Coaster/Amusement Park Art

Second topic in a row!

Ok, I have an incredible print from a woman named Linda Barnicott that does many paintings in the Pittsburgh area, but has a particular interest in doing Kennywood paintings. Mine is of the Steel Phantom (wonderful picture, but *very* expensive) and I'm looking into acquiring a few more.

My question is this; does anyone know if there's someone that does artwork of Cedar Point? I know a lot of you guys take photos too, does anyone offer their photos (for a price) in full size for a wall hanging? I'd like to start a collection on my one wall of park/coaster stuff with my Phantom picture as a centerpiece, and I'd like something with the Point specificially, but any other park might work too.

For anyone interested, here's Linda's Kennywood gallery:

http://www.lindabarnicott.com/gallery/parks_thumbs.html

I have "Phantom of Lost Kennywood" and I know the guys in the band in the "Golden Memories at Kennywood's Kiddie Land" (just my little bragging session ;) )

Those are wonderful! I've thought about trying my hand at drawing/painting some scenes from CP.

If you find someone who has done artwork of CP coasters, let me know.

Actually, there is someone! My dad bought several BEAUTIFUL prints of various shots of the penninnsula from her, but sadly, I belive she passed away. It is real art, so is not cheap, but was worth every penny to us. I will see if I can find out is she is still alive. (There was no website, we called her on the phone after we saw a print in ont of the CP exec's offices.)

Edir: I believe she painted up through 2001...we have a print on the marina side of the island that includes MF at night. *** Edited 7/2/2004 5:47:15 PM UTC by Peabody***

Kind of off topic, but what are the legality issues in doing paintings of coasters and selling them?

We're all familiar with all the legal mumbo jumbo involved with selling photographs and how in general you can't, but how does the whole trademark, personal property, profiting off of someone else thing apply to artwork such as drawings or paintings?

Just curious.

Hmmmm....I never thought of that...hopefully someone more learned than I will chime in.

Lisa: "....learn(-)ed"

Homer: "It's pronnounced learned, Lisa, learrrrrrrned."

It sounds like a very grey to me.

On one side you're reproducing the parks property, not unlike a photo.

On the other hand what if I sat in my house and painted a picture of the CP skyline from memory. What if I did the same using a photo?

It's gets awfully 'iffy'

I've never been able to find info on the subject.

At what point does it go from reproduction to original work? I guess that's the main issue.

I believe Linda has an agreement with the park where she actually goes to the park and sits down and sketches what she wants to paint. That one with the band that I know the guys in the band - they said she was there for a good hour sketching that and just wanted them to sit there (which they gladly did) and then talked to them for a while afterwards.

She does many other pictures of around the city too - I'm even in one of her pictures of the last march up "The Hill" to Pitt Stadium for the last game against Notre Dame (my best memory of Pitt Marching Band!).

I guess Gonch, I'd ask you this - if painting a picture or selling a picture of an amusement park is against "copyright" laws, how is anything not copyrighted? Then taking a picture of the city from the top of Mt. Washington would be against copyright laws of every office in every building downtown. I think when you're talking something someone had to either take the picture of, or take the time to paint, you have to consider that nature is free and if someone chooses to build something, you have to accept that it'll be included in what someone considers "art". I dunno, seems WAY too picky to me ... although like I said, I think Linda has an agreement with Kennywood to use their name and their ride names in pictures.

Peabody, if you find that lady's name, that'd be great. The picture you described would be PERFECT to match what I have now ... you wouldn't be interested in selling would you? ;)

I see what you're saying, Brett - and I do agree to a point. However, it can be illegal to take a picture of a single building in the Pittsburgh Skyline (privately owned buildings) however, including that same building in a skyline photo from the top of Mt. Washington is perfectly legal because it's a landscape shot and the building's useage is incidental. The building in question is not the focus of the work, but rather a part of the whole.

Painting a coaster or a park scene or park skyline is closer to the first scenario because it's all privately owned property. There's nothing 'incedental' about the image - it's a painting (or photo or whatever) of the park - that's the focus.

Property rights law really is that undefined, grey and hard to grasp. Whch is why there is often confusion.

Not trying to start anything, I was honestly curious because I've often wondered why we don't see more coaster/park artwork. Like real hand drawn or painted art.

Yea, I see your point. Just using Linda's work as an example, the one of the Leap the Dips (I think it's called) from some bygone park *would* be a violation if the park still existed because the single coaster is obviously the focus. But, you could then argue that the one I have that's nominally of the Steel Phantom isn't a violation because it contains not only the Phantom, but Pittsburgh Plunge, some various Lost Kennywood buildings, even (I think, it's been a day or two since I've looked at the picture) the great structures that were in the Lost Kennywood "lake" for that show at night. So you could say she was painting what she saw, the Steel Phantom just happened to be what ended up as the centerpiece of the painting.

Interesting to think about though!

Hey speaking of things included in that picture, if someone could take a look at the Steel Phantom one that I have and let me know if I'm just crazy or there was NEVER a flyer painted red and white in the middle of the Phantom's loops. Or more specifically, since the construction of Lost Kennywood, there was NEVER a flyer in that spot - Pitt Fall is the only thing that's been there since the Phantom went up in '91 to the best of my memory. That's the only thing that really bothers me about that picture is that there's no Pitt Fall, there's some gaudily-colored flyer in the middle of the loops ... hence why I want the Thunderbolt one with the Pitt Fall in the background ;)

Brett, the flyers (Phantom Flyers) only lasted one or two seasons when Lost Kennywood first opened. As you now Pitt Fall opened in 1997, 2 years after LK opened. So that leaves the time that the flyers were there. The flyers now reside at Lake Compounce.

Wow, you're right. Been looking at that painting since Christmas and the wheels just clicked when I read your post that those flyers were there =). Yea, they were short lived - must have been the name that jogged my memory! All I could remember was a fence there, then the short-lived signs for Pitt Fall on the fence that no one would believe that I saw touting a ride that would be taller than the Phantom ...

I have painted some pictures of Cedar Point's coasters. I have one of the Raptor and another of the Mantis, and the Raptor one is by far my favorite. My style is a lot different from hers. I do have lots of photographs also, but I am unsure of the legality of selling them. I use them to paint from because I am afraid to ask about taking my paints and canvas into the park.
I would still call myself an amatuer painter, but I have fun doing it. I will try to get the Raptor painting on my website soon. I think it's the best painting I have ever done so far.I draw coasters all the time and sculpt them also. I have a sterling schwartzkopf car I made last year that is cute. :)
Still working on getting my 8x10 enlarger running for those poster sized pictures! Some day... some day... sigh...