hi,
I am surprised by the amount of people I have seen walking around photography gallerys and start photographing the framed photographs with their digital camera. This is obviously breaching laws.
It really irritates me when i see people doing this but I don't know what to say and just leave it. It would be better at least if they were taking the photo of someone observing the photo or with the photo in the background.
well i did that, if it is a an installation of several images which in it'S whole make some piece of artwork .. but i would not take a single image and pretend it was shot by myself.
The only way it could be considered a breach of is if the person were to try and sell the print or in any other way affect the originak shooter financially.
Unless given permission by the owner, or used under "fair use" clauses (such as educational purposes), it's still a breach of when someone uses a work they don't have permission to use.
The issue with whether it was used for financial gain or not has to do with whether it is a civil or criminal case. If not used for "financial gain or commercial advantage" it's a civil case. Penalties could be $200 to $25000 per violation (or nothing at all). If the ed work is used for "financial gain or commercial advantage" it's a criminal offense, and penalties could be $500,000 and up to 5 years in jail for a first offense (double for subsequent offenses).
When I would go to the art museum in Cleveland, OH, I was required to turn over all camera equipment (as well as coats, etc.). And if you snuck in with it, the guards would take it from you. However, I did get permission once to take some photos of some statues for a religion class I was taking.
My parents are also friends of a woman who owns an art gallery in Cincinnati, OH, and she was fine with me taking photos of the glass sculptures she had on display at the time.
So I think as long as you get permission from the artist/curator/"owner," then it's okay.
We had ... was it CMan? I think it was ... post photos of paintings on here that he took - with the museums consent - of paintings on display there. And he duly noted name of painting, name of painter, date of painting (I think) ... and never meant to pass the photos of the paintings off as his own paintings, just as his own photos of the paintings.
There were discussions on whether it is allowed or not in that very thread as well as among us mods, and I say that when the museum said it is ok, then it must have been ok. What I don't know well enough is whether he would be allowed to produce his own book on these paintings and publish his photos without more than just a casual "Yes, go about it, but don't use flash, please"-consent.
But to have them at home to enjoy them and remember his visit to the museum, and show them here as to share some of the latest things he did with regards to his photography seemed ok enough to me.
Always as long as he did not say: "Look, I painted this wonderful canvas, what do you say" when it was actually a photo of a VanGogh!
This is no legal advice, or advice of any kind at all, and don't take it as that, it is just something that happened on here recently and that I find is ok. Though I don't know if CMan (just as example) would be allowed to start printing his own postcards of his photos and sell them, or even produce enlargements and sell those as printings of said paintings???
Are you sure? I don't want to start a fight, but if you are going to give out legal advice, I think it would be good to be very familiar with the law and not just repeat what you've heard others say.
http://www..gov/circs/circ1.html#wci
I'm not sure what the point of that website is either. It hardly seems like a successful idea, even in the squishy-standards world of conceptual art. I just linked it as an example of how far some people are going with taking pictures of pictures.
http://www.afterwalkerevans.com/
nope no confusion
JIP, you may be confusing it with releases, which determines if a holder can use who or what is depicted in the image.
Are you sure? I don't want to start a fight, but if you are going to give out legal advice, I think it would be good to be very familiar with the law and not just repeat what you've heard others say.
http://www..gov/circs/circ1.html#wci
I don't know your link seems to support what I said.
you would be surprised by the amount of people stealing images from online galleries, cutting off the notice and adding their own ... to publish it on the web again ...
well, are these breaches of ? they are photos taken of installations of images, so the single image is not the central focus of the image.
http://www.photoscapes.eu/special/photokina_06/photokina_021.jpg
http://www.photoscapes.eu/special/photokina_06/photokina_015.jpg
I wonder what the people are doing with the photos?
I bet most of them don't do anything with them. Digital has put the photo voodoo love whammy on everyone; people just take pictures to take pictures. There are a lot of people out there with point-n-shoots and cell phone cams that just shoot until the memory is full, and then delete it.
Maybe they are writing an article, or assignment, or blogging about photography or the show. They could get nice files from me just by contacting me if this were the case.
Some of them go home and use it as wallpaper, or maybe even make a print to hang on their own wall. I'd much rather they buy my prints for sale, and the price is reasonable at $25 for an 8"x10", but what can I do? Some people will be happy with a bootleg copy for free. The music, movie, and software industries can't stop it; I'm not even going to worry about it. I'll avoid doing it myself, and try to educate people where I can.
Trance Blackman: Photo Gallery::
TB Central - The Official Home of Trance Blackman on the Web - Canadian singer/songwriter/actor & producer I like snapping pics. Most people do, I suppose.
http://tranceblackman.com/photosHOME |
A few of them may be claiming the work as their own. If they are fattening their Flickr photostream for the fame it brings them, well that's just pathetic. If they are using it to get clients, I assume they would get found out when they couldn't deliver.
The thing that p*sses me off is when someone is taking the image planning to use it for business, advertising, etc.... Unfortunately it's usually easy just to steal those photos off the web without even going to the gallery.
I am conflicted because I tend to photograph things that interest me, and I'm interested in art. I rarely photograph a piece of art by itself (unless hired by the artist), but I love incorporating works of art into photos of people and landscape. I do worry about what the sculptor, painter, etc... would think. So far I've never tried to sell a photo that intentionally contained someone else's art, but I have occasionally donated them to charity auctions, and I enjoy them in my family albums.
To some extent I believe that things in the public view must be allowed to be photographed. What is the difference between a painting and a sculpture? What is the difference between sculpture and architecture? Why is it okay to photograph a building that someone created, and not something designated as art?
Most of these stay well within the realm of the family snap, and the last one is a portrait of the creator of the work. I asked gallery attendants if it was okay to photograph.
http://www.mattneedham.com/arlodillo/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/oct06/IMG_8566.jpg
At the Nelson Atkins Museum of Art
http://www.mattneedham.com/arlodillo/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/oct06/IMG_8559.jpg
Jason's favorite painting at the Nelson
http://mattneedham.com/MNphoto/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/misc/streetart1.jpg
Downtown sculpture
http://www.mattneedham.com/arlodillo/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/mjn001/lacarch1.jpg
Downtown sculpture
http://mattneedham.com/MNphoto/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/misc/edwardanp2005b.jpg
Rembrandt did his paintings a lot longer than 70 years ago, or whatever the expiration is.
My point was, law is not subject to opinion, except a judge's. It really doesn't matter what any of us think. This isn't a critique where you can just say we each have our own taste and interpretation. There are real-world consequences to getting it wrong. I think it would behoove people to research the subject rather than going by what they've heard or what seems right to them. Don't use logic. There are often reasons for things you might not be aware of, like the expiration explaining why it's ok to take a photo of a Rembrandt.
It might seem like I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but giving bad legal advice is one of my pet peeves and something that I think can turn a molehill into a mountain. I'm not trying to convince anyone that my interpretation of is right, but to not trust any of ours. It's a lawyer's job to know the law and interpret it so that they can try and convince a judge to interpret it the same way. There are much better sources than posters on a message board.
Despite what the technicalities may be, I agree with JIP. Otherwise, they wouldn't let you take pictures in art museums. They are harmless, because they cannot really replace the originals. Not only that, but museum lighting is not what's needed if you want to make decent prints to sell illegally.
I take pix of paintings to remember them by. Now that I think of it, it works out to the museum's advantage.
One of my favorite paints is 'The Man with the Golden Chain' by Rembrandt. When I see a snapshot of it, I get the urge to go downtown and stare at it in person for a while. If it were a replacement, I would just print it myself and hang it on the wall.
It doesn't say much about financial gain.
"To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work"
Do you have specific info that states otherwise?
http://www.afterwalkerevans.com/
I'm not sure what the point of that is. terms at that time were 28 years and could be renewed once. 1936 + 28 + 28 = 1992. The is currently expired, and was so when the web site was set up. If it wasn't renewed, it was expired at the time the photos were taken of the exhibit.
In these days of stealing music and movies not being seen as stealing, they probably aren't even considering photographs.
The only way it could be considered a breach of is if the person were to try and sell the print or in any other way affect the originak shooter financially.
The only way it could be considered a breach of is if the person were to try and sell the print or in any other way affect the originak shooter financially.
thisd might differ from country to country... but as far as i know even if he puts them up as prints at his own wall, or if he presents them on a webpage, that would be a breach of ... financial issues are not a prerequisite to call it a breach.
if your logic was right, all those people downloading music from illegal servers would only breach if the subsequently would burn CDs and then sell them. ;)
 Where's The Advantage In Windows Genuine Advantage?
 Stocks Bounce After S&P Joins Bear Market
|
HOME