Photographing Art work of another

[Andy-J]

I have seen this question discussed somewhere, but can't find it now.

I took a shot a like, but it is partly of an outdoor sculpture. It
isn't the entire scupture, and it is completely backlit--so difficult to

recognize (but not impossible to the artist, I am sure).

Anyway, I don't intend to use this commercially, but I might enter it
into a contest or something. Anyone have any thoughts on the propriety

of this? And I don't mean moral judgments, I mean legal ones. Morally,

it is barely recognizable as someone's work--or even that it is a
scupture at all--but legally, it IS a representation of another's work.

Any thoughts?

[Joseph Meehan]

Every photograph is your interpretation of something else. Even if you
take a simple portrait you are including the makeup and hair cut, done by
someone else, in your photo. Even in the case of a recognizable work of
art, it is clearly your interpretation of that work of art. In a
photographic contest or judging you should be judged, not on the quality of
the work of art, but the quality of your interpretation of it and your
choice of an interesting or appropriate subject. As for appropriateness, I
would not enter it into a nature division contest as it likely will show the
hand of man.

--
Dia 's Muire duit

Joseph E. Meehan

"Andy-J" <andy-...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B871061...@home.com...

[David Littlewood]

In article <3B871061...@home.com>, Andy-J <andy-...@home.com>
writes

When asking a law-related question, it always helps to specify which
country you live in. Different countries have different laws, though
there are often close similarities.

In the UK, a work of art such as a sculpture is protected by copyright
until 70 years from the death of its creator.

Copying, either as a sculpture or as a two-dimensional representation,
would in principle be a breach of that copyright. However, there are a
number of "Permitted Acts" which are specifically allowed. One of these
is the making of drawings, paintings, photographs, films, etc. of
buildings and, if permanently sited in a public place or a place to
which the public has access, sculptures, models for buildings and works
of artistic craftsmanship (S62, The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988).

This, if you think about it, makes sense; it would be virtually
impossible to take a photograph in a public place if this exclusion did
not apply. I have no knowledge of the copyright laws in any other
jurisdiction, but I would be surprised if their effect was not the same.

If this is so, and certainly in the UK, you can therefore take any
photographs you want which include any building or sculpture (even for
commercial use). It would be different if the sculpture were in a
private collection.
--
David Littlewood