yvonne0830
New member
If I take a photograph of a flower arrangement done by a florist in a table setting, do I own exclusive copyright to the image? Can I use the image for stock without seeking written consent from the florist?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
copyright issue w/florist
- Thread starter yvonne0830
- Start date
Paul Robertson
Senior Member
In the US, when you take the picture, you own the copyright. Now, as to if that picture also infringes on someone else's copyright, time to talk to a legal professional.
Paul
--
http://www.fluiditgroup.com/blog/pdr
If you have to worry about every creep that wants to interfer with you taking pictures, you should throw your camera and gear away. Pretty soon you won't be able to take a sh-t with out someone butting in.
Did you here about the picture of a bee I took on someone's property and was not allowded to print a picture of the bee because the bee was on private property.
If a florist sells that flower arrangement to someone, does not the buyer of that flower arrangement own it. Or are florists licenseing, like MSFT and all the other Trillion air (some day) software companies licensing their software.
I am an older man and really feel sorry for the younger generation, because we are as a nation losing many of our rights. And not everyone notices it, because we are losing our freedom a little at a time. And what freedoms we have and were free we now have to pay for by permits, licenses, taxes, and not allowes.
About the only right we have left is the right to spend money
Last year I had a 6 dollar an hour rent a cop tell me that i could not take pictures and to leave the location. Where was I, some secret CIA location, no. I was at a public park near the delaware river in New Jersey where in the spring and summer many people take pictures, but this was in the winter and there were only a few people at the location. So I guess he thought he could bully me around. I did leave.
This is just an example of how we are losing our freedoms. And as far as security goes. There were much better places to take pictures than where I was if someone was up to no good. This rent a cop just want to exert his authority and in doing so he was not really protecting anything, but was taking my freedom away to take pictures in a public place.
Can you young guys relate to what I am saying. Does it make sense to the younger generation, I hope so, because if not we are in big trouble.
I think we are becoming too complacent. Any more we just except what comes along.
Did you here about the picture of a bee I took on someone's property and was not allowded to print a picture of the bee because the bee was on private property.
If a florist sells that flower arrangement to someone, does not the buyer of that flower arrangement own it. Or are florists licenseing, like MSFT and all the other Trillion air (some day) software companies licensing their software.
I am an older man and really feel sorry for the younger generation, because we are as a nation losing many of our rights. And not everyone notices it, because we are losing our freedom a little at a time. And what freedoms we have and were free we now have to pay for by permits, licenses, taxes, and not allowes.
About the only right we have left is the right to spend money
Last year I had a 6 dollar an hour rent a cop tell me that i could not take pictures and to leave the location. Where was I, some secret CIA location, no. I was at a public park near the delaware river in New Jersey where in the spring and summer many people take pictures, but this was in the winter and there were only a few people at the location. So I guess he thought he could bully me around. I did leave.
This is just an example of how we are losing our freedoms. And as far as security goes. There were much better places to take pictures than where I was if someone was up to no good. This rent a cop just want to exert his authority and in doing so he was not really protecting anything, but was taking my freedom away to take pictures in a public place.
Can you young guys relate to what I am saying. Does it make sense to the younger generation, I hope so, because if not we are in big trouble.
I think we are becoming too complacent. Any more we just except what comes along.
Gary J Jensen
Senior Member
And, isn't it about time for a return to a "COMMON SENSE" view of....well, of just about EVERYTHING???
Peter Nelson
Veteran Member
I agree they are erroding our rights. "They" are the polititians who tax us for everything.
Recently they had a young kid in an unmarked green van charging $5 to park in a dirt parking lot in a town park. There was no sign. I got into it with the kid and told him to go back to his history teacher and bring up my complaint. I reminded him that the park was a public place of recreation and was never taxed before. I ended up leaving. For 2 reasons, first my feelings about our rights and also I did not have the $5 on me as I was only trying to go for a walk in the park with my daughter. I have not gone back.
--
Artist Eyes
Recently they had a young kid in an unmarked green van charging $5 to park in a dirt parking lot in a town park. There was no sign. I got into it with the kid and told him to go back to his history teacher and bring up my complaint. I reminded him that the park was a public place of recreation and was never taxed before. I ended up leaving. For 2 reasons, first my feelings about our rights and also I did not have the $5 on me as I was only trying to go for a walk in the park with my daughter. I have not gone back.
--
Artist Eyes
Frank Benvenuto
Leading Member
I agree entirely with your post.. But where is the problem coming from? Who or what institution is eroding our freedoms? In other words "who's to blame besides us"?
--
Frank
--
Frank
EVEVERY JOB I SHOOT, EVERY ONE, I find any image of flowers, rooms., bands, dresses, ANYTHING.
Print an 8x10 and send it to every vendors, along with a CD of the images for them to use. My name is on everything, and when a bride goes to ten places wedding shopping, and sees my name displayed at everyone, they call me. I would give him the image, an 8x10, perhaps 100 4x6 cards and personally deliver them to the florist, say hello, make sure he know who you are and how awesome of a photographer you are. Do this with every decorator and caterer you can find.
Hope your not near me. LOL
Jon
Print an 8x10 and send it to every vendors, along with a CD of the images for them to use. My name is on everything, and when a bride goes to ten places wedding shopping, and sees my name displayed at everyone, they call me. I would give him the image, an 8x10, perhaps 100 4x6 cards and personally deliver them to the florist, say hello, make sure he know who you are and how awesome of a photographer you are. Do this with every decorator and caterer you can find.
Hope your not near me. LOL
Jon
It probably varies by country.
And you can probably get a release really easily by giving a framed print to the florist, with a mount around the pciture with your name on it.
Depending on what you shoot, florists can be excellent sources for new busienss because they know about special events.
BAK
And you can probably get a release really easily by giving a framed print to the florist, with a mount around the pciture with your name on it.
Depending on what you shoot, florists can be excellent sources for new busienss because they know about special events.
BAK
davidleegoerndt
Forum Enthusiast
This is similar to you photographing a sculpture or other work of art. The artist retains the copyright to the artwork while you retain the copyright to your photo of that artwork. The stickyness comes when you want to use the photo. Neither of you can use the photo without the other's permission unless you come to some sort of agreement. Think of it like this, if I shoot a photo of a painting that's not mine, I can't sell prints of this painting unless I get the artist's permission. On the other hand, once a work of art is sold, the copyright to that art still is retained by the artist, not the new owner. A floral arrangement could be an original work of art and unique to the florist in which case the florist would retain the copyright even if the arrangement is sold. As photographers, we can shoot pretty much anything we want, you own the copyright to those photos. But, when you want to use the photos for stock or some other use you may be infringing someone elses copyright.
...but it doesn't end there. The florist has a copyright on the arrangement for no two arrangements are the same. It was their creativity that resulted in the mix of flowers, colors and ribbons/bows/balloons. But they can't sell prints of the arrangement because the company that cut the flowers and wholesaled them to the florist holds a copyright on the cut. Again, no two cuts are the same. They have different angles of cuts and a sharp pair of scissors will make a clean cut and a dull pair will make a ragged cut. Then there is still the issue with the flower vase. The company that made the vase holds the copyright to it. Also, God made the flowers and everything else so he holds the ultimate copyright. So you see, nothing can be reproduced and sold because someone, somewhere owns the copyright! ;> )
Actually, I wrote this in jest but it seems the world is coming to this. With so much money involved in intellectual property, this may not be far off.
--
Greg
http://www.pictureroanoke.com
The hardest thing a person has to do is live by their own words. - Me 2006
I actually partly agree with you, as I thought of similar analogies. But then I thought of this... does the same logic apply to selling pictures of the bride holding her bouquet? What about shots of the reception where the centerpieces are visibile? Where do the florists' rights begin/end?
D.
D.
Jan Morales
Forum Enthusiast
I'm surprised that so many responses to this question in a "pro" forum are so cavalier about the possible copyright rights of florists over their arrangements, considering how important the question of copyright is to professional photographers.
I thought the question is an interesting one, so I poked around looking for an answer, including going to the U.S. Copyright Office web site. I didn't find an answer to the specific question, "Can you copyright a floral arrangement?", but I think a reasonable argument can made that floral arrangements fall under the category of "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works".
A floral arrangement can be very creative, no less creative than a photograph. And the Copyright Office states that "works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship" cannot be copyrighted, so that would exclude simply cutting flowers, or simply sticking twelve roses in a vase.
And I think it is also reasonable to argue that photographs of a wedding in which floral arrangements appear fall under the category of "fair use". To me, there's a big difference between that and simply taking a photograph of a floral arrangement.
To me, common sense says that if you just take a picture of a floral arrangement made by someone else, the bulk of the creative work was done by that other person, and therefore fairness alone dictates that the other person deserves the bulk of the benefit derived from that arrangement.
I should respect other people's creations as much as I want them to respect mine. That's my opinion.
I thought the question is an interesting one, so I poked around looking for an answer, including going to the U.S. Copyright Office web site. I didn't find an answer to the specific question, "Can you copyright a floral arrangement?", but I think a reasonable argument can made that floral arrangements fall under the category of "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works".
A floral arrangement can be very creative, no less creative than a photograph. And the Copyright Office states that "works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship" cannot be copyrighted, so that would exclude simply cutting flowers, or simply sticking twelve roses in a vase.
And I think it is also reasonable to argue that photographs of a wedding in which floral arrangements appear fall under the category of "fair use". To me, there's a big difference between that and simply taking a photograph of a floral arrangement.
To me, common sense says that if you just take a picture of a floral arrangement made by someone else, the bulk of the creative work was done by that other person, and therefore fairness alone dictates that the other person deserves the bulk of the benefit derived from that arrangement.
I should respect other people's creations as much as I want them to respect mine. That's my opinion.
Paul Robertson
Senior Member
Kokopelli_Rocks
Senior Member
I guess by your logic then I own the full copyright to my images and can do anything I please with them.
Funny how so many photographers care about their image rights by don't seem to care about other artists rights.
BTW - just because a rentacop says you can't take pictures in a public park does not mean anything. What is the worse that can happen - they call the real cops who then tell the renta copy he is out of line?
--
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
Funny how so many photographers care about their image rights by don't seem to care about other artists rights.
BTW - just because a rentacop says you can't take pictures in a public park does not mean anything. What is the worse that can happen - they call the real cops who then tell the renta copy he is out of line?
--
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
"Funny how so many photographers care about their image rights by don't seem to care about other artists rights."
Very interesting isn't it. I haven't heard one person suggest telling the florist the truth about what's to be done with the image, and letting them give their informed consent.
What goes around comes around!
Very interesting isn't it. I haven't heard one person suggest telling the florist the truth about what's to be done with the image, and letting them give their informed consent.
What goes around comes around!
In this lawsuit prone world/country we live in, it's easy to go overboard with, dare I say, paranoia in regards to anything that might infringe on someone else. And so you get some rather funny disclaimers on certain things. (I always chuckle when I pick up an iron and it has the dislaimer "Do not iron clothes while on body". My personal favorite: "Caution: HOT coffee is HOT!!")
But, as I understand the copyright issue, as long as the photo was taken on public ground, you may use it however you like, as long as
(1) people are NOT recognizable
(2) copyrighted objects are NOT recognizable (ex: any company logo)
(3) and anything that has a known prohibition from being photographed are NOT included (ex: Eiffel Tower at night)
The above only applies if you are using the photograph commercially.
For personal use, I am not aware of any restrictions except where the venue specifically states "No Photography Allowed".
But don't quote me, I'm not a lawyer.
And to go along with this discussion:
This post is copyright 2007 by Amy. This post may not be reproduced without prior approval from the poster.
Disclaimer: Read the above at your own risk. Poster does not guarantee any of the above information as true or otherwise. Poster is not liable for anything that may result from the use of the above information.
Explore the World!
Tutorials, Freebies, Coupons & Gallery @ http://www.ayfoto.com
But, as I understand the copyright issue, as long as the photo was taken on public ground, you may use it however you like, as long as
(1) people are NOT recognizable
(2) copyrighted objects are NOT recognizable (ex: any company logo)
(3) and anything that has a known prohibition from being photographed are NOT included (ex: Eiffel Tower at night)
The above only applies if you are using the photograph commercially.
For personal use, I am not aware of any restrictions except where the venue specifically states "No Photography Allowed".
But don't quote me, I'm not a lawyer.
And to go along with this discussion:
This post is copyright 2007 by Amy. This post may not be reproduced without prior approval from the poster.
Disclaimer: Read the above at your own risk. Poster does not guarantee any of the above information as true or otherwise. Poster is not liable for anything that may result from the use of the above information.
Explore the World!
Tutorials, Freebies, Coupons & Gallery @ http://www.ayfoto.com
Nevenp
Leading Member
No. This logic applies only if the bouquet is THE main object on the picture... ie. it's a picture of THE bouquet! If the same bouquet (or more of them) is simply a part of the otherwise public situation, it's no longer a problem as your subject is the situation and not the bouquet.
Nope.... I'm not a lawyer... just a guy like you that had to check the situation on several occasions already and this is what I found out to be holding the water... (so far)...
munchmeister
Senior Member
Copyright is not an easy subject, even for lawyers, and I am one... though IP is certainly not my specialty.
I agree with the post of davidleegoerndt. I do not know, but also wonder whether a floral arrangement can be copyrighted. Not because it isn't original or artistic, but some of the problem lies in the fact that an arrangement of flowers, for one thing, is very temporary. Moreover, it is somewhat fluid, moves around, etc. This is true, certainly of some art work, as well, but for the artist who wishes to copyright temporal art, it is important for that artist to make a record of his/her work, i.e., a photograph, to record the "state of the art" when it was created. So, for example, the renowned Christo Javacheff, who puts up curtains of colored fabric in places like Central Park or Rifle Canyon, Colorado, which last a short time, takes many pictures of his work, creates books full of photos, diagrams, plans, letters, etc. And, I assume, he files some of this as part of his copyright filing with the US Copyright Office. For such artists, copyright has indeed become a tough problem when their works are fleeting. So, I question whether a flower arrangement can be copyrighted.
Assuming that it can, for the sake of discussion, again, I agree with davidleegoerndt that each may have a copyright in their particular form of the artistic expression. A painter who paints that flower arrangement certainly may copyright his painting, and may sell his painting (reserving the copyright). If the flower arranger and the photographer went to court, it would be a question for the court to decide whether or not one was original enough to stand on its own and whether-- and the amount of-- damages to award.
Of course these are the things that court cases are made of. Believe me, the law is fluid. It is dependent upon each unique set of circumstances and were I in a situation of advising a client as to whether or not s/he could sell prints of a floral arrangement, I would be asking a lot of questions, some of which have come up here. Has the arranger asserted a copyright? Has s/he filed for (c) protection with the US Copyright office? Is there a copyright on the vase or container? Where is the vase with flowers when it was taken... public or private property? What will the photos taken by photographer be used for? Single print, multiple print, stock? Etc. etc. For a true legal opinion those kinds of questions and their answers would be important, not to mention come at some cost (we lawyers have to buy lenses, too.)
By the way, this does not constitute legal advice. For that, you should see counsel of your own choosing.
;-)
I agree with the post of davidleegoerndt. I do not know, but also wonder whether a floral arrangement can be copyrighted. Not because it isn't original or artistic, but some of the problem lies in the fact that an arrangement of flowers, for one thing, is very temporary. Moreover, it is somewhat fluid, moves around, etc. This is true, certainly of some art work, as well, but for the artist who wishes to copyright temporal art, it is important for that artist to make a record of his/her work, i.e., a photograph, to record the "state of the art" when it was created. So, for example, the renowned Christo Javacheff, who puts up curtains of colored fabric in places like Central Park or Rifle Canyon, Colorado, which last a short time, takes many pictures of his work, creates books full of photos, diagrams, plans, letters, etc. And, I assume, he files some of this as part of his copyright filing with the US Copyright Office. For such artists, copyright has indeed become a tough problem when their works are fleeting. So, I question whether a flower arrangement can be copyrighted.
Assuming that it can, for the sake of discussion, again, I agree with davidleegoerndt that each may have a copyright in their particular form of the artistic expression. A painter who paints that flower arrangement certainly may copyright his painting, and may sell his painting (reserving the copyright). If the flower arranger and the photographer went to court, it would be a question for the court to decide whether or not one was original enough to stand on its own and whether-- and the amount of-- damages to award.
Of course these are the things that court cases are made of. Believe me, the law is fluid. It is dependent upon each unique set of circumstances and were I in a situation of advising a client as to whether or not s/he could sell prints of a floral arrangement, I would be asking a lot of questions, some of which have come up here. Has the arranger asserted a copyright? Has s/he filed for (c) protection with the US Copyright office? Is there a copyright on the vase or container? Where is the vase with flowers when it was taken... public or private property? What will the photos taken by photographer be used for? Single print, multiple print, stock? Etc. etc. For a true legal opinion those kinds of questions and their answers would be important, not to mention come at some cost (we lawyers have to buy lenses, too.)
By the way, this does not constitute legal advice. For that, you should see counsel of your own choosing.
;-)
Clark Hampton
Senior Member
It's that simple. You have the copyright to the iimage but you can't use it for economic gain.
Like taking a picture of a person. You need a release to use it.
--
Like taking a picture of a person. You need a release to use it.
--
Jan Morales
Forum Enthusiast
From the U.S. Copyright Office web site:
"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work."
( http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc )
The U.S. Copyright Office does not provide protection, only registration:
"Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
"The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration."
( http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc )
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum