Photos of needlework on EGA website
RowanA
going to be working on a website for our EGA chapter. Of course, the site is
going to look pretty boring if we can't post photos of members' stitched
pieces. I would think this kind of photo, with the proper attribution
(designer, title of piece, stitcher, etc.) would qualify as a news-type or
informational photo, in the sense that Time Magazine can publish photos of
paintings or sculpture in its Art section or on its website.
Sure, somebody could take those images from Time Magazine's website (they could
clip them from the magazine itself, for that matter) and laboriously copy a
painting or sculpture. Anybody can do that, if they have the ability and
really want to. So why can Time publish photos of paintings, and we needlework
Webbers are warned that we shouldn't publish photos of needlework creations,
with the caveat that "well, if you put photos of these pieces on the Web,
people might try to copy them"?
You can pretty much copy anything from anywhere, whether it be a book, a
magazine, or a photo that you take yourself of a piece that you like. And Web
photos, let's face it, are hardly of the quality that anyone would be likely to
use to make a useful copy of anything. Most of them are compressed, and most
of them are, to put it mildly, fuzzy. You can't put them on a disk and take
them to the photo shop to have them made into a hard copy, because they
completely fuzz out. And the tiny photos most people have on their websites
only give a fraction of the detail in the piece. Any photos of needlework I've
seen online, with VERY few exceptions, are strictly "informational" -- that is,
they give you an IDEA of what the piece looks like. There's no way they can
match the depth and variety of colors, or show the intricacy of stitches, of
the real piece.
So all this cavilling about not publishing photos of needlework online seems
slightly ridiculous. How come a journalist can write a story and take photos
of a needlework event, publish it in a major newspaper (and in its online
version) -- without, I would add, asking the permission of a single designer,
since this was a news story and the works were on public display -- and yet I,
as a private citizen, doing a website for our EGA chapter, can't take photos of
our members' works and post them online, with proper credits? If one of our
members stitches a TW or MLI and wants to show it off at a meeting, and have it
posted on the site, why wouldn't we be able to do this -- as an
informational/newsworthy publication to share with our members and the public?
Not trying to start any arguments here -- just expressing some curiousity.
From what I read in the preceding copyright discussion, it looks like
needlework copyright is a serious issue -- but is it any more so than any other
visual art copyright law, such as those pertaining to paintings and sculpture?
Maybe architecture would be a closer analogy, since an architect DESIGNS a
building though someone else may build it, and others may paint it or even add
on to it. Yet you can take photos of buildings and post them on the Web. (I
think it would be as difficult to copy a TW design from some photo on the Web
as it would be to copy a building from a photo on the Web! <grin>) What are
people's thoughts on this?
:-) Rowana
Lora & Joe Dalton
> So why can Time publish photos of paintings, and we needlework
>Webbers are warned that we shouldn't publish photos of needlework creations,
>with the caveat that "well, if you put photos of these pieces on the Web,
>people might try to copy them"?
I think you'll find that Time, like other professional publications,
is extremely careful about not pushing the boundaries of "fair use".
They do indeed get permission to photograph artwork.
>
>You can pretty much copy anything from anywhere, whether it be a book, a
>magazine, or a photo that you take yourself of a piece that you like.
I hope you're not suggesting that because one can, one may or should.
You can pretty much shoplift at the candy store, too.
>And Web
>photos, let's face it, are hardly of the quality that anyone would be likely to
>use to make a useful copy of anything. Most of them are compressed, and most
>of them are, to put it mildly, fuzzy. You can't put them on a disk and take
>them to the photo shop to have them made into a hard copy, because they
>completely fuzz out. And the tiny photos most people have on their websites
>only give a fraction of the detail in the piece. Any photos of needlework I've
>seen online, with VERY few exceptions, are strictly "informational" -- that is,
>they give you an IDEA of what the piece looks like. There's no way they can
>match the depth and variety of colors, or show the intricacy of stitches, of
>the real piece.
And it would, then, be more OK to take the candy if it didn't taste
good?
>
>So all this cavilling about not publishing photos of needlework online seems
>slightly ridiculous. How come a journalist can write a story and take photos
>of a needlework event, publish it in a major newspaper (and in its online
>version) -- without, I would add, asking the permission of a single designer,
>since this was a news story and the works were on public display -- and yet I,
I've never seen a news photograph of textile art that was even
recognizable, except for feature pieces where permission had obviously
been obtained to take a more detailed picture. If you have evidence
that the journalistic irresponsibility you describe is commonplace,
please share it.
>as a private citizen, doing a website for our EGA chapter, can't take photos of
>our members' works and post them online, with proper credits? If one of our
>members stitches a TW or MLI and wants to show it off at a meeting, and have it
>posted on the site, why wouldn't we be able to do this -- as an
>informational/newsworthy publication to share with our members and the public?
Of course you can -- if you get permission. I should think this would
be covered by common courtesy, if not ethical and legal
considerations.
>Not trying to start any arguments here -- just expressing some curiousity.
>From what I read in the preceding copyright discussion, it looks like
>needlework copyright is a serious issue -- but is it any more so than any other
>visual art copyright law, such as those pertaining to paintings and sculpture?
Not at all. And this sort of thing is a serious problem for visual
artists of all kinds. It's difficult and expensive for artists to
protect their interests, and many are financially unable to do so when
their work is exploited by others. This is a very hot topic in art
circles.
>Maybe architecture would be a closer analogy, since an architect DESIGNS a
>building though someone else may build it,
with the *permission* of the owner of the plans (not usually the
architect)
>and others may paint it or even add
>on to it.
Again, with permission of the owner.
> Yet you can take photos of buildings and post them on the Web. (I
Try publishing the blueprints, sometime, and see where it gets you.
>think it would be as difficult to copy a TW design from some photo on the Web
>as it would be to copy a building from a photo on the Web! <grin>) What are
>people's thoughts on this?
Well, for one thing, a web photo of a stitched TW design is basically
identical to the design itself. You couldn't tell much about how a
building is put together by looking at a photograph of the front
exterior, for example.
I realize I'm sounding very crabby, here, and I'm honestly not
attacking you, Rowana -- I'm just trying to explain, in my nasty old
pedantic way, what the deal is. Put yourself in the position of the
designer. How would you feel? Flattered, but worried? These folks make
a living with their images. Risk the images, risk their livelihood.
Lora
catch some z's...
dalton at ycsi dot net
sha...@epix.net
> On 11 Aug 1999 20:47:56 GMT, row...@aol.com (RowanA) wrote:
How come a journalist can write a story and take photos
> >of a needlework event, publish it in a major newspaper (and in its online
> >version) -- without, I would add, asking the permission of a single designer,
> >since this was a news story and the works were on public display -- and yet I,
Not exactly true...
For instance, I was on the Carol Duval show with some of my work...I had
to sign a release to allow them to show my work as did every one else.
TNNA, our trade association had us sign releases to photograph our work
for the web site.
Several years ago, I was in the Star Magazine (yes the one at the
checkout stands) with some of my miniature needlepoint and I had to sign
a release to allow them to publish my work.
When Jo Christenson did her book and published some of our finished work
done by various stitchers, the designer had to sign the releases.
My work is often show in the ANG Needlepointers. They have my
permission.
Just a few of the recent instances of the larger publishers and groups
who ask for permission.
So, it is done. Maybe an inconvenience, but certainly done.
In todays world of communication I do not feel it is such a big deal to
contact designers. With all the directories, we are not hard to find.
I never actually heard of anyone ever bieng sued for publishing a photo
of a designers work...we are a kind group. But, the copyright stays in
efeect for 50 years past our death and this means our heirs may not be
as kind.
Not to beat a dead horse here, we did not write the law...and we also
have to abide by it making sure what we do from a design standpoint is
also legal. ANy of the designers with a half a brain would not touch
Disney, Winnie the Pooh, Peter Rabbit, Star Wars or any of the popular
names without permission...and that permission is not something most of
us can afford.
I am not too sure about this but think the building architecture issue
may be a little different. I do know the blueprints are covered by
copyright but think the actual structure may be treated a little
different. A 2 story 3 bedroom house is something of utilitarian
purpose.
For instance, a sweater or plain scarf pattern for knitting...a plain
cardigan...is utilitarian so is not covered but the actual written text
is. You can reformat it and republish it in your own words. One other
thing that is copyrightable is if there is any art work on the garment
that can stand alone apart from the garment...that art work is
copyrightable.
I am not a lawyer...just a designer who consults a lawyer
Dianne Lewandowski
for an EGA publication, whether Web or print. Many designers (Donna
Vermillion for one) will include charts/patterns for free use of
chapters, as long as certain specified text is included. For Web use,
they may request certain parameters be met, however.
Do get "permission". These days, it's usually only a day or two for
replies. If you don't get permission, don't fret or be angry. Some
persons just want greater control of their work. It's their right to do
so. Think of it as "Darn!" and go on from there <grin>. it's not the
end of the world. We don't always get what we want when we want it.
Dianne
Lora & Joe Dalton wrote:
>
> On 11 Aug 1999 20:47:56 GMT, row...@aol.com (RowanA) wrote:
>
> >slightly ridiculous. How come a journalist can write a story and take photos
> >of a needlework event, publish it in a major newspaper (and in its online
> >version) -- without, I would add, asking the permission of a single designer,
> >since this was a news story and the works were on public display -- and yet I,
>
Linn Skinner
the way of designs to guilds and how guilds may use the designs I offer to
them. As a designer I must say I can't think of an instance when I would
refuse permission to an EGA chapter to post photos of my designs worked by
members.
Asking permission is just the polite thing to do as well as a prudent
precaution. As an example, you will find several designs from one of my
books used by Janet Perry on her site at About.com. She asked permission
and I was pleased to give it as she is meticulous about giving designers
credit for their work.
Linn Skinner
Skinner Sisters
RowanA wrote in message <19990811164756...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
>In followup to the very interesting copyright discussion held here: I'm
soon
>going to be working on a website for our EGA chapter. Of course, the
cademy
>
> I realize I'm sounding very crabby, here, and I'm honestly not
> attacking you, Rowana -- I'm just trying to explain, in my nasty old
> pedantic way, what the deal is. Put yourself in the position of the
> designer. How would you feel? Flattered, but worried? These folks make
> a living with their images. Risk the images, risk their livelihood.
>
> Lora
> catch some z's...
> dalton at ycsi dot net
Thank you, Lora. I've been mulling over in my mind how to respond to
those posters who seem to have left their ethics behind.
Your answers to all have put the entire issue into words much better
than I could have.
Another issue has bothered me almost as much. That is those people who
what to work on a design soo.. badly, they seek out someone who will
exchange a chart with them. In my mind this too, hurts the designer.
After all, if i were to buy one very popular chart, trade it for another
very popular one, ad infinitum -- where would this leave the copyright
holder who depends on the royalties for income.
Helen G. Cademy
Leslie - Glen Ellyn
researched this and would have a guideline. Please post your findings here
so we can all know. Thanks
--
Leslie - Glen Ellyn
email at rpl....@worldnet.att.net
RowanA wrote in message <19990811164756...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
>In followup to the very interesting copyright discussion held here: I'm
soon
>going to be working on a website for our EGA chapter. Of course, the site
is
>going to look pretty boring if we can't post photos of members' stitched
>pieces. I would think this kind of photo, with the proper attribution
>(designer, title of piece, stitcher, etc.) would qualify as a news-type or
>informational photo, in the sense that Time Magazine can publish photos of
>paintings or sculpture in its Art section or on its website.
>
>Sure, somebody could take those images from Time Magazine's website (they
could
>clip them from the magazine itself, for that matter) and laboriously copy a
>painting or sculpture. Anybody can do that, if they have the ability and
>really want to. So why can Time publish photos of paintings, and we
needlework
>Webbers are warned that we shouldn't publish photos of needlework
creations,
>with the caveat that "well, if you put photos of these pieces on the Web,
>people might try to copy them"?
>
>You can pretty much copy anything from anywhere, whether it be a book, a
>magazine, or a photo that you take yourself of a piece that you like. And
Web
>photos, let's face it, are hardly of the quality that anyone would be
likely to
>use to make a useful copy of anything. Most of them are compressed, and
most
>of them are, to put it mildly, fuzzy. You can't put them on a disk and
take
>them to the photo shop to have them made into a hard copy, because they
>completely fuzz out. And the tiny photos most people have on their
websites
>only give a fraction of the detail in the piece. Any photos of needlework
I've
>seen online, with VERY few exceptions, are strictly "informational" -- that
is,
>they give you an IDEA of what the piece looks like. There's no way they
can
>match the depth and variety of colors, or show the intricacy of stitches,
of
>the real piece.
>
>So all this cavilling about not publishing photos of needlework online
seems
>slightly ridiculous. How come a journalist can write a story and take
photos
>of a needlework event, publish it in a major newspaper (and in its online
>version) -- without, I would add, asking the permission of a single
designer,
>since this was a news story and the works were on public display -- and yet
I,
>as a private citizen, doing a website for our EGA chapter, can't take
photos of
>our members' works and post them online, with proper credits? If one of
our
>members stitches a TW or MLI and wants to show it off at a meeting, and
have it
>posted on the site, why wouldn't we be able to do this -- as an
>informational/newsworthy publication to share with our members and the
public?
>
>Not trying to start any arguments here -- just expressing some curiousity.
>From what I read in the preceding copyright discussion, it looks like
>needlework copyright is a serious issue -- but is it any more so than any
other
>visual art copyright law, such as those pertaining to paintings and
sculpture?
>Maybe architecture would be a closer analogy, since an architect DESIGNS a
>building though someone else may build it, and others may paint it or even
add
>on to it. Yet you can take photos of buildings and post them on the Web.
(I
>think it would be as difficult to copy a TW design from some photo on the
Web
>as it would be to copy a building from a photo on the Web! <grin>) What
are
>people's thoughts on this?
>:-) Rowana
RowanA
>those posters who seem to have left their ethics behind.
>Your answers to all have put the entire issue into words much better
>than I could have.
Dear Helen -- Hope you're not suggesting that I (the original poster) seem to
have left my ethics behind? I was just curious and just asking a question that
I'm sure is on a lot of people's minds, as more and more people get on the Web.
Copyright, as it's related to the Web, is NOT a clear subject, and many people
(including me) are confused and trying to find out the answers as this vast new
medium expands. Have patience with us.
:-) Rowana
Teri George
>Another issue has bothered me almost as much. That is those people who
>what to work on a design soo.. badly, they seek out someone who will
>exchange a chart with them. In my mind this too, hurts the designer.
>After all, if i were to buy one very popular chart, trade it for another
>very popular one, ad infinitum -- where would this leave the copyright
>holder who depends on the royalties for income.
Hi, Helen,
As long as all those traded charts were originally payed for it would
leave the designers collecting the royalties they deserve. A single
chart wears out, making copies is where the problem lies because
copies can be made ad infinitum.
Exchanging a chart is the perogative of the chart owner, just like
selling a book that they bought, and it really isn't a threat to the
designers -- but it was really nice of you to be considering us.
Teri ~~ http://www.craftsoft.com for the CraftSoft Embroidery Floss
Color & Conversion Chart
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A rose is an argument. It proclaims the triumph of beauty
over brutality, of gentleness over violence, of the
ephemeral over the lasting, and of the Universal over
the particular. ~~ Alain Meilland
cademy
Dear Rowena --
I did not mean to imply that you left YOUR ethics behind; just saw red
on the topic, and was addressing those who have. As i continue to read
postings on this thread, my blood still boils.
I congratulate MLI for her insightful, innovative answer to some of the
many copyright problems we are seeing.
Helen G. Cademy
Elizabeth
>
>As long as all those traded charts were originally payed for
BTW, Teri, the correct spelling is "paid."
:-)