[Kimberly Dow]

I signed a contract on a commission the other day and some negotiations went on about the copyright. I wont go into the details, but the man was a lawyer and had a collection of art and every one he has he also owns the copyright. Now - some of these he purchased out of galleries and there is no copyright (the c with the circle) on them - I was under the impression that is not necessary, but as an attorney he is stating that if it is not there - then the artwork is not protected.

I had never run into someone who wanted to own the copyright also so this took me by surprise. You'll all be happy to hear that I will still own the copyright, but it was difficult to come to an agreement. His major issue was that he wanted something original and not something he might see printed all over the place later.

He also was stating that in his opinion if I own the copyright than it could be argued that he is just renting the work since I could (in theory) come and get it back at any time to use it to have prints made. This isn't the case as far as my contract is concerned, but it was hard to convince him of that. His thought was also that he is paying for the commission and providing the source material so he doesnt feel it is right to have the artist make prints later (and make money) off something that uses what he has provided.

Most of this wasn't an issue since it is a landscape, but fairly personal and I do not think it would hold a widespread appeal for prints. I wasn't going to give up my copyright though for various reasons.

I am just curious as to your thoughts on this. I can not see his point on it being a 'rented' piece if he doesn't own the copyright. I also need to find out if I should be putting that symbol on my work that goes out to galleries. I'd hate to think that someone could make their own prints from something I painted.