Rhapsodin
Sounds like the output of this artist cum tarot card factory has neither art nor soul - not that I'd be looking for one of her decks. Superficiality is not something I want in a Tarot nor purloining the work of others.
Doreen Virtue has moved onto Fairies
Thoughtful
l had not realised she was going to use someone else's artwork, notably CMB. Words fail me on this, there is nothing to stop her of course, but to use someone else's beautiful artistry is to me a blatant, lazy money making spin. Shame on her l have tried at times to defend her oracles/tarots as there will always be a user for them, but this is a step too far.
gregory
Right on. I LOVE the Flower Fairies. But - when did Cicely die ? I'd have thought copyright still held up...
Yeah - she only died in 1973. How is this possible ?
EightWands
Thoughtful
There are a lot of cards, cups, fabrics etc. that use her designs. So l would say the copyright is long gone, or maybe you have to buy permission for usage from the CMB estates.
Either way l still think this is a lazy way to produce tarot, whats wrong with her own illustrator putting in some work to produce an original deck.
Either way l still think this is a lazy way to produce tarot, whats wrong with her own illustrator putting in some work to produce an original deck.
uruz
The copyright in the flower fairies is owned by a subsidiary of Penguin Books, and has been since the 80s. It would appear that the UK follows the "keep Disney happy" model of copyright law, so these fairies won't be entering the public domain in any of our lifetimes.
Doreen has plenty of money it would seem, and with respect to everyone who grew up with the flower fairies I doubt their licensing fee is all that steep. While the idea of works entering the public domain is a good one and should happen a lot quicker than it does, in this case she is certainly paying for the use of the fairies.
Doreen has plenty of money it would seem, and with respect to everyone who grew up with the flower fairies I doubt their licensing fee is all that steep. While the idea of works entering the public domain is a good one and should happen a lot quicker than it does, in this case she is certainly paying for the use of the fairies.
Rhapsodin
Less profit.
FLizarraga
Well, people, while most likely La Virtue is maximizing profit by using a dead artist's creations, I highly doubt that she's paying the copyright out of her own pocket --that would be a job for Hay House or whatever bakery is churning out that teeth-rotting confection.
FLizarraga
Sleep, Chocolate, & Upside Down Child
Now there's coffee ALL over my desk --and it's YOUR fault!
Dee Ell
*Current* copyright law is 70 years after the death of the artist, but prior to 1978 "the maximum copyright term was 56 years – an initial term of 28 years, renewable for another 28 years." (see this resource: http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2014/pre-1976)
Because Barker's work was published in the UK I'm not sure what that means in this case, but regardless, there are a lot of companies that like to claim copyright on things to scare people away when in fact, they don't have a legal case if it was to go to court.
Personally, I like the *idea* of public domain (because otherwise we would never hear and see a lot of great art which we can now access online) but I hate that it is used in such blatant money-making schemes by companies who should be commissioning new works of art for future generations to enjoy while supporting living artists at the same time, rather than making millions of dollars of pure profit from the works of dead artists. If some of that profit was going towards the support of the arts and artists, then I would be okay with it, but it's not. With no "patron system" in place for the arts anymore (which is how so many of the old masters were able to create their bodies of work) many artists now either stop making art because they need to "make a living" or they change their mode of expression to something commercially viable. At the same time, there are so many people who make their (very good) living by using the work of creative people who are never compensated (both legally and illegally - you'd be shocked at how often even big companies who know better will use work of current, living artists because they think either the artist won't find out or they won't have the means to take them to court!)
Here's a link to her "Guardian Angel Tarot" which is the one I referenced previously about using a Santa Claus Christmas card as the Hermit card (which HILARIOUSLY is renamed "The Spiritual Advisor" in this deck! Santa as a Spiritual Advisor. hahahaha) If you click on the picture it will open up for a "look inside" and you can scroll down through the cards and see they're all just old greeting cards for which she almost certainly didn't have to pay anything to use. There are a lot of "scrapers" who troll images online that are old enough to use and resell prints on ebay, etsy, etc, and likely that's how these were made:
http://www.amazon.com/Guardian-Ange...8&qid=1402075421&sr=1-4&keywords=virtue+tarot
I haven't seen many of her other decks (seeing 2 in person was enough) but I know that at least in her previous decks she had art *made* for the deck because there are decks where she and her family are painted as the angel's faces (but even if she then reused the same art for different cards, with different titles and designs superimposed over the top).
So I'm wondering if anyone knows when the last time was they published a deck with original art or have they simply moved on to churning out decks with long-dead artists' work?
