etchings by leslie henderson

We would have no problem with whoever bought the plates doing what they want with them as long as we were fairly compensated in the sale.

Really ?
I'm surprised you would have that attitude.

 

Why? If someone buys something it becomes theirs no mater what it is and can be done with as they please. This goes for art the same as if it was a car or a house. I don't see the issue.

 

Kinda depends on what the something is.....doesn't it ?

& what they can do with it !

The plates could be displayed as art.....or used to make fraudulent copies of the image.
Two very different things !

One is as criminal activity , & I can't believe you're saying you don't care if that happens .

That's my issue.

 

If they own the plate, making prints with the plate is NOT fraudulent and is NOT criminal.

 

As long as they identify the new prints as such, I presume?

 

I wasn't aware that owning the plates and owning the rights to print the image for commercial purposes . was the same thing.

 

Yes. A person who buys a Disney watch owns the watch, but not the right to make more Disney watches.

Similarly, an artist owns the copyright to his work, even if it is issued as an edition of prints, and buyers of the prints do not own the copyright or the right to make additional prints. And even if the original printing plates are sold, the copyright would not go with them.
It would be odd to sell printing plates without the right to use them, of course...and I'd suspect that a good lawyer could craft sales documents that made it clear whether or not copyrights were included in the sale.
It could make a difference here if the copyrights were still owned by the heirs to the artist, even though the plates themselves have passed to Coreya.

 

Again, an Art Attorney might be helpful. If interested, scroll up for the link.

 

You don't really think I believe what I said , after being an art dealer for 26 years....do you !

So....when does a copyright pass into public domain....?

 

Believe? Of course not; I can see that tongue-in-cheek a mile away.
Just agreeing and expanding.
I've mostly researched music copyrights; they are certainly complex, but in general it is safe to say that any music published before 1930 is now in the public domain - in the United States. Later than that, there are research tools (see Harry Fox, a music rights clearance agency, among others) to check as to whether the copyrights have been appropriately renewed, or whether a particular arrangement of a work has been copyrighted after 1930.
Scott Joplin's "Maple Leaf Rag" is now public domain; Stefan Grossman's arrangement of it is not.
In many countries the copyright extends 70 years after the death of the author.

 

Just a quick word of thanks for the info and opinions, We are still trying to figure out what to do with these.