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

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

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.

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...

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.

(",)

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...

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!

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?

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.

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..........

(",)

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:

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]

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 ;-)

(",)

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.

"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?

(",)

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!  :)

Thanks Lucie. :)

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.

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.

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.

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?