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.

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

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 !

And every one said, 'If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve,---
To the hills of the Chankly Bore!'
Far and few, far and few, Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue, And they went to sea in a Sieve.

Edward Lear
http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/ns/jumblies.html

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.

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

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...

Marlene <")

Marlene S. Piskin Photography
My Blog

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog can cure depression. The down side is, the minute you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno

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

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

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.

We do not see things as they are. ǝɹɐ ǝʍ sɐ sƃuıɥʇ ǝǝs ǝʍ
 

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.

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

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 ?

And every one said, 'If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve,---
To the hills of the Chankly Bore!'
Far and few, far and few, Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue, And they went to sea in a Sieve.

Edward Lear
http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/ns/jumblies.html

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.

And every one said, 'If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve,---
To the hills of the Chankly Bore!'
Far and few, far and few, Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue, And they went to sea in a Sieve.

Edward Lear
http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/ns/jumblies.html

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.

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

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.

In youth, we learn....with age, we understand.

"@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?

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

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!!

Danny O'Byrne  http://www.digitalartzone.co.uk/

"All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice" Eliott Erwitt

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?

In youth, we learn....with age, we understand.

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."

In youth, we learn....with age, we understand.

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.

Question the question. Answer the question. Question the answer...

I wish I knew what I was gonna say :oP

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 !

And every one said, 'If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve,---
To the hills of the Chankly Bore!'
Far and few, far and few, Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue, And they went to sea in a Sieve.

Edward Lear
http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/ns/jumblies.html

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.

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

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!!! :(

Kim Hawkins

 

Kim Hawkins Eastern Sierra Gallery

 

 

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....

In youth, we learn....with age, we understand.

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.

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

@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? 

In youth, we learn....with age, we understand.

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?

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

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....

In youth, we learn....with age, we understand.

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!

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

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...

In youth, we learn....with age, we understand.

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

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

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 Kramer - Kramer Kreations

@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.....

In youth, we learn....with age, we understand.

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 Kramer - Kramer Kreations

@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.....

In youth, we learn....with age, we understand.

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...

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

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?

In youth, we learn....with age, we understand.

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...

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

@jumpstartme2...any news on this?

In youth, we learn....with age, we understand.

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

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

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...

-- erlik

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"...

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

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

-- erlik

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... :(

Marlene <")

Marlene S. Piskin Photography
My Blog

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog can cure depression. The down side is, the minute you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno

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.

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

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!

Marlene <")

Marlene S. Piskin Photography
My Blog

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog can cure depression. The down side is, the minute you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno

We flew JB too and that is when I walked by it coming from the parking garage. :)

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

That also explains it.I'm never parking a car when I'm there. ;^)

Marlene <")

Marlene S. Piskin Photography
My Blog

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog can cure depression. The down side is, the minute you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno

I think what people may be overlooking by TwoPynts posting the image in his gallery is that he modified it from the original image. The artist that sculpted the sculpture holds copyright on that piece. Had TwoPynts posted his snapshot in it's original form as an example of "this cool sculpture I spotted at the airport", he may not have a problem. By cropping the image to show only the sculpture and postworking it in photoshop to create his own work of art, he has violated the original artists copyright. TwoPynts effectively created a derivative work. Under copyright law, only the holder of the copyright has the right to create or authorize the creation of derivative works.

The sculpture being displayed in a public place and there not being any "do not photograph" signs around does not diminish the effect of copyright. As unfair as it may seem, the image should be removed from the gallery as it violates the copyright of the sculptor.

It's all fun and games...
Until the flying monkeys attack!!! 

I would tend to agree with Tainted_Heart that this is a derivative work and therefore an infringement unless permission was obtained.  I remember reading something about copyrights and taking photographs of sculptures being an infringement upon copyrights, wish I could find it again and refresh my memory...

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

Hmmm. this is all getting interesting.

From what I read about the Eiffel Tower, that is just plain stupidity - number one, it only applies at night.  I'm sure if I was going to use the Eiffel Tower in an 'inappropriate' picture I could do more with a lit picture during the day anyways ;-)  On top of that, the representative claims in the link that really, they imply that they actually condone abuse of the copyright law... "he assured me that SNTE wasn't interested in prohibiting the publication of amateur photography on personal Web sites. "It is really just a way to manage commercial use of the image, so that it isn't used in ways we don't approve," said Mr. Dieu. "  Copyright is copyright, No?  What if I make an amateur image that they don't approve of?!?  I've got a quote saying it's OK to do it in an amateurish way!!! YAY!!!!  There's my defence......

Ok, buildings..... I take a photo of my car in front of a landmark and advertise my car for sale in a magazine.... what do I care about the landmark?  Can that REALLY be a breach of copyright when I didn't even intend it to be in the image?  Now what about Ford?  I've used a picture of their vehicle (of which I'm sure the design is copyrighted) and used it for a commercial purpose!!!

Image theft is one thing - unaltered, people may mistake it for the real thing.  But a photo of a sculpture can't be mistaked for the real thing - it's a lot flatter for a start, and a bit more boring around the back.

Like political correctness, copyright has wandered into a strange land where it'll never be sorted out and ultimately some technically illegal things will be completely ignored - either that or silly boundaries will be re-inforced one day that it would be unfeasable to police effectively.  Writing this, I'm thinking of an example of prosecuting someone for taking a photo of a building.

(",)

When you starve with a tiger, the tiger starves last.

In Ft. Lauderdale, the Blockbuster building used to be off limits for photography. If any of the security inside saw someone taking a photo of it, they would go outside and confiscate their film (this was before Digicams were common). I don't know if this is still enforced today. How do you draw the line? Some tourist takes a snapshot and the building is in the background. Is that copyright infringment? I am interested to see where this discussion leads...

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

Taking a photo of a sculpture and using a portion of the photo containing the sculpture  to create a new piece of art, is no different than taking elses image and modifying it to create a new piece of art. No one has the right to use a copyrighted piece to create a derivative without the copyright holders permission. It's really not that difficult to understand, it's not rocket science!

It's all fun and games...
Until the flying monkeys attack!!! 

The thing about the Blockbuster building in FT Lauderdale, are you sure it was because of copyrights that one couldn't take photos of it?  My husband tried to take photos once of some kind of jail near Montreal and guards took the film from him not because his taking photos of it was infringing upon someone's copyrights but apparently it was for security reasons...  I have no idea what that building you're talking about is, but maybe it was more for security purposes?

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

No, it was not for security purposes, it was because the likeness of the building could not be duplicated without their permission, for whatever reasons they had.

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with Tainted on this one ;-)

Taking a photograph, no matter what of, makes YOU the copyright holder of the photograph, and can do what you like with it .  If the original artist/designer/architect doesn't want photo's of it, that's for his own reasons, but have nothing to do with copyright.  If you're on private land and the landowner doesn't want photo's taken, that's also their perogative, but once again it's for whatever their own reasons.

If I took a close up of the face of the statue David and turned it into an artwork like the ones I do, it doesn't mean that anyone else has a claim to it..... I certainly would fight like hell in any court to keep my work mine, and I couldn't see any court in the world failing to uphold that.  Say an artist is out at dawn one morning and is walking by a statue in a park.... he notices a perspective of the statue that everyone misses or ignores... he gets into a good position, waits a few minutes for the sun to be just right..... and gets an amazing photo, a phenominal contrast of light and shadow playing on the curves of the statue.  Is THAT the work of the original artist?  Should he REALLY have any claim at all on someone elses talent just because he has some himself?

If the design of every item that is created and seen is copyrighted, there isn't a photo in the world that doesn't breach it apart from nature shots..... we'd better throw away every photo we've ever taken that has a house, shop, car or structure in the background....... and Andy Warhol should be sued by Heinz, too........wow, that'll earn them a few quid, and knock art back 500 years..........

(",)

When you starve with a tiger, the tiger starves last.

I have no legal clue but I agree wholeheatedly with you ReBorn. Taken a step further, if a person takes a photo of a photo when the light is just right.... what a mess :blink:

Manning

From a gut (non-legal) level I agree with Mike. This whole copyright things has gotten a bit too crazy. Too many rules that apply sometimes and not others. It is one thing to claim credit for creating something and to profit off it. But to artistically manipulate an image that you took of something on public display in a non-profit manner while still crediting the original artist, I can't see how that really is wrong. And no fair Mike, I already used the Warhol analogy. I'm suing you for intellectual infringment buddy! ;o]

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

Sorry Kort, don't know how I messed that one.......

Anyways, you'll lose your case.  I'm sure I could plead lack of intellect and win ;-)

(",)

When you starve with a tiger, the tiger starves last.

If I remember correctly, Warhol WAS sued on more than one occaision.

Say an artist is out at dawn one morning and is walking by a statue in a park.... he notices a perspective of the statue that everyone misses or ignores... he gets into a good position, waits a few minutes for the sun to be just right..... <<<

I would challenge you to create your OWN statue, place it in any position you see fit, and take a picture of it. I would be much more impressed.

 

LOL, that is all well and good Fuzzy, and I have done so in the past. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are discussing taking a photo of a sculpture in a public setting and presenting it in our own way. Is that really copyright infringement? In the interests of keeping the peace, I have removed both of my photos of this installation for the time being. I did further research on the web and found out that the artist is a retired art dept. head from Palm Beach Community College. I have not been able to track down an email for him, but did find one for his daughter (who ironically is a photographer) and sent her my request to showcase my images of his work. We'll see what happens. If he say's it is okay, then I'll repost the images. Copyright issues aside, I would prefer to think of what I did as a collaboration between to creative types, rather than anything else. It is done all the time.

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

"I would challenge you to create your OWN statue, place it in any position you see fit, and take a picture of it. I would be much more impressed."

Sorry, the logic of this statement is completely lost on me.... following your suggestion, then we should make anything that we photograph that is designed or made by someone else, just to get the photographs we want?  Can you say that you have EVER done that for any of your photographs? 

Can you say that you discredit  every picture of something man-made because the photographer did not make the subject?  If so, then you are true to your statement but very narrow minded and missing out on a lot of good work - if not, then your statement is inherently hypocritical, is it not?

(",)

When you starve with a tiger, the tiger starves last.

Here's a couple of articles I found on PhotoAttorney's blog that are of interest to this topic:

http://www.photoattorney.com/2006/09/no-bull-dont-shoot-that-copyrighted.html

http://www.photoattorney.com/2005/04/know-your-rights-and-limitations-when_23.html

She says this:

In general, if property is visible and can be photographed from a public place, you don't need a property release to use the image in any manner. This exclusion to copyright law includes buildings located on the property, but not statues or other items that may have separate copyrights. There also are restrictions on some governmental property for security purposes, such as federal seals and insignia, and military or nuclear installations. But if the statue or copyrighted item has minimal presence in your image, your photo still may fall under the exclusion.  Otherwise, you must get permission to use the image for commercial purposes.

In the case of your image, I wouldn't say the copyrighted item has minimal presence in your image ;) so I personally don't think it would fall under the exclusion if the statue is copyrighted.  In the example of a photograph of a car for sale that happens to be parked in front of a building that is copyrighted, I'd say it might fall under the exclusion because the building isn't the main subject of the photograph.  Besides, I'm not sure this kind of photo would be considered an artwork or a derivative whereas the photo of the statue with the work that has been done on it clearly is...

It almost sounds like she's saying that you only need to get permission if you're going to use the image commercially, but I've personally always heard that wether for commercial use or not, if it's published (wether displayed on the internet is considered published or not is another can of worms me thinks...) or redistributed even if you don't make a cent off it, you're infringing...  But, since you're not making money off it, since you give credit and aren't offering it for other people to use as they see fit, maybe this would be considered fair use?

She also says about taking photos of statues:

In the meantime, get permission from copyright owners before shooting their work or they may first see red and then later green.

This pretty much means that taking photos of  sculptures might be a bit risky...  ;)

Have a look at her other articles, there's some interesting stuff in there!  :)

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

Thanks Lucie. :)

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

Actually, under US Copyright Law, buildings constructed or that had plans or drawings completed by December 1, 1990 can be copyrighted as an architectural work (see section 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 USC). This does not include buildings, such as bridges, cloverleafs, dams, walkways, tents, recreational vehicles, mobile homes, and boats, however; those could possibly be protected under trademark.

Taking the time to find this information is easy. It's all right there at http://www.copyright.gov/. Any artist who plans on publishing work (including in the internet) needs to understand copyright and what he/she can or cannot do. You (collective you not specific to anyone) certainly would want to protect your own work and should be just as concerned about honoring the protections of others.

Edited to add:

Disagreeing with a law does not give you the right to ignore it. When it comes to using anothers copyrighted work, you have an obligation to understand copyright law and respect copyright protection whether you like it or not. If you don't and you get caught by the copyright holder you may end up in the poorhouse and at the very least you will end up disrespected and with a bad reputation.

It's all fun and games...
Until the flying monkeys attack!!! 

Why not post the artwork that you removed in the copyright forum, along with the background info. I'd be very interested in seeing what their view on it would be.

Also, oddly enough, my whole point in disaggreeing with Kort isn't based on the legal grounds at all.  I have a problem with someone hacking the original artist's vision. Out of respect, I would not have altered the artwork by cropping it, and/or changing the colors.

Attached Link: new thread

If I have some time, then I will go post it there. If the discussion here is any indication, I'm sure that it will be quite interesting there as well. I am not ignoring the law. I did remove the images pending (hopefully) the blessing of the artist. But I am free to disagree with the law. Personally, if someone used my work and gave me credit and was not gaining from it in any monetary way, I would be honored. But that is just me. That is the great thing about the USA, we are free to disagree. :) edit: Okay, started the thread in the CF.

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

Quote - Personally, if someone used my work and gave me credit and was not gaining from it in any monetary way, I would be honored.

Personally, if someone used my work without my permission, even if they were not gaining anything from it in any monetary way, I'd be pissed and would not hesitate to do whatever I could legally to make them regret it, starting by filing a DMCA complaint with the website pushing to get them banned, then with their ISP which potentially could cause their ISP to drop them. There's nothing flattering about having your work used without your permission.

It's all fun and games...
Until the flying monkeys attack!!! 

You are totally free to feel that way. Everyone has their own threshhold for this sort of thing. So you are saying if you came upon an image of yours, say at DeviantArt, that a person altered but gave you credit for creating the original, and wasn't saying it was their own or profiting monetarily, you would immeadiately pursue legal actions? You wouldn't first ask them to remove it?

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations