Yes, It does make one wonder Joe. I was thinking along the same lines as Richard even before I read his post: "For me the wrong would occur if I were to build another suspension bridge, or Kort to make another sculpture the same as the original." I know that debates of this kind of been going on for many years in the fine art world. Did Andy Warhol ask Campbell Soup permission before creating his famous pop art works using their trademarked cans? Does the use of an image make a difference? I know that Tubers have run into many hassles by using other artist work, and these days generally ask permission before using or altering it for their SIGs and whatnots (Which I think is a good thing). No one made mention this issue of the many images I've posted featuring the work of Dale Chihuly. Is that somehow different? Ah, the mind balks at all the twists and turns of it. For instance, what if the Eiffel Tower somehow caught fire one night and photos are taken of it then for news purposes? I do agree with Fuzzy and Joe that asking permission beforehand is the best possible course. I rushed to post my photo in response to an issue here at RR, but I guess that does not an excuse I suppose. Still, I am not claiming the sculpture as my own or achieving any monetary gain. Thinking about Joe's example of taking a photo of a computer monitor with someone else's work showing and then reposting it -- it could go either way. But online is not "public view" per se and there used to be copyright/usage notices posted with the image, though I note their absence in the new gallery format. Good discussion everyone, thanks sharing your thoughts.

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations