The paintings and signed limited edition prints of this artist are currently fetching three to five figure sums at auction or as sold through art dealers, and under copyright rules her and her half sister benefit from the current rules each time a painting or print is sold. They get a small percentage of the sale price which they share.
The half sister is not in regular contact and has been reluctant in the past to see any of her fathers artistic works further reproduced, her argument being that current owners of limited edition prints of his works will not be happy to see larger quantities of what they took to be limited editions of the prints they own flood the market (understandable) and dissipate the value of the ones they own, even though any newly printed ones for obvious reasons cannot be signed.
The question is what rule applies (if any) to the negatives of original photographs (landscapes or photos of steam engines awaiting destruction or purchase by enthusiast groups) and not of his paintings, and in the sole possession of the daughter I am advising, these never having been exposed to the market or reproduced? In fact they've have
never been probably seen as positives other than by the artist, and I'm very probably the first person to have made black and white positives from the original negatives and observed them as intended by the artist when he took the photographs. Can she go ahead and print them, use them in books, sell enlarged photoprints in limited editions etc. without half sister being consulted? What rights (if any) does half sister have?Artist did print and sell some of these photos from the same photoshoots enlarged and signed in his lifetime, but the ones we are working on are to our knowledge fresh to the market and previously unseen and printed.
Any advice would be welcome on how to proceed.....
Personal thanks to Chas49 and newlyretired for directing me to this site after the closure Of Motley Fool's site dealing with legal issues. Thanks again.
