--
--I have similar concerns, but in my case the person's artwork was a
large sculpture. I did a tight composition and wonder if anyone,
including the artist, would recognize it. But, just because it has
been abstracted it still is a shot of the artist's work, though a
relatively small piece of it. Is it my work (the image I recorded)
or strictly his no matter how I photographed it? Would I need
permission to have it published, or to sell it?
--
Tom
http://www.pbase.com/tomrok
--
... it is off limits to take photographs. The Italian government has decided that and they now own it! If they want no photographs to be taken of it, it is ok by me. I am a guest in their country and as I guest I respect their wishes. I do not spend my time going into the logic or reasons why they do things or tried to justify why "I" should take a photography of something they ask me not to photography in the first place.
It not hidden away in some building. It is being protected. The last time it was damage was from some lunatic that took a hammer and tried to destroy it. If I recall a toe was completely damaged. I do not recall seeing a sign saying certain people are not welcome, everyone is welcome, pay your entrance fee you are in.
I agree.
Statues are tough... I think that was an excellent analogy though that if you think of the statue as human the same releases should apply.
Phew! I didn't think I was wrong, but it's good to be validated!!!! LOL!
--
Hmmmm... a thought. Had these great works never been photographed or filmed, most of us would never have the pleasure of experiencing them. How would we be educated. I think we have to look at purpose - for commercial profit - no. For education, yes. Now the problem: for a PBS documentary there is no profit involved. For a school textbook - the book is a commercial retail item that is sold at profit. Is that worth denying our children the education if nobody can/will foot the bill for the documentary to be made?
Which is basically what I was saying.... I thought it not enough to stand on it's own.
I like that. Excellent. I think that's pretty clear.
Exaclty - I took the viewpoint of a typical viewer.
Right. If a dog was peeing on it in the shot that would certainly change this and be a statement unto itself. It would now take on new meaning. It wouldn't matter what was painted on teh barn, the attention would be on the dog and the fact that he was peeing on the art, not in the art itself.
Agreed.
In this case, my sole reason for posting it to the web was for the purpose of establishing this conversation so that I know waht the legal/ethical boundries are in the future. I personally felt that it was NOT a photo that stood on it's own as art and therefor started to wonder what WOULD be the boundries and the acceptable.
If he were to profit by the picture I would still say that Campbell's would be due it's payment. Ok, let't take a look at my "Waiting for Poptarts". The only thing relevent to "Pop-tarts" is the title of the shot. I've been stumped in my search to find a new title for it for an idea I have for a commercial use of it. I would assume that legally I cannot use the name "pop-tarts". I was trying to come up with a creative spelling to overcome this obstacle, with no success.
Those are nice/neat little guidelines. There is no grey area. Unfortunately it's impossible to make such precise stipulations that apply to every use of every graphic in every industry.
Seems the determination is left to the most talented, creative, and convincing lawyer. My question was not specifically to the statue, "David". It was a generalization. Italy has laid claim to ownership so like it or not that's the deal. But waht about all the rest of the great masterpieces or anything else? Is the current owner the one entitled to grant permissions and receive money? If an art collector owns the original does that make him entitled to the rights as well? Or are the rights controlled by the heirs?
I find it hard to believe that students in an art class, learning technique by copying the great masters, are actually breaking the law. I dont' see how it can be illegal for personal study. Is this legal fact or your opinion/assumption?
Which is what I opened with.
Oh, I had no concern about taking it for tossing in my family photo album.
Exactly. I always prefer to err on the side of caution.
'twould be ironic for me to be sued for my shot which was uploaded for the sole purpose of starting a thread to get agreement that this is the type of shot that should not be attempted to be used without permission! LOL!
Not really. Before the bridge or building was brought to 3-d it was indeed drawn by the architect/engineer, probably rendered as well. Bringing it back to paper brings it full cylcle to copying its original so that armgument doesnt' hold water.
You can assume that in a private space you can take pix without explicit permission, but should request permission if the owner is likely to object. If the property owner tells you no then you are legally obligated to stop. Additionally anyone can be photographed without permission except in places wehre they should reasonably expect privacy, like bathrooms and dressing rooms, medical facilities and inside there home. UGH!!! What the heck!! It looks like a cartoon moose head with bunny ears instead of antlers!!!!! LOL!
It depends on the works.
--
LOL! I just had to laugh when I read this post. I have a photo I call Whistler's Daughter ;-)
This is interesting, so "street photography" is always ok?
