Image Ownership Rights
Dec 28, 2013 09:45:09 #
While everyones attention is on winterrose/jenny i thought i might sneak this question thru.
1. the painter who created certainly had rights
2. Did the photographer who cropped the oainting out of its museum setting and changed from oil to photo acquire any rights?
3.When i altered the photo for my own taste and consumption did i acquire any rights?
1. the painter who created certainly had rights
2. Did the photographer who cropped the oainting out of its museum setting and changed from oil to photo acquire any rights?
3.When i altered the photo for my own taste and consumption did i acquire any rights?
Dec 28, 2013 09:52:21 #
oldtigger wrote:
While everyones attention is on winterrose/jenny i thought i might sneak this question thru.
1. the painter who created certainly had rights
2. Did the photographer who cropped the painting out of its museum setting and changed from oil to photo acquire any rights?
3.When i altered the photo for my own taste and consumption did i acquire any rights?
1. the painter who created certainly had rights
2. Did the photographer who cropped the painting out of its museum setting and changed from oil to photo acquire any rights?
3.When i altered the photo for my own taste and consumption did i acquire any rights?
Since this is a big "What if," I'll jump in. I think it would depend what you wanted to do with your photo. I don't believe any publisher would accept it without a release from the painter. Even if the artist is unknown, there is always the chance that a relative could sue.
I believe the original creator has the rights, not someone who photographs it. That being said, it's just guesswork on my part, but I certainly wouldn't try to publicize a photo I took of artwork.
Dec 28, 2013 09:58:08 #
Copyright is a very strange thing and most web sites will try their best to avoid any infringement, any site that allows it to happen can be closed down, do we want this to happen to UHH.
Dec 28, 2013 10:19:56 #
reading between the lines Jerry; what you are saying is:
modifying the photograph did not weaken ownership, it just left me in violation of both painter and original photographer.
modifying the photograph did not weaken ownership, it just left me in violation of both painter and original photographer.
Dec 28, 2013 10:30:28 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
I think the rights have a lot to do with what you are trying to do and what you are claiming.
The first question is whether the painting was put in a place where photography was allowed, or if the photograph was otherwise permitted. If so, then I would say the copyright was shared between them. When you get the picture, what were the licensing agreements that went with it? If you did not get permission to modify and resell the image, then you are violating the photographer's rights.
The first question is whether the painting was put in a place where photography was allowed, or if the photograph was otherwise permitted. If so, then I would say the copyright was shared between them. When you get the picture, what were the licensing agreements that went with it? If you did not get permission to modify and resell the image, then you are violating the photographer's rights.
Dec 28, 2013 10:48:00 #
Amehta, i used the whole image with minimal alteration to make the question "worst case". Had i removed one of the ships and painted the sea pink, would still feel the same way?
Dec 28, 2013 10:48:25 #
oldtigger wrote:
reading between the lines Jerry; what you are saying is:
modifying the photograph did not weaken ownership, it just left me in violation of both painter and original photographer.
modifying the photograph did not weaken ownership, it just left me in violation of both painter and original photographer.
Right - two unknown people - the most dangerous kind. :D
Dec 28, 2013 11:12:31 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
oldtigger wrote:
Amehta, i used the whole image with minimal alteration to make the question "worst case". Had i removed one of the ships and painted the sea pink, would still feel the same way?
Yes, you still started with their work.
In all cases, rights can be waived or assigned. It is not clear that either was done here.
Dec 28, 2013 11:33:09 #
i had the narrow impression that store fronts, faces and products were the only thing to be wary of. It appears that using any portion of a copyrighted material for a purpose other than obvious humor should also be avoided.
Dec 28, 2013 11:51:17 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
oldtigger wrote:
i had the narrow impression that store fronts, faces and products were the only thing to be wary of. It appears that using any portion of a copyrighted material for a purpose other than obvious humor should also be avoided.
Yes, or at least handled with care.
Dec 28, 2013 13:13:54 #
Some points.
Any person posting a photo or image that was not produced by them and not disclosing that it is not theirs is an ethical issue no matter what their reason.
Especially if by nature one would assume the image is yours.
By posting an image like what was done in the critique section puts this site at risk for civil litigation. Since the lawsuit would not be deemed frivolous it would cost this site substantially to fight such litigation. Especially if there was damage deemed to be done to the artist reputation. Having an image critiqued and by not disclosing it was a drawing could have easily been deemed detrimental to and a misrepresentation of the artist work.
The more reputable the sight and the more profitable the more they are at risk. Some of my attorney friends would take a case like this on contingency if the forum was big enough.(Had enough income)
The admin here is consistent. He has always removed threads that were posted where the primary thread image was taken from somewhere(not the thread creators). It is irrelevant what the reason.
The admin here is really good. As he has said before. Things usually work themselves out over time. You threaten the admins here and you're gone.
Posting more than a single stolen(lifted or,whatever you want call it) is a risk and threat to the admin. They usually let one go per individual.
There have been three cases at least over the last two years that I am aware of where some one has started a thread and not disclosed it was someone else image. One claimed it was an accident and asked for forgiveness. One was "I never had enough time to explain". It didn't take two days and his mother didn't die(LOL). Both of the prior examples were resolved quickly and everyone moved on. In neither case did the perpetrators create multiple threads trying to justify their position.
Every forum that I participate in has this "stolen photo"rule. If they didn't I would not participate.
Viewbug has this rule.
500px has this rule.
The bottom line is no one is going to throw you in jail. It's civil not criminal.
It s more of a civil risk to the site than the individual.
Using an immoral means to justify some self perceived moral ends is absurd.
It starts getting more questionable if the image was modified beyond recognition. In this case is it really enough of a similarity? Maybe.
Could the artist of your modified image been accused of some sort of misrepresenting the original's artist intent? Probably.
The smart thing is to do the right thing. Why would anyone with credibility and integrity want to call into question their moral compass. (Politicians excluded)
Who was it who said "you can't cheat an honest man"?
"It is a common belief that people get rich by stealing in prison and Harvard Business School"
Bottom line is this.
If you do the art like you described and you keep it in you living room...not much risk.
If you sell it locally not much risk
If you create a site and generate a moderate income from the sale. Yep you got risk.
If you became famous and sold these for a lot of money. Let me know so I can contact my attorney for a deal.
Any person posting a photo or image that was not produced by them and not disclosing that it is not theirs is an ethical issue no matter what their reason.
Especially if by nature one would assume the image is yours.
By posting an image like what was done in the critique section puts this site at risk for civil litigation. Since the lawsuit would not be deemed frivolous it would cost this site substantially to fight such litigation. Especially if there was damage deemed to be done to the artist reputation. Having an image critiqued and by not disclosing it was a drawing could have easily been deemed detrimental to and a misrepresentation of the artist work.
The more reputable the sight and the more profitable the more they are at risk. Some of my attorney friends would take a case like this on contingency if the forum was big enough.(Had enough income)
The admin here is consistent. He has always removed threads that were posted where the primary thread image was taken from somewhere(not the thread creators). It is irrelevant what the reason.
The admin here is really good. As he has said before. Things usually work themselves out over time. You threaten the admins here and you're gone.
Posting more than a single stolen(lifted or,whatever you want call it) is a risk and threat to the admin. They usually let one go per individual.
There have been three cases at least over the last two years that I am aware of where some one has started a thread and not disclosed it was someone else image. One claimed it was an accident and asked for forgiveness. One was "I never had enough time to explain". It didn't take two days and his mother didn't die(LOL). Both of the prior examples were resolved quickly and everyone moved on. In neither case did the perpetrators create multiple threads trying to justify their position.
Every forum that I participate in has this "stolen photo"rule. If they didn't I would not participate.
Viewbug has this rule.
500px has this rule.
The bottom line is no one is going to throw you in jail. It's civil not criminal.
It s more of a civil risk to the site than the individual.
Using an immoral means to justify some self perceived moral ends is absurd.
It starts getting more questionable if the image was modified beyond recognition. In this case is it really enough of a similarity? Maybe.
Could the artist of your modified image been accused of some sort of misrepresenting the original's artist intent? Probably.
The smart thing is to do the right thing. Why would anyone with credibility and integrity want to call into question their moral compass. (Politicians excluded)
Who was it who said "you can't cheat an honest man"?
"It is a common belief that people get rich by stealing in prison and Harvard Business School"
Bottom line is this.
If you do the art like you described and you keep it in you living room...not much risk.
If you sell it locally not much risk
If you create a site and generate a moderate income from the sale. Yep you got risk.
If you became famous and sold these for a lot of money. Let me know so I can contact my attorney for a deal.
Dec 28, 2013 18:11:57 #
That was a clear, concise explanation of both the sites policy (and reasons behind it) and the general opinion. Thank you, it was one of those type questions we sometimes feel a bit awkward about asking.
Dec 28, 2013 19:24:44 #
Bear in mind that the forum is free to adopt and apply more stringent rules than US copyright law requires.
Under US copyright law, both the first and second photos are classified as derivative works. Normally, only the holder of the original artist's copyright has the right to prepare or authorize others to create derivative works. The unauthorized preparation of a derivative work is copyright infringement, and the infringing artist acquires no copyright protection in any part of the derivative work in which original material has been used without authorization.
But if the original copyright had expired at the time the first photograph was taken, then the first photographer acquired a valid copyright in his or her image. [This is why you often see photography prohibited in museums and galleries.] See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
The duration of a copyright can be a difficult question. For works created or published after January 1, 1978, the rules are fairly clear: the law automatically protects a work that is created and fixed in a tangible medium of expression on or after January 1, 1978, from the moment of its creation and gives it a term lasting for the authors life plus an additional 70 years. For works made for hire and anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. The term cannot be renewed. Registration is not required, but it confers additional benefits of enforcement. "Publication" means the distribution of copies to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or possession. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf#page=3
The rules are varied for works created prior to 1978, but all works published in the US before January 1, 1923 are now in the public domain. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf Absent publication or registration, works created prior to 1978 lack copyright protection.
Please note that this is a brief summary of some selected basic US copyright rules, and does not constitute legal advice.
Under US copyright law, both the first and second photos are classified as derivative works. Normally, only the holder of the original artist's copyright has the right to prepare or authorize others to create derivative works. The unauthorized preparation of a derivative work is copyright infringement, and the infringing artist acquires no copyright protection in any part of the derivative work in which original material has been used without authorization.
But if the original copyright had expired at the time the first photograph was taken, then the first photographer acquired a valid copyright in his or her image. [This is why you often see photography prohibited in museums and galleries.] See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
The duration of a copyright can be a difficult question. For works created or published after January 1, 1978, the rules are fairly clear: the law automatically protects a work that is created and fixed in a tangible medium of expression on or after January 1, 1978, from the moment of its creation and gives it a term lasting for the authors life plus an additional 70 years. For works made for hire and anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. The term cannot be renewed. Registration is not required, but it confers additional benefits of enforcement. "Publication" means the distribution of copies to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or possession. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf#page=3
The rules are varied for works created prior to 1978, but all works published in the US before January 1, 1923 are now in the public domain. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf Absent publication or registration, works created prior to 1978 lack copyright protection.
Please note that this is a brief summary of some selected basic US copyright rules, and does not constitute legal advice.
Dec 28, 2013 20:44:08 #
oldtigger wrote:
While everyones attention is on winterrose/jenny i thought i might sneak this question thru.
1. the painter who created certainly had rights
2. Did the photographer who cropped the oainting out of its museum setting and changed from oil to photo acquire any rights?
3.When i altered the photo for my own taste and consumption did i acquire any rights?
1. the painter who created certainly had rights
2. Did the photographer who cropped the oainting out of its museum setting and changed from oil to photo acquire any rights?
3.When i altered the photo for my own taste and consumption did i acquire any rights?
Copyright i.e. the right to copy. The painter is the owner of the copyright, if someone took a photo of the painting, they infringed upon the copyright of the painter, if you then take the photo and copy it and modify it without the painters permission you too have infringed upon that painters rights.
It's the same if you posted a photo on the UHH, someone else copies it and changes it to B&W, prints it and hand colors it with oils, then sells those prints. They have stolen your original work and violated your rights. Some may not care if this happens or not, but the fact remains it is a violation of Copyright law, whether you enforce that violation or not.
Dec 28, 2013 20:45:35 #
MDI Mainer wrote:
Bear in mind that the forum is free to adopt and a... (show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Very well said!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.