jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If she sold Vanity a single use license, that should mean single use, not passing it onto someone else. As you implied, nothing is straightforward about any laws.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

The copyrights of photographers is a hotly contested issue. Mostly because painters think they have the right to use someone else's photo for their painting. Long ago we had a lawyer who specialized in intellectual property speak to our art group. He stated that copying via any format is copyright infringement. A painting that takes any portion of someone else's photo must state that it's "a study of. . ." and name the photo and the painter must have written permission from the photographer to use it. That includes photos published in copyrighted books. Painters HATED that. The lawyer went on to say that photographers are under the same rules and any publication or sale of photos of others' artwork (sculpture, paintings, etc.). So as to the question about photographing sculpture, according to that lawyer, it would be fine, just don't sell it or license it. Of course older sculptures might be in the public domain. Even buildings may be copyrighted, so selling a picture of buildings can be questioned.

The lawyer's summary was that taking a photo of or painting anything created by someone else is a slippery slope and should be avoided. His words to painters was "Be original!" This is why I do landscapes. They're invented by God, not man.

anotherview Loc: California

That's about the size of it. Even so, I note that consulting a copyright lawyer early on could have avoided a legal contest.

photoman43

I agree with the majority decision reached by the Supreme Court. I disagree completely with the dissenting opinion written by Justice Kagan. I read more about this case in the Wall Street Journal May 19, 2023 edition.

Here are some links related to this case:

Supreme Court rules against Andy Warhol’s foundation in a case about a portrait he made of Prince

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-andy-warhols-image-of-prince-breaches-copyright-laws-e6c35d52?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-andy-warhol-prince-copyright-061a115f4ab137bcbe36fcc8fe0c921b

And here are links to another major copyright case involving a photo that many readers might recall:

Associated Press Settles Copyright Lawsuit Against Obama 'Hope' Artist

https://www.wired.com/2011/01/hope-image-flap/

https://www.deanmead.com/what-the-obama-%E2%80%9Chope%E2%80%9D-poster-teaches-us-about-copyright-law/

https://archive.nytimes.com/lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/obama-image-copyright-case-is-settled/

User ID

AI has nothing to do with it. Its actually a communist plot disguised as socialism. Note the absence of initial caps, meaning "No Politix involved".

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Love your last two sentences. I too mainly do landscapes, plus close-ups and macros of Flowers and Seashells. All parts of the natural world.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Readers may want to do some further research into this case before commenting. The original image was licensed to Newsweek, not Vanity Fair. VF did get a license for their subsequent use, but from the estate of Andy Warhol for a silkscreen image from his series of paintings, not the original photograph.

I'm not a copyright expert any more than the rest of us, but the Kagan/Roberts dissent may be more "right" than the majority opinion when viewed in the light of "the real whole story."

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Yes, it would seem it is a breach of contract, nothing else, as you claim. But that, Nothing Else, could be huge dollars that should have gone to the original photographer. While I am agreeing with you, this time, it seems far more than a tempest in a teapot. To the court, Single Use, should mean exactly what it says, a one time use by Vanity Fair.

Dennis

M1911 Loc: DFW Metromess

I always thought Warhol's image of Marilyn Monroe was infringement because he did not take the photo it was based on.

Bill_de Loc: US

GM photographed a car in front of a building that included graffiti.

https://www.marksgray.com/companies-should-take-note-of-this-street-artist-win/

---

cindo51

I know this is a slight detour from the topic, but I am so confused about copyrighting one's photos. Is just signing your picture enough proof that it is yours? I am embarrassed to ask this... but...?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You can read some of the links in the replies above on this page. You can read some of the information from this page specific to photographic work at the US Copyright office. https://www.copyright.gov/registration/photographs/

If you want the "defend" your copyright of your original work, you need to register your copyright at the US office / website, for US work and US issues / defenses. Your unregistered work is not eligible for damages of copyright infringement. Adding "copyright" into your watermark or camera EXIF serves to indicate you will 'defend' your copyright to all your original work. But, only proper registration gives you an ability to enforce your copyright and collect damages, if applicable.

Your 'copyright' exists automatically for your original work, regardless of words or icons in the image watermark or EXIF / metadata.

cindo51

Thanks so much! I was afraid this was the situation.. can you copyright a 'folder' of pictures, or m use you do it one at a time? Thanks again!~

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The Copyright office / website provides a 'bulk load' process. They provide instructions, spreadsheet templates, and a fee-structure for performing this registration function.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Don’t be embarrassed. You and I and others take our time to photograph. For some, it may seem like the push of a shutter button but it’s more than that. Watermarks can be removed if the forger chooses. You could copyright your work but that takes time and money. You can also use a “poorman’s copyright.” That is, mail the photo back to yourself. Now it is dated and as long as the envelope is not opened you have a pretty tight case. This method does have its loopholes but it will show you how those work the copyright.