Forum Moderators: not2easy
A friend was recently called into question having digital photos printed of artwork she owns. She took the photos, she owns the pieces of artwork. The photos were for personal use ony (insurance documentation).
Is this in any way, shape or form copyright infringement? The art pieces are copyrighted, of course.
TIA!
Foxfire123
The photos were for personal use
I think this falls under fair use. As long as her personal use doesn't consist of posting them on a public website.
I was under the impression that if you owned the piece, took the photograph yourself and weren't making money off it or claiming the work as your own, then it wasn't copyright infringement.
Right? Wrong? :)
Foxfire123
My 2 cents
Surely. if the 'artwork' is bought and paid for, your friend has the right to take pictures and use them, for what ever purpose she feels fit, so long as she does not impinge on any rights the creator may have.
Would I be accurate in thinking there is no contract of sale, restricting full rights of use of the artwork?
She is also the holder of the copyrights to the photographs, since she took them.
But that is just my personal opinion, I am not a knowledgeable specialist in any way.
I'd love to know if you do get the real, legal standing.
Even if the website were her own?
I was under the impression that if you owned the piece, took the photograph yourself and weren't making money off it or claiming the work as your own, then it wasn't copyright infringement.
I'm not sure it matters who owns the website, or whether money is made. Putting something on a website is equivalent to publishing it to the world, unless the site is password-protected.
Think of it this way: lots of people own DVDs, but you can't make a video of one with your own camcorder without infringing copyright.
Rosalind wrote:
Think of it this way: lots of people own DVDs, but you can't make a video of one with your own camcorder without infringing copyright.
That's exactly right.
It's not okay to publish the photos of someone else's artwork or photos on your own site. Owning the physical piece of artwork does not give the owner publishing rights (and displaying a photo of it on a web page is "publishing"). This is clearly stated in copyright guidelines.
An art buyer should never assume that because they paied $XXX (or even $XX,XXX!) for a painting, that they have all rights to its use. It's very common for the artist to still retain copyright over the work, which means that the artist could sell prints of the artwork (even though the original "belongs" to someone else). In fact, the only way an art buyer should assume that they own rights to a painting is if they were specifically told so—the publishing rights were signed over to them, in other words.
The photos were for personal use ony (insurance documentation).
Why would a person post insurance documentation for her own personal use on a public website? Sounds fishy.
I was under the impression that if you owned the piece, took the photograph yourself and weren't making money off it or claiming the work as your own, then it wasn't copyright infringement.
What if the original creator of the art decides to post pictures on a website of his work, and he makes money from the ads on the pages with the pictures of his Art. You would be stealing the copyright owners potential visitors, because, even though your website has no ads, maybe you are a better photographer and no one visits his sight. It's not whether or not the original artist has a website. It's whether he decides to have a website, it should be his/her choice whether the artist wants to have photos of his work published on the web or anywhere else.
There is website out there that has some crazy examples about how far people making movies have to go to avoid copyright issues. As far as changing the door handles on doors in public buildings just to shoot one scene. In one of the Batman movies, three scenes took place in a room with a statue. The artist sued, and won, because they didn't ask him if the statue could be in the backdrop. Anyway, if you find the website its got a ton of similiar stories. It might also help you to better understand copyright law in a fun, less boring, way.
Why would a person post insurance documentation for her own personal use on a public website? Sounds fishy.
I didn't see any mention of them being posted on a website in this case. I thought that was a hypothetical question being offered. Did I miss something?
I didn't see any mention of them being posted on a website in this case. I thought that was a hypothetical question being offered. Did I miss something?
A person came to a webmaster website and posts their first question (BTW, Welcome to webmasterworld Foxfire123!) asking if it's ok for a person to take some private photos that nobody would ever see. I just assumed the question was really about whether or not it would be ok to put these pictures on the web.
I hope it's been established, the answer is no. ;)
Foxfire 123
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
For example, you could create a website about the artwork, if your website is commenting about your collection, critiquing the collection, or showing research about the art, then yes, the fair use law would apply. In these scenerios you could even have ads on your webpage to support your site. You could of course not sell these photographs or keep these photographs in a seperate section of the website away from your review/comment/research. If the photographs accompanied your writing, then yes, most likely this would fall under the fair use act.
If people weren't allowed to post pictures of items they own on the internet, ebay would go out of business. Just remember that the posting of photos on ebay has a purpose, and that purpose is not to generate money from the photos, but the items the photos represent. If your publishing photos of others work to the web, you must have a purpose that isn't about making money directly from the photos.
The question you have to ask yourself is, do you think a jury of your peers would agree with you? If you think a jury of your peers will agree with you, that you are doing no wrong, then yes, feel free to use the photographs along with some type of commentary with the photographs.
Tho I have to be fully honest and say if they're busting people for thi, then they've got way too much time on their hands.
Their is not really an authority scowering the internet trying to bust people on copyright law, with the exception of lawyers lookin to make a quick buck. The only person you would have to fear might be the original artist.
Even though I don't own copyrights to the original....;)
Syzygy
The other thing to consider is whether it negatively affects the market for the copyright. Are they selling pictures of the figurines? Since it is the figurines themselves that are collectable, and getting more people interested in them increases their value, that will also work in your favor in any Fair Use determination.
I think public display stuff is crazy. There are all kinds of statues outdoors and tourists are always taking photos of them, including close up detail shots. Then they post the photos of their journeys online. This includes buildings and a lot of buildings are works of art, ask any passionate architect.
Also, if you distort any photo in any way it's no longer protected by copyright. That's what Andy Warhol did. Then it becomes your own piece. That means you can go to a museum and take photos of the artwork and paintings and then use bits and pieces of them and distort them in photoshop to create your own unique images out of them. Even if parts of your image is recognizable as that piece of art. That's why Warhol would just silkscreen other people's copyrighted photographs and then be able to use their look and famous faces for his art with no copyright infringement issues for him.
But as far as the direct fair use, that means that basically if you have a blog on your site, which is a commentary or news style editorial thing, you can basically take any photos from any other site or artist and put them in your blog or site. As long as the comments surrounding it are commenting directly on either the photo itself or the contents of what the photo is capturing. That's correct right? I see a lot of blogs like that and a lot of them say, "hey if I'm using your photo and you don't want me to just write me, you don't have to yell, I get enough of that already." But in reality, even if the person doesn't like them using their photo, by law they are allowed to because they are critiquing or commenting on it?
And that would also mean that you must be careful about which photos you choose to post online that you own the copyright to or of yourself, since really anyone now days with the web can take and use it fairly, legally, even to make fun of you, lol! Or distort you or whatever. ; )
And that would also mean that you must be careful about which photos you choose to post online that you own the copyright to or of yourself, since really anyone now days with the web can take and use it fairly, legally, even to make fun of you, lol! Or distort you or whatever. ; )
People who present themselves as public figures such as actors or politicians cannot protest the use of their image. Thats why you see their images so much. For example, the show Cops must blur out people's faces who don't sign a waiver to have their image used. If on the show Cops they pulled over an actor or politician they would need no such waiver. So no, a person can't take your picture and publish it on the web without your permission, it would be illegal, but so is downloading music. Just because it is done doesn't make it legal.
If you have an interview with someone and it's obvious that the person knows they are being filmed and show no protest to having themselves filmed (like a news reporter talking to someone on the street) then you would not need a waiver. The same would be true on Cops if the person being arrested started talking to the camera. The person couldn't later go to court and prove that he didn't want to be on film when they have film of him talking to the camera. There are many grey areas in copyright law, thats when it falls back on the reasonable person perspective.
You can also manipulate an image, as long as no person would mistake the original image for yours. It must absolutely stand out so that no reasonable person would confuse the two images.
As for taking photos in a museum, many do not allow photography.
As for making fun of somebody, you have to be very careful. If a person was to sue you for liable you would have to go to court and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that everything you said was 100% true. If I take a photo of you and say your face is ugly, if it went to court, I would have to prove that a reasonable average person would agree that yes, your face is ugly.
As has been stated above, ownership of a physical work generally does not, and in the US never, gives you any copyright or other image use rights whatsoever. At least that's how it goes with fine art.
IIRC, this even affects things like using a picture of a work in an exhibition catalog.
But there are some obvious grey areas, and not-so-gray ones.
I can take pictures of the Bilbao Guggenheim or the Wrapped Reichstag and use them without Gehry's or Christo's permission.
I can take pictures in an exhibition and use them without permission, but I can't reproduce one of the artworks per se. See artnet.com for lots of examples of this, and plenty of walking the fine line.
I think most of the institutions etc that don't want you taking pictures are mostly trying to prevent the case where you actually end up unlawfully reproducing the copyrighted work - say, as a postcard. Other than kicking you off their premises they can't do much about your taking the pictures, but they often have blanket prohibitions precisely because they don't want to end up in the middle of a lawsuit when someone does the Wrong Thing.
This can lead to funny situations. I was once told not to take photos of a large sculpture in the foyer of a museum. I asked why, and they explained that they don't own the copyright and can't let me take a picture. I asked if I could just stand outside and take a picture of the artwork through the large windows, and they said OK.
For a funny copyright escapade, look up Jeff Koons and Puppies.
Great thread BTW. My limited knowledge of this is from my life as a painter, so caveat emptor, I could be wrong.
At what point does the art-ness of the first work count more than the originality of the "copied" work?
There's no straight-up rule on that, it has to be figured out case-by-case. Richard Prince is a good example of someone often accused of ripping off copyrighted material (which he obviously uses). But AFAIK he's always won the day, because the "ripping off" part is central to his art.
Koons made basically the same argument as a fair use argument. The "borrowed" motif was kitsch, and Koons is all about exploring kitsch in high art. The "borrowed-from" artist argued it was plain stealing.
Koons lost.
And the Koons piece was a sculpture, the original puppies were a photograph.
Info here: [ncac.org...]
If anyone has ever seen that old dracula movie, Nosferatu, that is in public domain and has been re-released many times, I recall one that was the same movie but with a techno sound track. Just remember that if someone takes something in the public domain and modifies it, the modified version of the public domain material is copyrightable.
On a side note, all US government websites are public domain, including all photos. You are allowed to copy or manipulate any information you find on US government websites as long as it's part of the US government website and not an outside source (they usually label stuff that isn't public domain). This is not true for all state and city websites.
Some museums may carry a lot of public domain material, since many larger museums carry items that are well over 80 years old. Although, in theory, I suppose they could say the display setup of the item is copyrightable and they don't want you to take photos for that reason. I guess all these subtleties are why we have lawyers and judges.
