Attached Link: Trapped

Like FuzzyShadows, I enjoyed serious discussion threads and would like to see more of them in the forum. This relates to the photo I posted today and related to Fuzzy's comment on it. The original is above, for comparison purposes. Let me say I am not pissed or annoyed at him in any way, I am glad he said something so that people think twice about using other peoples art in theirs. Without going fully into copyright law, I was wondering what everyone thought about something like this? I remember thinking to myself the first time I saw Ray (Rayburg) use other's sculptures in his work why he didn't give them credit. I didn't see anyone come down on him for it *(and they are wonderful, artistic images by the way - the sculptors should be honored he worked with them)* so I never said anything...but always wondered. When does that line get crosses exactly? I've posted a number of images recently that featured the art of Dale Chihuly. Again, these were on public exhibit and there were no "Do not photograph the artwork" signs next to the work. My own personal view of it is that is was in a public place and probably gets photographed quite often. I'm not saying it is my work, nor trying to sell it. It is for viewing pleasure only, and acts as free advertising for the sculptor. I know, I neglected to get artist's name...a situation I will remedy when I go back to the airport next Friday. If anyone recognizes it, please let me know now. Anyhow, I thought I'd through this out there for discussion. I know there is a copyright forum, but I felt this was more appropriate here since it is something we as photography face when we walk out of our doors, camera in hand.

I'll give my own personal view based solely on my own feelings.

If the intention is to deceive and purvey an art work as your own when it is someone else's then I feel a wrong has been done. 

If, as your posting today, a photograph has been taken of a piece of art and there is no intention to deceive, then no wrong has been done. In your posting it clearly stated you were taking a photograph of an artwork, therefore with me it falls into the latter category.

My views are probably not strictly in line with copyright law. Today we live in a very litigious society. English law is founded on what a reasonable person would believe. IMO in recent case history weakness has been shown by the judiciary by allowing the law to be tied into knots by people who would challenge the very fabric of the law to win a case, thereby changing the law based on case study to the detriment of more important issues.   

But hey that way lies a deep philosophical discussion on the law, and is it there to benefit society as a whole or the individual. The modern Keynesian view of society is that of the individual, because it promotes economic growth !

Woah Richard, thanks! That is what I'm talking about -- more, more! I agree with everything you said...at least everything I could understand, haha.

I agree too...

TwoPynts, is a very good exposition this one, I like very much

Since I am not well-versed on copyright law and/or what qualifies as infringement,I can only say how I feel.

I am very much in agreement with Richard,and if something is on public display,and  the photographer states it is not of his or her own work,then it should be considered acceptable.That is ,providing the subject's creator or the location of the work has not forbidden photography in any way.

I am glad you uploaded this,Kortalouche.Not only because it is an interesting subject for discussion,but because it gave me a chance to see your original.So may I say again that you did a fabulous job with your postwork.

Brilliant upload today,my friend.(There should be an applauding smiley,lol.)

PS-I don't recognize this sculpture.I'm guessing it's not at Palm Beach's airport,then...

Actually, it is the West Palm Beach airport. Guess I'll find out next Friday. ;^]

There's another thing in play here. If the concerning artist should ever demand that you withdraw your image of his artwork, I think he has every right to do so, even if you did mention his name, and even if you took the shot in a public place. Another, different example to think about: a Belgian political party used a promotional poster with a photograph of a woman. The photo was bought, completely legally, from an American stock photo agency. It turns out to be that the woman portrayed is actually Belgian, and she doesn't want to be associated with that particular political party, nor does the photographer. Together they made a lawcase against the party, and won... the party has to remove and destroy every single poster they used. I could mention that the political party is known to be rightwing and racist, but I don't think that makes a difference in this case.

What an interesting, convoluted case you present Geert. Certainly food for thought. As I think on it, I will try to contact Dale Chihuly to let him know I am showing photographs that use feature his work. I will do the same with the other artist as well. If they want me to remove the photos, then so be it. I kind of like to think of this type of thing as an after the fact collaboration, an homage to their creative vision, but of course they may not see it that way. Another thought that comes to mind that if these artists want their work publicly exhibited, then they are almost saying that this sort of thing is okay with them as it just adds to the exposure of it. Mind you, I mean in this type of forum...not if I were selling these images. Ah, the world is a complicated place, but that is one of things that makes life interesting.

Excellent thread. I think the forum improves 100 fold with these kinds of discussions.

As for my stance on the subject... valouchufy posted a link several days back which gives a good look into art and copyright.

http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html

From the article, copyright attorney Dianne Brinson states (and I paraphrase) that when someone creates a work of art, such as a painting, sculpture, etc., the artist is automatically protected by copyright. Being protected by the copyright, the artist has EXCLUSIVE right to "reproduce" the work of art. So if you take a picture of the artwork, you are in fact reproducing it, and in violation of the artist's copyright. So that is where I base my feeling that it is an infringement.

But that is just a technical thing as the law states. What I think bothers me is that TwoPynts' image, isn't an image of the artists's work (as the above image is), but rather a part of the artists's work, where TwoPynts has changed the composition, the tones and or lighting, the presentation. What if the artist's doesn't like it? (which I  know is doubtful, since it is a beautiful shot and I'm just being the devils' advocate) Maybe the artist thinks that the power in the piece is the flowing irregular border, as opposed to TwoPynt's rectangular border?

Make any sense?

It makes sense fuzzy, it is more in line with the law than my view.

My feelings are that following that path leads to almost all man made things being the interlectual property of the designer/artist.  It is a path society seems to be taking at the moment but I would not condone it.

If I take a photograph of a piece of Norman Forster architecture am I infringing his copyright ?  Many would say his designs are works of art, lets take one: The Milau suspension bridge is there for all to see. It could not be more on public view, the worlds highest bridge. Why should I not stand on public property and photograph it ? Is what I see not my own vision of the world ?

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 cannot believe a 2D photograph can be a copying of someones 3 dimensional solid oblect. The sculpture is a sculpture first and foremost, before it is anything else. A vision in 2D is a vision of that, not the same as the original.

Some good points Onslow, and hard to argue against. One thing though, I can see that a lot of people base their feelings on the "shot from a public place" basis.  In Brinson's article, she states that this "public place" issue only applies to buildings, not to other copyrighted works.. such as paintings and statues.

Your last statement regarding 3d and 2d gave me lots of food for thought, as I can see your point. I personally don't distinguish one artform from the other. A painting is art, as is a sculpture, as is a photograph, etc. etc.  Creating a piece of artwork, from another's artwork, may or may not be ok with the original artist. So it is important that an agreement (permission) is reached between the two parties BEFORE the latter artwork is used in any form.

Just my take on it. Thanks again for the stimulating discussion.

This is one of those STICKY situations....

I think FS hit the nail on the head...getting permission BEFORE posting would be the right thing to do here to play it safe!  If the original artist DOES take issue with someone using their artwork, then its kind of late in the game (AFTER the fact), because its already been posted, viewed and downloaded to our temp directories.  You can't go back and ask everyone who DID view it to remove it for copyright now! 

Yeah, we can assume or use the arguement that the artwork/sculpture was in PUBLIC view, what I did is kinda  free advertising and whatnot, but what if down the road....this artist wants to produce a calender or postcards using this piece of art (or hasn't already) and you could potentially be infringing on that without even knowing it!

Look at it this way...If I took a photo of my monitor of someones artwork HERE  and then reposted it (without permission) wouldn't THAT be wrong? Against the TOS here maybe?  Even if I postworked the heck out it and made it.... "my own"    

Somwhat related to this topic ....here's an interesting link about Photographing the Eiffel Tower at NIGHT....who would think  THIS could be copyrighted....

http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2005/02/02/eiffel_tower_repossessed.html

it sure makes you wonder about things in general!

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.

Yes, very interesting discussion indeed.  Re: the Eiffel tower...I have seen a list of other buildings that have so-called architectural copyrights.  I recall that the Sydney Opera house is one of them...I will search for that list and post when I find it.

I also read somewhere that corporate logos can be shown....as long as they are NOT the main subject of the image.

Going further on this discussion....If I take a picture of a "licensed" flower....let's say a rose or tulip....would that be infringement?

@TwoPynts...yes, I see the copyright clause is absent now....but there is a check on your upload that makes you state ownership.

"@TwoPynts...yes, I see the copyright clause is absent now....but there is a check on your upload that makes you state ownership." True, but what I was referring to was the statement visible to everyone browsing the galleries stating that the images posted here are the property of their owners, blah, blah, blah... It is odd that they didn't include that on the new version of the site, don't you think?

Well this has been debated often and in my view this is covered under fair use.. And I  think that Kort had good intent by trying to find the original creator of the artwork.. The law is very tricky regarding this topic, and you are more liable to be safe if the artwork is on long term display, rather than temporary, and it always pays to be able to give the credit of the artist.... I  hope the copyright laws dont get us into the situation where we cant take say an image of a building as it has a corperate logo on view!!

Hi every body,

I understand you Kort and i think the same...  For see more of the copyright , I have a new links very interesting for you my friend : http://www.copyright.gov/ and look the Preregistration, in the first part : Preregistration Information...

I have to post a thread about that, because i see one day a photo mine in a web of photo free and i learn that because i working with a model and for someones time, i need to take photo with a famous mark.... I see that very important to know the all point for this word "copyright".

Thank you for this very interesting debat

good weekend and hugssss

 

@TwoPynts...yes, very odd that it's missing.....could have sworn I saw it a few days ago.....

@danob....regarding fair use, so if Kort sold this image, I assume that could pose a problem.

@anyone....so, back to my question on the "licensed" or "patent"  flowers/plants...Is a photo of them an infringement?

Funny thing......this shows up when you enter the Terragen gallery...doesn't show up in the photo gallery...

"Members remain the original copyright holder in all their materials here at Renderosity. Use of any of their material inconsistent with the terms and conditions set forth is prohibited and is considered an infringement of the copyrights of the respective holders unless specially stated otherwise."

HOLD IT! does this all mean that you cant take/sell a picture of any living creature because G od holds the copyright? Where's my copyright angel? I think that the wrath of copyright comes (mostly) when you (want to) use something for commercial use. Or tell everyone that its YOUR'S. Or show/sell it without giving the artist any credit. P.S. Kort, when you find out who the artist is puhlleeeze tell us.

I guess that's why in so many of the portraits of women they are naked

- the photographer doesn't want to infringe on the copywright of the clothes maker !

LOL, this discussion is sliding downhill fast. ;o] I will be sure to share the artist's name with everyone after I return to the airport this coming weekend.

lollll !!! ¿ What do you do in the airport ?

Quote - HOLD IT! does this all mean that you cant take/sell a picture of any living creature because G od holds the copyright? Where's my copyright angel? I think that the wrath of copyright comes (mostly) when you (want to) use something for commercial use. Or tell everyone that its YOUR'S. Or show/sell it without giving the artist any credit. .

Am I the only one who feels the copyright laws are just a little "overboard"???

I think everyone wants to take credit for their own artistic endevor, but to put a cap on everyone elses! Why even create art and show it publically if your so terrified that someone is going to steal your idea??? To me it comes down to the money factor for everyone, don't you think?  If an artist creates a sculpture and say was comissioned $10,000 to display it in a public place, but a photographer takes a picture and sells a million copies at $10 a piece or a painter paints their interpretation and sells it at auction for $50,000, the original artist feels ripped off!

In esscence, the artist is saying, "hey, I want to make all the money, it's mine"!!!

I'm not saying copyright infringment is right...... no way, but I think there has to be some lightening up!! I for one still regard each form of art seperate in itself. A sculpture. a photograph, a painting. I wouldn't condone someone creating lithographs of a painting and selling them for half price, or someone making little statues of a bigger one to sell at market to tourist without the artist consent and say a comission. BUT...... if a photographer takes a picture of an art lover admireing a painting in a gallery, or a famous statue at sunset and then that photographer makes prints and sells them, I feel is their own creation.

Have I rambled enough now?????? Sorry!!! :(

Just an FYI about the COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER discussed above....it appears that text doesn't mean SQUAT!

I brought THIS up in the community center (if anyone is interested)

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2656789

as per JenyK...."That disclaimer has no legal barring. It only serves as a "reminder" to anyone that is unsure of the US copyright laws (in which we abide).  As an artist, any public display can put your work at risk for theft." 

So just like sculptures or other publicly displayed artwork...your images here (and elsewhere) on the internet are pretty much fair game as well!   To be edited, changed and possibly make money for someone else! 

Pretty sad to read the response by JenyK....and it appears that others (including myself)  have also had their works stolen by folks that want to profit...

I can only see a few choices...1) stop posting images, 2) some type of watermarking to "discourage"  theft, 3) start posting smaller images to discourage printing.

Unfortunately if Rendo doesn't care....folks here may starting opting for choice #1....

What is a "patent" flower?  :unsure:

Renderosity 'does' care, but they can only go so far in helping cut down on image theft..everyone knows that image theft is running wild on the net, and all websites {this one and any others} can do is post notices about copyrights, and try to discourage image theft as much as possible through education and so on....they cant actively, legally, go after someone who has stolen an image from their website..only the original copyright holder can do that.

@Fuzzyshadows...a patent flower is one that is specially cultured...for example certain types of roses and tulips.  It is against the law to propogate them on your own without compensating the originator.

@jumpstartme...understood...but, if they really cared, couldn't they "assist" a Rendo member in going after an image thief? 

Well, they can, but again only so far...we currently actively look for copyright infringments, {I do this myself in my spare time, as well as here} and once these are found, we notify the possible infringer, ask questions, ask for proof of image ownership, so on and so forth...if the infringer cant verify, then they stand to get into trouble...but we cant issue a cease and desist, or take them to court or anything like that....

Did you have some ideas in mind that we all can toss around?

Having had some of my renders stolen from here earlier this year...let me tell you that initially it was a shock...then I was mad...and it made me reassess my uploads.  As a result, I don't upload nearly as frequently....and I will now start to upload smaller images.

As to solutions....some thoughts...

1. Self policing.....if you see images from folks here for sale elsewhere....send them an IM to give them a heads up....perhaps it is legitimate..then fine.

2. Post smaller images to prevent print theft

3. Perhaps an innovative watermark that Rendo puts on images seen by non "Rendo" members....yes, I know if someone wants it without the watermark then they get a Rendo acct...but at least it would make things a bit more difficult.

Thats it for now...but...I will do some more thinking....

Quote - Perhaps an innovative watermark that Rendo puts on images seen by non "Rendo" members....yes, I know if someone wants it without the watermark then they get a Rendo acct...but at least it would make things a bit more difficult.

Now this one is a good idea {they all are, but I really like this one}...but IIRC, don't non members to Rendo have to have a link from a member to see any of the galleries?...

Anyway,  you got my brain to going....Im thinking along the lines of some type of something that Rendo 'might' or might not be able to rig {no promises here, Im just thinking out loud right now LOL}...that could put an invisible or fairly transparent image over the top of all the images here to discourage theft...{now of course there would have to be the option to turn such a feature off for the members who prefer not to have this 'watermark' over their images}

I know places like Zazzle and so on do this...dont know if it would work here or not tho....after all, if someone wants an image bad enough, there are ways of getting it :sad: but we dont have to make it easy

Let me run this by some of the staff..see what all we can do, or come up with....keep the ideas coming!

Perfect...a Rendo watermark...and give members the option to turn it off upon upload if they don't want it...

As for being a member to see the galleries...not sure...

Ok, I put it in front of the staff..will see what happens...maybe something, maybe nothing...but Im still thinking

Very interesting turn this discussion took. If we are no longer going to have the "copyright" under our gallery images, then the watermark idea has merit.

@Kort...sorry for taking this thread sideways....

@jumpstartme...another thought...This one will probably turn a few heads....turn Rendo into a semi-sales site....Have a free for all section, like now...and have a locked section where the artists have watermarked images...then allow unlocking of those watermarked images only for those that pay for the image....artist gets % of course.  And, yes...I want a cut of Rendo's profit for my idea.....

No worries about taking it sideways. Half the fun of posting a thread is seeing where it goes. As for a semi sales site, well, that what it really is. The pay for prints/images was tried and didn't really work. Apparently, most of the people visiting this site are artists and don't really want to buy the art of others, heheheh.

@Kort...but it would prevent "free for all" theft.  It still gives the artist the option if he wants to have the watermark and at the same time allows him/her a method of sale.

If you just want to look at the image...fine...if you want to make money off it, then compensate the artist.

Just thinking here.....

I hear ya, but I don't think they got that business model off the ground here. Other sites seem to make it work though, I wonder what the diff is...

Sounds like they need new business guys then.....it's pure profit....they already store our images...just release them, take a cut...sounds simple to me.  Perhaps too simple?

Well, you run into size problems if people want them for prints. I doubt there were be enough incentive to sell them as screen resolution images...

@jumpstartme2...any news on this?

Nothing yet :sad: seems it got backlogged with more of the site conversion, but I will bring it up again ;)

To get back to the original post... http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html Whoever came up with photography being a form of reproduction for 3D artwork certainly had a serious case of money-making wish. Kort, your situation is most probably complicated by who's the owner of the statue copyright. Was it a work for hire? Did the artist retain the copyright? And so on. BTW, note that part about "state film commission". I've heard that some states really want out-of-state commercial photographers to pay fees to take photos there. So you go to a state, pay the hotel, pay the gas at the local gas station, buy food and so on, and above that they want you to pay for the right to use the scenery as backdrops...

Good link and great points. I find it laughable that states would charge out of state commercial photographers to take photos of their scenery...but there you go... I never was able to contact the artist or anyone at the airport about it. I love how they leave it ambiguous by saying "may need"...

I think it's called "creating an employment opportunity" by lawyers. :lol:

Copyright copyright, I see a lot thread with this one, and yes it's very dificult to understand...Ehen you can to know, all the countrys don't have the same valor of this world..

Thank you Kort for this thread

hugs

Kort: I looked for this at West Palm this past weekend...I didn't see it.I should've asked you where it is... :(

Yeah...and should have told me you'd be in the area! ;] It was on the check-in level against the rear wall, near the far right side if you are looking into the airport.

Thanks Kortalouche.That explains why I've never seen it.I always fly Jet Blue and it's on the far left side.

I know where to find it next time,though!