Curious-are the pre-1800's decks copyright free?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 20 Jan 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

HudsonGray	20 Jan 2004
Are they considered in the public domain at this point or are they protected by copyright by some estate/museum/collector? I don't think I ever heard this question before. I know there was talk about the Rider Waite decks, but not about anything older.

jmd	20 Jan 2004
I cannot remember whom asked this question before, but remember that the reply was basically that the artwork is copyright free - but the images you are likely to get hold off are photographic reproductions, and that these, as photographs, have copyright by the photographer...

baba-prague	20 Jan 2004
Copyright law seems incredibly complex right now. But as I understand it, if you could actually get hold of a pre-1800 deck it would be copyright free. But a reproduction of one probably wouldn't be. There is a possible loophole, which is reproductions in a book by a defunct publisher. We have sometimes used scans (usually they then need a lot of work) from very old books that are now copyright-free. The problem is finding such books - and finding decent reproductions in them. We have spent whole days in old bookshops looking for particular images, but usually the quality of printing is too poor to reuse so it's a very hit-or-miss way to go about things.

HudsonGray	20 Jan 2004
I asked because a friend wanted to base a set of majors only cards on one of the older decks, doing them freehand but changing the heads and hands to animals. It was only a potential project, but she wanted it to be sellable (self published), and use the original images as the base (with the color choices the same as what the originals had). I don't know if this project would get off the ground, or if it's a 'parody' of an existing deck & therefore ok, so I thought I'd ask.

jmd	21 Jan 2004
My understanding in this area is that if she copies the old deck freehand, whether or not she alters any parts, is quite legitimate, as the image itself has its copyright expired. As an example, if I copy freehand the Conver 1760 Marseille, even though if may be published by three current publishers, then it is quite legitimate. Although I have looked a little into legalities in this area, I am far from confident in its various subleties...

HudsonGray	21 Jan 2004
So...it's probaby ok. Especially as none of the cards would have human faces or human hands/feet on them. There would be no tracing of other cards, the art would be done freehand with probably technical pens, on art paper, then scanned, colored in, re-scanned, and them probably printed. Since the images would be from an older deck that she could find images of online as reference, and not a deck that was printed in the 1900-2000's, I think it would be in the clear.

wildinthemist	22 Jan 2004
I am in Australi ... so I am not so sure how relevant this is ... but I know that if you alter the original by 70%, it is okay ... even with copyrighted stuff. By free-hand drawing there are inevitable changes. With further alterations to the figures e.g. the heads etc you meantioned, it shouldn't be a problem. Moreover, when you consider the number of decks based very closely on the Waite deck, this suggests that your friend won't have too many problems. The other thing to do is check copyright law on the net. Presumably US law is there ... certaily Oz law is!

wildinthemist	22 Jan 2004
Egad! I really should check my spelling. Apologies.

HudsonGray	22 Jan 2004
I know if a work is 'derivitive' and easily identified as to what the original is - like putting a different background behind the Mona Lisa for instance - credit has to be given to the holder of the copyright (in this case a museum). If you change a little of it & give it a similar name, you can get static from the original artist who is potentially loosing sales to you - I'm thinking of the Cabbage Patch Kids dolls & the rip off of another who put out a set of collectible cards about the Garbage Pail Kids (judge ruled that there was no copyright violation since the media was different & that it was a parody, which is ok under copyright law & doesn't infringe on the original artist's rights). Living artists always have stronger say over copyright. But the deck being looked at as a base for this project was the Conver Marseilles, done in 1761. A redo on the art was done recently, and most of those cards can be found online (the guy did a cleanup of the art, found more symbols, etc.). But the original deck was done over 200 years back. Now my friend is talking about trying to design a flower deck instead....*sigh*...so the idea is moot, for her, I suspect. I'm not sure she's going to follow through since the initial excitement has waned so much. But man am I tempted to give it a try! I might be stupid getting into this when I have another in the works right now....but I actually sketched out 3 cards last night & yes, it's a fun idea to maybe run with. All I had to go on were online card pics, but the art is simple, easy to do, though my proportions are off a bit in the sketches, and I can still be creative. The magician ends up with a bird, two mice, some balls & a small box of catnip on his table, for instance. The Pope was actually scary how close it looked with a cat face. The Wheel had 2 dogs and a rat instead of the monkeys. And Strength is subduing a golden retriever instead of a lion. I don't know if it can actually be read with, especially with only the majors, but as a fun curiosity, I think I'd like to see what comments I get at Pennsic (historical re-creation event) this year. IF I get the cards all drawn, that is. I'd only maybe do up 20 or 30 sets at the very most. It's expensive getting color cardstock copies made, and I'd like to color these in. I think this would be more of a personal project for me, if I do it. Mabye not for the public. This doesn't require all that much in the way of real creativity. My other project is going to be using that in droves. This is 'fun', to break up the serious art

wildinthemist	22 Jan 2004
I started to laugh at the image of a Pope-cat ... yeah! go for it for fun. Sounds good! As for your friend and her ... "wouldn't it be a great idea!!!!! ... and then the fire dissipates" thing .... story of my life. But what I have noticed is that ... if the idea is one that really bites, you keep coming back to it and eventually it happens with both passion and committment. Of course eventually you run out of years ... so .... er ... um ... don't put off until tomorrow, what you can wait to do in your next life ...

HudsonGray	22 Jan 2004
I did a few more pencil sketches, then showed them to Steve (my sig. other) & he said to run with it if I want. I relayed the story I found online about the Bataleur card (warning, the next few lines are X-rated!!!) that on one site the explanation next to the card image said that the magician/bataleur (sp?) was holding one of his testicles because the alchemy roots for the card include sperm as an important connection to life & such (aaaahhhh!!!) which does give a very different feel to the look of that card, but other sites say he's holding a seed (?Ok, now my mind is really dirty!) or a ball (!!!). *Ahem* *Cough* Anyway, my magician cat is holding a little catnip mouse. I was ok with that, told Steve the story & he busts out laughing & says he loves how my mind works-- I'm thinking "huh??" Apparently when a guy has his zipper open & not wearing underwear, another guy will say 'your mouse is showing'. Something I'm sure I probably heard once or twice but made NO connection with when I did the sketch. So now I have this cat magician holding his 'mouse' which is a direct connection to the original holding HIS non-euphemistic body part--- Should I be nice & change it? Should I let one in a million 'catch' the reference (provided they've heard the argument on what's in that right hand). Or should I turn the mousie into a bird? Hmm, what other hidden signals am I unknowningly putting into these??? Maybe I should be worried.

Astra	23 Jan 2004
Nah, not to worry, HG. Those few that catch the euphemism will assume that you didn't have any idea what you were doing and that it's their own private joke - the cat motif will take care of that.

wildinthemist	23 Jan 2004
I'd leave it in. Although there are symbols which have built, with use, 'universal' meaning overtime, largely, symbolic meaning is in the mind of the beholder, so to speak. Given the alchemical sperm symbolism (and the alternative 'seed' is, also a symbol for sperm/fertility), the mouse seems appropriate. No reason why you shouldn't explain is as a 'life creating' symbol as well. And ... the addition of a vaginal symbol with the High Priestess as a balance would be great. In the Waite-Smith, that is what the pomegranates on the veil represent ... they are a fertility symbol. Fits with the notion of the 'Magician-Battleur) as a masculine energy symbol. The two combined become a balanced pair. The deck is sounding fascinating. I wonder too, how much inadvertant (sp?), i.e. unconsciously included symbolism goes into decks.

The Curious-are the pre-1800's decks copyright free? thread was originally posted on 20 Jan 2004 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.