Skip to content

GeMarkt Blog · Reference

Are Van Gogh's Sunflowers public domain? Versions and file rights

Yes—for London's NG3863 in the US, UK and EU. The other six Arles versions still need separate US publication and exact-file checks.

By GeMarkt EditorialInternal source & rights check3 min readUnited States, United Kingdom and European UnionArles versions, 1888–1889
Vincent van Gogh's London Sunflowers, with yellow flowers in a yellow vase against a yellow ground
Vincent van Gogh, Sunflowers, Arles, August 1888, National Gallery NG3863. Source · Wikimedia Commons · Public Domain Mark

Sunflowers is not one painting

Van Gogh made seven Arles vase canvases in 1888–1889: four original compositions in August 1888 and three repetitions in January 1889. Five survive in public collections, one remains privately held, and one was destroyed in Japan during the Second World War. A page that says “the Sunflowers image” without naming a version has already lost the provenance trail.

The US copyright finding and exact-file record here concern only the National Gallery’s August 1888 canvas, NG3863. The other six Arles versions are included to help identify them, not to clear their US status or image files. Van Gogh’s standard UK/EU term is discussed separately below.

Bounded version matrix

Version Present record US and exact-file scope in this guide
August 1888, London National Gallery, NG3863 GO: work-specific US evidence and exact Commons PDM file recorded above
August 1888, Munich Neue Pinakothek HOLD: US status not assessed; no exact file selected
January 1889, Amsterdam Van Gogh Museum HOLD: US status not assessed; no exact file selected
January 1889, Philadelphia Philadelphia Museum of Art HOLD: US status not assessed; no exact file selected
January 1889, Tokyo Sompo Museum of Art HOLD: US status not assessed; no exact file selected
Private version Private collection HOLD: US status not assessed; object access and exact file not established
Destroyed version Destroyed in 1945 HOLD: US status not assessed; surviving photographs need separate rights checks

This is a bounded identity table, not a catalogue raisonné and not a promise about every image of each canvas.

Work-level evidence

The National Gallery’s object and series records distinguish four 1888 originals from three 1889 repetitions. For the London canvas, the museum’s provenance records a reproduction in the Leicester Galleries’ 1923 exhibition catalogue, no. 26. The exact Commons page for NG3863 also states the pre-1931 US publication basis and public-domain finding. That evidence is specific to NG3863, not all seven canvases.

Van Gogh’s 1890 death places his own work beyond the standard life-plus-70 term in the UK and EU. For the United States, each version still needs its own publication evidence. The other six versions remain unassessed here; neither their creation dates nor their shared artist establish the missing US and file findings.

Exact file: NG3863 only

The source is the named Commons faithful reproduction of National Gallery NG3863. The original revision SHA-1 is locked; a 1,920-pixel preview is resized to 1,800 pixels and converted to WebP without cropping or colour edits.

The National Gallery’s own website licence is CC BY-NC-ND for much of its imagery. That is why the guide does not call an image “free” merely because the museum owns a public-domain Van Gogh. It records the Commons file separately and tells the reader not to substitute the gallery download.

A close look at the London canvas

Yellow is not a single flat field here. The background, table, vase, petals and seed heads move through greenish, lemon, ochre and brown notes. Thick outlines keep the vase and blooms legible even as their colours approach one another.

Some flower heads are frontal discs; others turn sideways or collapse. The picture therefore carries time inside a still life—bud, bloom, drying head—without requiring a symbolic code. For other versions, close looking should begin again with the correct canvas and file rather than treating the London image as a universal substitute.

Editorial record

About this article

Publisher
GeMarkt
Published
Reviewed
Internal source & rights check. Conducted by GeMarkt Research Review. This is an internal editorial check—not independent peer review.
Source standard
Rights guide source standardSeparates the underlying work from the source file, records the review date, and links the evidence used for the conclusion.

Found a claim that needs checking? Report a factual error.