[Sharon Passmore]

Originally Posted by Ann Drysdale

Strange to think that I can buy an original painting and be the only person to have it because there is only one of it and not have the "right" to do anything with it other than own it, when my owning it makes it impossible for anyone else to do anything with it...

Think about it like this...I buy a book of Ann Drysdale poetry. I own this book. I own these poems...or do I? Can I now go out and use the poems on greeting cards? If the artist took a picture of her painting, she does have the right to use it.

It's not always about money. It can be about being able to say no when someone wants to use the art on something they don't want to endorse.

It's not necessary to make a big deal about it. Just contact her and ask - "May I use your art on my book?"
If I were the artist I would be thrilled but I might ask for a few copies and the right to use photos of the book in my own promotions. She may want to be credited or have some say-so about how it's cropped. BUT if it's not complicated enough, the photographers have some copyrights too.

[Cyn Neely]

since you did not make the painting it is not your work even though you possess the physical painting. You need to get permission for its use on a cover or in any other print media (maybe even online media) and of course to give credit where credit is due - speaking as both a poet and a painter

[Wintaka]

There's a simple workaround: take your painting to a public place and snap a photo of it.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-o...-exception.htm

"Also, it is not an infringement of the copyright in a work if you draw, take a photograph or make a film of, buildings or sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship which are located in a public places or in premises open to the public and copyright is not infringed in any material when it is used in legal proceedings."

Personally, I think there should be a distinction between unique works (e.g. paintings and sculptures) as opposed to duplicated ones (e.g. prototypes, books, movies, prints, mass produced figurines, etc.) but, as others have pointed out, there doesn't seem to be.

-o-

[Sharon Passmore]

That is correct. You could probably take a photo of yourself in your living room and the painting be on the wall, but why deprive the artist of the pleasure and joy? I would be dancing around the room and calling everyone I know if my work was going to be a book cover. This is a huge compliment, especially that you wrote a poem inspired by this work. Spread the joy.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Also, it is not an infringement of the copyright in a work if you draw, take a photograph or make a film of, buildings or sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship which are located in a public places or in premises open to the public and copyright is not infringed in any material when it is used in legal proceedings.

This is not a loophole.

Publishing said photograph is what constitutes the infringement. You can draw or photograph an artwork in any private or public place (unless the museum says otherwise and some do) and show it to friends, but you cannot publish it as a book cover or similar. Unless of course, as I said earlier, you have an agreement (preferably written) with the artist.

[Roger Slater]

You can speak off the top of your head, or you can look it up. In the US, and I suspect this mirrors most other jurisdictions,

(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.— The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

17 USC Section 120.

Note that this "photographer's exception," as it's sometimes called, does not apply only to the taking of a photograph, but to the distribution or public display of the photograph, which would allow such things as use on a book cover.

It's a dicier question when it comes to public art, such as a sculpture, and I don't know the answer for sure, but I suspect that the answer is that it's okay if the art is included in the scene you are photographing, but not okay if the photograph is primarily about showing the art work. (I just noticed Wintaka's link, which apparently answers the question, at least for the UK, by indicating that it's not an infringement to draw or photograph public art. The US statute, by contrast, refers only to buildings, not to art. Still, without looking it up and nailing it down, I would be shocked if it were illegal to take and sell a picture of a public square because you can make out on a single corner a small statue that is under copyright, or if there were a billboard in the background with copyrighted advertising text, or someone wrote and owns the copyright to graffiti painted onto the side of a subway car that happens to be passing by.).

[Cyn Neely]

If you use the painting to make the cover of your book and as such it helps to sell your book, you are using someone else's work for profit without their permission. If you take a picture of the painting and use it as your Christmas card - just sending it to friends and family - it would not be of much note (though you should still give credit)
The artist owns the work, it is copyrighted even if a copyright was never applied for. You need to contact the artist and get permission. I would bet you any money she/he will be thrilled (unless of course they have gone on to do much more and better work and do not want that painting out there to represent them) Like if someone took an old poem of yours that you had just sent them and never intended to publish but they put it on their blog and attributed it to you but it is so not what you now do and you never intended it to see the light of day.
It's complicated, but bottom line is you need to ask the artist. It's the right thing to do.