Odd copyright question with photography implications (Page 2): no, the 2 are very different - basically copyright covers the expression if an idea; patent covers the idea itself & is...

cascoly Loc: seattle

bpulv wrote:

I am not a lawyer, but if there is a legal parallel between copyright and patent law, it may be legal. As I understand patent law, if you make an improvement on an existing patent, it may be legal. The painting could be considered as an improvement on the photograph. If there is a lawyer out there please weigh in!

no, the 2 are very different - basically copyright covers the expression if an idea; patent covers the idea itself & is much more limiting

for this example tho, the photographer is clearly wrong - they went against the rules of the submission - in no way did she actually 'take' the picture - else i could submit my mona lisa pix that i 'took'

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Didn't The Gap or some such store sell a t-shirt with an image of Jimi Hendrix on it a few years ago. And the photographer who took the picture the image was taken from sued but lost.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Q: When is a Snow Leopard photo from TV, not a Copyright problem ?... A: When it is used as a parody .. a base for modification it is then “fair use” instead of copyright infringement.

Two Live Crew Copyright case went to Supreme Court and was judged to be a parody on a song and thus protected by First Amendment. By extension, if I use a published photo and modify it by adding elements it is a new photograph; a work of art done by me; in a sense, a visual parody.

"Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) ... his <Campbell's> sampling of recognizable portions of Roy Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman” in a 2 Live Crew recording. Because the Court viewed Campbell’s work as a parody, his action was found to be “fair use” instead of copyright infringement."
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1447/2-live-crew

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

artBob wrote:

The concept being that the ARTIST does the looking and creating, with sketches or photos assisting the process if needed. To flat out copy a good photograph using ordinary "realistic" art techniques is like, well a comedian stealing another comedian's jokes or a more famous band stealing another musician's melody.

nospambob Loc: Edmond, Oklahoma

artBob wrote:

Some problems with the question. Is the painted image EXACTLY a reproduction of the photo? If not, and judges and juries quibble over this, if the painting has changed the photo in some ways as a matter of self expression of the artist, it is not a violation of copyright.

For a fuller overview, go here: https://thelawtog.com/someone-makes-illustration-painting-based-photograph/

A minor change to an original work does not create a new work. Beware.

lsaguy Loc: Udall, KS, USA

It all makes my head hurt. I think I'll just go put on "Stairway to Heaven" and see if that helps'

Rick

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

fourlocks wrote:

My wife runs an art association putting on a jurie... (show quote)

I have an answer that is NOT based in law because I am a photographer, not a lawyer. If I were running the art show this image would not be acceptable. The way that you have described it, there was no technical or artistic skill involved in making the image. Those skills were used by the videographers of Planet Earth. Your criteria should include the word “original” to prevent such nonsense.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

I think at least two issues would come into play.

1. The copyright by the BBC is on a film. There is something called fair use. This allows for copying of a small part of another work for use usually with attribution for printed material.

2. A painting based a photograph is is usually not a direct copy of the photo. Items are added or subtracted from the original to adjust composition. Other types of artistic embellishments are also made. As such that painting could considered a separated work. A painting (or indeed a photograph) of a sculpture would be a separate work.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

fetzler wrote:

I think at least two issues would come into play. ... (show quote)

Since this is about the rules of a contest, the only issue is what the contest administrators and the judges think the rules meant. Copyright and fair use really do not come into it.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

It seems to me that the word “substantial” comes into play here. It would take opposing lawyers in a court case to clarify.

artBob wrote:

Some problems with the question. Is the painted image EXACTLY a reproduction of the photo? If not, and judges and juries quibble over this, if the painting has changed the photo in some ways as a matter of self expression of the artist, it is not a violation of copyright.

For a fuller overview, go here: https://thelawtog.com/someone-makes-illustration-painting-based-photograph/

Country Boy Loc: Beckley, WV

I agree it comes back to the terms of the contest. If poorly written, there is room to challenge them but if they are properly written to be very specific there should not be a problem. Contest rules do not need to be the same as legal rules.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Fotomacher wrote:

I have an answer that is NOT based in law because I am a photographer, not a lawyer. If I were running the art show this image would not be acceptable. The way that you have described it, there was no technical or artistic skill involved in making the image. Those skills were used by the videographers of Planet Earth. Your criteria should include the word “original” to prevent such nonsense.

That’s my take on it too. Photography is very much about personal vision too. OUR own personal vision.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

fourlocks wrote:

My wife runs an art association putting on a jurie... (show quote)

Sorry fellas, copying something exactly Is allowed in painting and art. Attached is a reproduction of a painting copied from a postcard done by famous British Pop artist Malcolm Morley. Better stick to making rules for photography not art.

When it comes to photography you might want to use these words in contests: 'All of the components of the image must be original work created by the maker'.

(Download)

Nukepr Loc: Citrus County, FL

This is ultimately not a copyright or legal issue. It is a matter of what the local organization considers acceptable. I am president of a local arts organization, and we have rules for submission of original art work. If in our opinion the submitted artwork does not meet the requirements the work is rejected. If your wife's organization doesn't have a similar clause in its list of requirements, it should. This keeps the issue out of whether the work violates or does not violate copyright and allows the organization to determine what is acceptable in its shows.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Here are a couple of links on appropriation art from the Museum of Modern Art and the Tate Museum.

https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/themes/pop-art/appropriation/

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/a/appropriation