Nelson & His World

Engravings & prints of paintings were obviously very popular through the late Georgian and Victorian era.

It just got me thinking . . . . . how did the system work?

i.e. How (if at all) was the original artist remunerated and what artistic control did he retain?

I suppose what I am asking is did the original artist have any choice in who could make an engraving from his original and if he didn't like the finished result could he veto it?

And then did he sell the rights to a third party or take some kind of royalty for each print sold?

Or was it maybe a complete free-for-all? i.e. once a painting was in the public domain anybody could make an engraving, regardless of quality and just take all the profits for themselves.

Sorry if this is a very garbled question . . . but I think you will understand what I am getting at.

If anyone can throw a light it would be much appreciated.

MB

I can't make a proper answer to your question, Mark, but I do know that in some cases (Barker, for example, who painted the portrait of Nelson we've been discussing 'Inside Nelson's World') artists worked together with printers to produce an engraving for sale i.e. rather than paint a work for an individual or public body for their enjoyment/display, they would be commissioned by the printers themselves to paint something that they could then employ an engraver to copy. Barker, as I've noted, was not widely admired by the cognoscenti, but he made a decent living out of providing paintings for printers and engravers to reproduce and sell multiple copies of his original work to the masses.

To be honest that is the way my thought process was working.

i.e. the original painting was just a vehicle for the engravings which would potentially be sold in their hundreds if not thousands.

And any income from the sale of the originals would just be the icing on the cake.

I can tell from searches I have done that the originals of Barker's 2 companion paintings (Nelson and Wellington) were shown at galleries all round the country - and I can just imagine a little man sitting at a desk taking orders for engravings.

The only thing that is slightly confusing is that 2 different engravers were used for the 2 paintings - F Joubert for Nelson and F Bacon for Wellington. I am sure that the publishers would have hoped to sell the engravings in pairs and using 2 engravers might have given them a slightly different "feel".

Most likely I am nitpicking there, and the output of different engravers would have been very similar.

I wonder how long it took a skilled engraver to produce his original master?

Sorry - just too many questions taxing my brain this morning!!

MB

My researches recently touched on a couple of 18th century legal cases concerning pirated engravings that encouraged me to read a little bit about the history of copyright (in England)! It is extraordinarily complicated, and in some cases quite bizarre! My understanding of it is somewhat superficial, and somewhat hazy, but here goes:

Pirating of engravings was certainly rampant in the 18th century.

Before 1735, there was no copyright protection at all for works of art – as opposed to works of literature, which had only recently been protected. The 1735 engravers’ act (prompted by William Hogarth) introduced 14 years protection for engravings from an original design. There was, however, no protection for the original paintings. Thus someone could copy a painting to produce a print, but could not copy an engraving.

Despite the lack of protection, painters could successfully make a lot of money by selling engraving rights. Obviously one way of doing this was by physically controlling access to the painting, but some painters still successfully sold engraving rights even when paintings were publicly exhibited.

Hogarth’s death prompted a second engravers’ act in 1766 which extended the term and also allowed 28 years protection to pass to widows etc. This act also covered engravings of both original designs and existing paintings. As the protection covered the design, it could be argued that this in effect allowed the design of a painting to be protected if an engraving was published before the painting (i.e. before a painting was publicly exhibited).

I don’t think proper protection existed for original paintings until 1862.

Of course practice didn’t necessarily follow the law. Hence some artists made money selling engraving rights despite the lack of protection, while some publishers also made money pirating engravings either in contravention of the law or escaping by legal technicalities (for example an engraving was not protected unless the publisher’s name and first date of publication was printed on it).

So I think the answer to most of your original questions is ‘yes’, Mark!

I think the fact that artists were successful in selling reproduction rights meant there was no great demand for full legal protection, and hence the reason it took so long to arrive.

N.B. I wouldn’t guarantee that all of the above is correct, and certainly much of it was open to legal argument.

Great post, Tony!

I didn't want to de-rail this thread, so I've started a new one, this time about a lost portrait of Lady Hamilton.

Tony

Thanks for that - great information!

It makes me feel better that this was indeed a recognised problem back then and laws were brought in to try and address it.

Thanks again.

Mark