[STOCKPHOTO] Copywrite question

[trlmtn]

I noticed that some stock images are of artwork in a public place that
clearly have rights belonging to the artist or or and artist's estate.
How can a stock photographer sell images of someone elses art work
without permission and compensating the artist?

Thanks,

Tim Lewis

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STOCKPHOTO-...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Carolyn Wright]

There are many factors in photographing other's art work. The work may have fallen into the public domain. It may be a fair use of the work. Otherwise, you must get permission (compensation may not be necessary) from the copyright (note the spelling) owner because you likely are making a derivative work. If you go to my blog at www.photoattorney.com and type derivative or fair use into the Google search bar at the bottom of the right hand column, you will get references to blogs on these topics.

Best,
Carolyn
________________________
Carolyn E. Wright, Esq.
www.photoattorney.com
________________________

trlmtn <trl...@indylink.org> wrote:
. . .

How can a stock photographer sell images of someone elses art work
without permission and compensating the artist?

Recent Activity

20
New Members

Visit Your Group
New Message Search
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

Share feedback on the new changes to Groups

.

---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[David Kilpatrick]

trlmtn wrote:

>I noticed that some stock images are of artwork in a public place that
>clearly have rights belonging to the artist or or and artist's estate.
>How can a stock photographer sell images of someone elses art work
>without permission and compensating the artist?
>
>
>

In a public place - you answered your own question. If the art stands on
private grounds, such as many museums, you can't sell pictures of it.
You may be able to include it as a small part of a scene, viewed from
public land. If the art is in a public place, like many murals and
monuments, you can sell it. Remember, a war memorial or a gravestone is
just as much a copyright work as a modern sculpture, and many municipal
monuments were commissioned from artists and carry a credit. It is
courtesy to mention the artist in the caption.

A possible exception could be if you photographed, say, a mural in such
a cropped close-up form that it was intended for use as a poster or
card. This would not a photograph of the art in context, but a
reproduction of the work. That's not permitted but many long-established
libraries contain such copies, made long ago, including many well-known
paintings.

David

[David Riecks]

At 11:48 AM 8/15/2006, trlmtn wrote:
>I noticed that some stock images are of artwork in a public place that
>clearly have rights belonging to the artist or or and artist's estate.
>How can a stock photographer sell images of someone elses art work
>without permission and compensating the artist?

Tim:

I think Carolyn answered your question quite well. One other aspect
is how the image is being used and/or licensed. While artwork
photographed in a public space and in context may be fine for
"editorial" usage, if you license it for commercial uses with out
permission and/or property releases in hand, you might find yourself
in litigation.

As I'm not a lawyer, I'd appreciate it if Carolyn can explain how the
different usages may be a factor you want to consider.

David

----
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
http://www.riecks.com , Chicago Midwest ASMP member
See the Universal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines at
http://www.updig.org
Chairman, SAA Imaging Technology Standards Committee
Creating an image database? visit (http://ControlledVocabulary.com/)
and join the discussion.

[Carolyn Wright]

Technically, you must get permission to even MAKE a derivative work (assuming that the original work is not in the public domain and it is not a fair use) - it does not matter how the derivative work is used. Most government works are immediately in the public domain, but some are not (when they are commissioned by the government). Even when the original work is a public arena, it still may be a copyrighted work that requires permission of the copyright holder to make a derivative work.

Practically, copyright owners of work in a public arena surely are aware that their work is often photographed. When photographers make money off of the work, however, they may protest.

Best,
Carolyn
________________________
Carolyn E. Wright, Esq.
www.photoattorney.com
________________________

I'd appreciate it if Carolyn can explain how the

different usages may be a factor you want to consider.

.

____________________
Carolyn E. Wright, Esq.
www.photoattorney.com
____________________

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chuck Goodenough]

Hi gang,
I have 100+ mostly 8x10 transparencies of French antique paintings.
I photographed these over a period of years in the 80's for a dealer.

There are several done by Leon L'hermitte, for example, who died in
the 1920's I believe.

Do I have any options with these in making them available as stock or
is that a really stupid question?

Might they be old enough to be public domain or would each painting
need to be researched to see if any copyrights are still attached to
them?

Also, I never had any agreement with the client but it's very
probable that none of the original paintings are owned by the dealer
anymore.

I recently had a request by a stock agency for photos of oil
paintings so that along with this interesting copyright thread has
prompted my question.

Chuck

--
Chuck Goodenough Photo in Los Angeles:
http://www.chuckgoodenough.com
Phone: 213-624-1600 Fax: 213-232-3335

[Carolyn Wright]

The terms of copyright protection have changed over the years. It's a complicated process but there is a good chart by the UNC library to figure it out. Here's the link to the chart. http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

I also explain a bit more about duration of copyrights on my August 3 blog here. http://www.photoattorney.com/2005_08_01_photoattorney_archive.html

Best,
Carolyn
________________________________

Carolyn E. Wright, Esq.
www.photoattorney.com

________________________________

Might they be old enough to be public domain or would each painting
need to be researched to see if any copyrights are still attached to
them?

.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jeff Greenberg]

Has anyone copyrighted the text of their promotional materials? Mine
has evolved, 1,000+ words, to the point that I want protection in case
competition gets hold of it & merely regurgitates it...

jeffgreenberg

[trlmtn]

Thanks for the great answers to my question.

I can certainly understand that editorial use is a special case for
many of the stock rules.

One issue with many artists who make site-specific work is that the
work cannot be moved or changed without their permission because the
copyright includes the location. There are frequent problems with this
when buildings are changed or change hands.

So what happens when the copyright is owned by a public entity? Is it
necessary to get a release?

Also, in the case of older art work that is past copyright, am I
correct that photos of the object would always be in the public
domain, regardless of who is the current owner?

Thanks,

Tim Lewis

[Fred]

--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, "trlmtn" <trlewis@...> wrote:
>
> I noticed that some stock images are of artwork in a public place
that
> clearly have rights belonging to the artist or or and artist's
estate.
> How can a stock photographer sell images of someone elses art work
> without permission and compensating the artist?

You need to take into consideration 'fair use' laws as well as
editorial uses that may be allowed. For instance, if I am doing an
article on street art I may license a photo of graffiti in the inner
city and use it in a newspaper or magazine article and that is safe,
at least in my opinion.

On the other hand, if I sold that photo as an Art Print I might have
a problem, especially if the photo were of just a single piece of
art. If it were a cityscape that included graffiti I could
claim 'fair use'.

Please note that my intention is not to definitively answer your
question, I have simply provided food for thought that you may use to
feed your brain as you gain a better understanding of this very
complex business we are in. Only you can answer this question (along
with a lawyer and/or a judge and jury) and it must be answered for
each individual circumstance.

Fred Voetsch
ACCLAIM IMAGES
http://www.acclaimimages.com/

[Carolyn Wright]

Remember! Text and photographs are copyrighted (and thus receive protection) the second they are penned or taken (given that they have a certain amount of creativity). Registration gives you many more options for damages when infringed.

It's good to keep the terms "copyrighting" and "registering" distinct. http://www.photoattorney.com/2006/06/copyrighting-vs-registering-your.html

Register your work today!
Carolyn

______________________
Carolyn E. Wright, Esq.
www.photoattorney.com
______________________

Has anyone copyrighted the text of their promotional materials?

.

____________________
Carolyn E. Wright, Esq.
www.photoattorney.com
____________________

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Carolyn Wright]

Governmental works generally are in the public domain, but not under the "Government Works Exception" when, for example, works of art are commissioned by the government. http://www.photoattorney.com/2006/02/government-works-exception-for_15.html

Photographs of works in the public domain are copyrighted works of the photographer if they have a certain level of creativity.

Best,
Carolyn
________________________

Carolyn E. Wright, Esq.
www.photoattorney.com

________________________

So what happens when the copyright is owned by a public entity? Is it
necessary to get a release?

Also, in the case of older art work that is past copyright, am I
correct that photos of the object would always be in the public
domain, regardless of who is the current owner?

.

____________________
Carolyn E. Wright, Esq.
www.photoattorney.com
____________________

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2｢/min or less.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jim Hargan]

Carolyn Wright wrote:
>
>
> Governmental works generally are in the public domain, but not under the
> "Government Works Exception" when, for example, works of art are
> commissioned by the government.
> http://www.photoattorney.com/2006/02/government-works-exception-for_15.html

> <http://www.photoattorney.com/2006/02/government-works-exception-for_15.html>

US governmental works are in the public domain; UK works are not, but
rather are covered by "Crown Copyright". Evidently, Crown Copyright has
no expiration date, so be careful when printing excerpts from the Magna
Carta ;-).

The commissioned works exception holds in the UK as well as in the US.

See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copyright/index.htm for a
woefully inadequate, but official, description.

Jim Hargan
www.harganonline.com

[Jim Hargan]

For a bizarre example of Crown Copyright, see
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/documents/docs.html
where it was used to prevent a critic of the Blair government from
publishing documents that would prove his allegations true. The weird
part: in order to use this attack, the Blair government had to
acknowledge that the documents were genuine UK government documents.

Jim Hargan
www.harganonline.com