Veritas - A special edition

The link you posted still regards US copyright. If the art was created in 1915 in France, I'm not sure how this page you linked would apply to that work since it was not created by a US citizen or foreign national living abroad since Chagall didn't emigrate to the US until the war.

I am neither a lawyer nor an art expert, but to the best of my knowledge, US copyright law covers usage of a work within the US. If it was painted in France and still under copyright in the EU but considered public domain under US law, then you would be free to use it in the US but might get a 1-way ticket to "pound fédéral me dans la prison de cul" if you took your tub on your next European vacation.

I can't wait to see the soap labels in a couple of years when Steamboat Willie becomes public domain.

Yes foreign works published AFTER 1923 are subject to US copyright law. However, see above. Again. Public domain in both US and EU due to 1915 publication date.

It's not bad, you have your taste in art and I have mine. There are whole art movement that are based on appropriation, pastiche, etc..

I'm not talking about my opinion of the painting itself. I find it poor taste for you to use it as your soap label whether it's legal or not. There was no design effort on your part at all. You just took somebody else's work, slapped it on your product and called it done. As an artist myself, it's just not something I consider cool that's all.

It's cray that this is receiving so much commentary! Mo is running a business, learning as he goes. In this process, things are done correctly and incorrectly. Hopefully lessons learned along the way. My advice would be just to consult a copyright attorney and/or don't use artwork unless your sure you have the rights to.

This is simple, move on. Mohammad will deal with it how he deals with it and hopefully focus on what he does best.

Thanks. This is all I wanted to know. I'm not familiar enough with Chagall's work to know when this specific piece was created or when EU copyright would expire. That said the onus should really be on the vendor to do their due diligence prior to ordering labels, which clearly hadn't been done in this case. The onus shouldn't be on the customer to figure it out and bring it to their attention. Ideally the vendor will make sure to confirm these things before using said artwork. Still a "soap" I will be steering clear of in the future.

The link you posted still regards US copyright. If the art was created in 1915 in France, I'm not sure how this page you linked would apply to that work since it was not created by a US citizen or foreign national living abroad since Chagall didn't emigrate to the US until the war.

1917 is the cutoff in the EU. Takes about 1 minute to Google this stuff guys.

"Works by this artist (Chagall) created after 1917 are not in the public domain in Europe. They are protected by international copyright laws at least until 70 years after the artist's death. Please do not upload photographs or scans of works by this artist after 1917, unless they are covered by freedom of panorama or when you have an E-mail confirmed authorisation to do so. Use template {{PD-RusEmpire}} for works published on territory of the Russian Empire (Russian Republic) except for territories of the Grand Duchy of Finland and Congress Poland before 7 November 1917 NS and wasn't re-published for 30 days following initial publications on the territory of Soviet Russia or any other states. For more information, see Commons:Licensing and Commonserivative works."

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categ...rc_Chagall

It's cray that this is receiving so much commentary! Mo is running a business, learning as he goes. In this process, things are done correctly and incorrectly. Hopefully lessons learned along the way. My advice would be just to consult a copyright attorney and/or don't use artwork unless your sure you have the rights to.

This is simple, move on. Mohammad will deal with it how he deals with it and hopefully focus on what he does best.

Please don't suggest Mo consult a copyright attorney where the issue is as clear cut as it is here. If he wants to use images of works published before 1917 he's fine.

I am in disbelief that this has created so much drama and negativity! C’mon guys, let this one go and please get back to talking about the soap. Mo will handle any issues with copyright on the labels. Let’s move on and stop bashing him for an honest mistake!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not bad, you have your taste in art and I have mine. There are whole art movement that are based on appropriation, pastiche, etc..

I'm not talking about my opinion of the painting itself. I find it poor taste for you to use it as your soap label whether it's legal or not. There was no design effort on your part at all. You just took somebody else's work, slapped it on your product and called it done. As an artist myself, it's just not something I consider cool that's all.

Irrespective of the arts copyright, which I now believe 100% is it in public domain. I wish your approach was different. I would have preferred it to be a discussion. I don't have problems admitting that I'm wrong or when I do something wrong, which I do a lot.


That's fine, you got your taste I got mine. I respect that. It's really the same as our varied choices in razor, soaps, etc...

I like artists who move boundaries, some people don't like them. One of my favorite art movement.  

On another positive notes. It was like a Christmas tree here. The entire parliament of r/wetshaving was here

It's not bad, you have your taste in art and I have mine. There are whole art movement that are based on appropriation, pastiche, etc..

I'm not talking about my opinion of the painting itself. I find it poor taste for you to use it as your soap label whether it's legal or not. There was no design effort on your part at all. You just took somebody else's work, slapped it on your product and called it done. As an artist myself, it's just not something I consider cool that's all.

Irrespective of the arts copyright, which I now believe 100% is it in public domain. I wish your approach was different. I would have preferred it to be a discussion. I don't have problems admitting that I'm wrong or when I do something wrong, which I do a lot.


That's fine, you got your taste I got mine. I respect that. It's really the same as our varied choices in razor, soaps, etc...

I like artists who move boundaries, some people don't like them. One of my favorite art movement.  

On another positive notes. It was like a Christmas tree here. The entire parliament of r/wetshaving was here

I'm with you here. Maybe we can get back to soap now.

T-shirt for my bar:

Mo, how many times do I have to say it's not a matter of "taste" in the question of "do I like the art or not"? That's not the issue here. IT'S BAD FORM to use somebody else's art in this way. I don't know how else to say it. Also, how is this not a discussion? We are discussing. O.o

Mo, how many times do I have to say it's not a matter of "taste" in the question of "do I like the art or not"? That's not the issue here. IT'S BAD FORM to use somebody else's art in this way. I don't know how else to say it. Also, how is this not a discussion? We are discussing. O.o

I beg to differ sir, this is only your opinion that's it's in bad form, I'm sure there are people who agree with you, but I don't there are many artists and art movement that do similar things like what I have done, albeit, my artwork is just some guy with photoshop and access to the internet.

You have your opinions I have mine.