Shame to lose the curved drawer. Might have been better to save the mirror front for a plain dressing table. Or use the tiny mirror tiles on curved piece. Since Sarah is not profitting from the bags, how is she breaking any laws? If he has any descendants they will be happy of any renewed interest in his art!! Even if Sarah didn't know about copyright laws, don't you think the shows producers do? Geez Louise, what a bunch of hooey!
Сегодня подписалась. Странно, что у такого канала так мало подписчиков. Британцы выбрасывают... , а русские почти нет семейных реликвивий. Война 1, раскулачивание, война 2, гулаг, опять война. 😮. Сохранились только мелочи - вышиванка, подушечка, кисет, портсигар 😢.
Yes, I just spent the last half hour trying to figure out whether I was fully justified in saying that she had no right to print an artist's work on bags and sell it unless he's been dead at least 70 years, which I've done the math and I don't think is possible, therefore I believe she doesn't have the legal right or the ethical right. I just watched it again just to make sure that I didn't miss anything. At the very least she needs to have told the public that they don't have the right to do this. I'm pretty disappointed in Sarah. 🤔👎
She did not own the copyright to these works. Pretty damn cheeky and rude (not to mention illegal) of her to do this. I expected more, at least a basic knowledge of copyright laws over original artworks. She has no right to use these images for fabric. I hope the original artist or the estate see this and sue. Not best practice and not legal. She should be ashamed of herself. Being carried away with her own "creative" importance is no excuse for ignorance of the law. Wow, not only that, but she had to audacity to say the tote bags have an original oil painting on each side. That is speaking with a forked tongue. I once held this woman in reasonable esteem, now, no longer. Terminology is vitally important when describing and selling items. Prints of a stolen image are Not original oil paintings. Now a charity is implicated in "money laundering"???
So that's three people in the comments here who came to say this, that's good! Shame on Sarah! I feel like this is pretty much common knowledge, and even if you don't know it, you should be able to intuitively guess that you don't have the right to sell an artist's work on products. 😕👎
Not every work of art has a copyright.It depends on the artist and during those decades of the 50s, and 60s is entirely possible.There wasn't one and she did say she researched the paintings
@@walterpiar2859 If that's the case then she needs to explicitly point out that there is no copyright on it and that you can't do that with just anybody's painting that you happen to find. The failure to do so is the problem. She is giving people the idea to do this to everybody's artwork, but she is not telling them that really they cannot do that.
@@walterpiar2859 Generally copyright for items created before 1978 in Europe ad the UK is the lifetime of the artist plus 70 years. Copyright does not need to be registered; instead, it is automatic after an object is created.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
Norman, sir, you did a splendid job! It broke my heart I couldn't have that piece! It is worth soooo much more! Georgoeus!
Norman gives me giggles! And makes lovely goodies! Thank you!
Norman did a brilliant job.
The dressing table was beautiful
That blue table was Awesome😂😂
It's great to see an episode I've not seen before, and then to meet new artisans as well!
I am always astounded by Norman. He does top quality work for amazing prices. Wonderful!
Love this show ❤
I have to say that Norman out did himself. Beautiful
The guy (Roy) who gaave the dressing table reminds me of the late, great Tom Wilkinson. Loved seeing a "new to me" episode. Thanks.
I love what is done with all the found things. My question is -- how do they make money? Looks like all profits go back to 'donor'.
She didn’t own copyright to reproduce those paintings and make bags. A bit more awareness needed around this issue
Awesome video👍🏼
Not my personal taste any of them, but I do think the dressing table is pretty!
I agree
The most profit made with the cheap bags! It was her “ free “ labour so don’t bother ,enjoy their video!
Shame to lose the curved drawer. Might have been better to save the mirror front for a plain dressing table. Or use the tiny mirror tiles on curved piece. Since Sarah is not profitting from the bags, how is she breaking any laws? If he has any descendants they will be happy of any renewed interest in his art!! Even if Sarah didn't know about copyright laws, don't you think the shows producers do? Geez Louise, what a bunch of hooey!
Сегодня подписалась. Странно, что у такого канала так мало подписчиков. Британцы выбрасывают... , а русские почти нет семейных реликвивий. Война 1, раскулачивание, война 2, гулаг, опять война. 😮. Сохранились только мелочи - вышиванка, подушечка, кисет, портсигар 😢.
Copyright???
Yes, I just spent the last half hour trying to figure out whether I was fully justified in saying that she had no right to print an artist's work on bags and sell it unless he's been dead at least 70 years, which I've done the math and I don't think is possible, therefore I believe she doesn't have the legal right or the ethical right. I just watched it again just to make sure that I didn't miss anything. At the very least she needs to have told the public that they don't have the right to do this. I'm pretty disappointed in Sarah. 🤔👎
@@patrickparker4576 You're right. I couldn't believe she just stole the copyright. That's horrible and shows complete ignorance in artists' rights.
Bruh don’t tell me he was going to throw two hand painted works of art in the trash? WTF
How does she make a profit for herself
She did not own the copyright to these works. Pretty damn cheeky and rude (not to mention illegal) of her to do this. I expected more, at least a basic knowledge of copyright laws over original artworks. She has no right to use these images for fabric. I hope the original artist or the estate see this and sue. Not best practice and not legal. She should be ashamed of herself. Being carried away with her own "creative" importance is no excuse for ignorance of the law.
Wow, not only that, but she had to audacity to say the tote bags have an original oil painting on each side. That is speaking with a forked tongue. I once held this woman in reasonable esteem, now, no longer. Terminology is vitally important when describing and selling items. Prints of a stolen image are Not original oil paintings.
Now a charity is implicated in "money laundering"???
So that's three people in the comments here who came to say this, that's good! Shame on Sarah! I feel like this is pretty much common knowledge, and even if you don't know it, you should be able to intuitively guess that you don't have the right to sell an artist's work on products. 😕👎
Not every work of art has a copyright.It depends on the artist and during those decades of the 50s, and 60s is entirely possible.There wasn't one and she did say she researched the paintings
@@walterpiar2859 If that's the case then she needs to explicitly point out that there is no copyright on it and that you can't do that with just anybody's painting that you happen to find. The failure to do so is the problem. She is giving people the idea to do this to everybody's artwork, but she is not telling them that really they cannot do that.
@@walterpiar2859 Generally copyright for items created before 1978 in Europe ad the UK is the lifetime of the artist plus 70 years. Copyright does not need to be registered; instead, it is automatic after an object is created.
Get over yourself! Woke you!
J ijun