I just wanted to ask - when you do a reproduction of an old master.... are you entitled to sign it?

I know I have worked on it but it almost seems sacrilegious to me to put my name to it.

But then what would there be to show that I did not just pluck it from somewhere?

I think what you do if you copy another work is say something like " Original by "x"" then you can put your own name below it.

I have checked into this myself .. I understand it as this .... say you draw a Thomas Kinkaid you post that the Original drawing was by TK spell his name out and then you may sign your painting as you ....if it were to be on display then you would tag it in the corner saying Original by and so on ...maybe how it inspired you .. but your name alone can go on the drawing as you are the artist who painted it .
hope that helps .

Thank you Xen and Kim.

I did think it should be done that way. In this case there is absolutely no doubt whose the original is since it is a very famous painting and there is really not much space where to write a whole lot on the painting itself... apart from the fact that it would not look good. I shall probably sign it Copy by so and so though..w we'll see.


OK... back to the drawing board... the background is a labour of love!!

Thanks again.

When copying an old masters the proper way to sign it is

RS After Leonardo DaVinci

or

RS After the Mona Lisa


You can use your full name or whatever for your part of the signature. If you want, you can even write on the back of the painting. Its entirely up to you.