder requires a license. This includes everything from downloading a digital image to photographing a painting.
All art is subject to the copyright of the original artist anyway.
1298
If the painting is still protected, you would need a license.
No, a copyright symbol (©) next to a signature does not necessarily indicate that a painting is an original. The symbol signifies that the work is protected by copyright law, which applies to both original works and reproductions. To confirm if a painting is an original, one would need to consider additional factors like provenance, authenticity certificates, or the artist's statements.
Without a license, yes.