Using photo’s from the gallery.
JohnSwanda wrote:
That doesn't mean it's ethical or legal to take it for your own use. Sounds a little like blaming the victim. But I never post full sized images online for that reason. Even so I had someone print a web file on a t-shirt to sell, and someone who recognized it let me know.
It's complicated. Here are two good sources on copyright, one the law itself, the other, from public service lawyers:
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.htmlhttps://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-i-alter-or-make-art-from-books-prints-other-copyrighted-works-without-getting-sued-for-infringement.htmlUsing your situation as an example, someone was making money from an unaltered intellectual property of yours. Not fair use. Illegal.
If, however, I see your photo (1) a part of which I like and use in a larger piece, (2) it is not so special that something similar cannot be found anywhere else, (3) I change it to work with my expression of my art, and (4) its appearing in my work will not damage your business or reputation--if all those are met, I am okay. This is from what I've read (I had to do research for students wellness, and always warned them to read up on the subject if they were thinking of appropriation), and is confirmed by the sources listed above. Artists from Michelangelo to VanGogh to Picasso to Warhol have appropriated other artists' and photographers' work, to create something new with it as part of the creation.
It is good to know that copyright was enacted to protect. It protects the creator of a work from having the work taken and used for commercial gain, and to protect the creator's reputation ("brand" as it were). It also protects the primacy of creation, not wanting to freeze images from being re-imagined in new works.
Read. Ask. Be truly creative, not a hack copier.
The secret of getting ahead in photography is stealing someone else's image.
DeanS
Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina
CHG_CANON wrote:
The secret of getting ahead in photography is stealing someone else's image.
Yeah, but only if it is a really, really good one.😎
joer
Loc: Colorado/Illinois
AlanD wrote:
There are several photographers who consistently post photo’s that I find remarkable. These are photo’s I would love to have hanging on my walls. What are thoughts about using fellow UHH photo’s for personal display in my home—not for pecuniary gain, just for my enjoyment. And, given that, modifying them minimally, i.e., perhaps going from color to monochrome.
I don't mind someone using my image free of charge but expect credit for it.
I'd mind, if they made money or hurt my reputation, as copyright law forbids. If they "appropriate" it, including some of it in an artwork, I don't mind, copyright law not minding. I do that myself. If they mess up my image, I'd likely mind, but would just have to live with it.
Actually you can use any photo posted here, just not here because of UHH rules, and in the world at large under certain copyright restrictions.
Everything I ever needed to know about copyright I learned in kindergarten. A five year old knows that when he shows you his toys he is not giving them to you, just letting you look at them for now, but you can't keep them unless he says so.
https://www.robertleefulghum.com
bleirer wrote:
Everything I ever needed to know about copyright I learned in kindergarten. A five year old knows that when he shows you his toys he is not giving them to you, just letting you look at them for now, but you can't keep them unless he says so.
https://www.robertleefulghum.comAnd what did you learn in kindergarten about the fair use aspect of copyright law? That's something attorneys argue about and judges have to decide.
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
JohnSwanda wrote:
And what did you learn in kindergarten about the fair use aspect of copyright law? That's something attorneys argue about and judges have to decide.
The kid with the toys can let a friend use the toys but only on his terms.
DirtFarmer wrote:
The kid with the toys can let a friend use the toys but only on his terms.
It's a lot more complicated than that. The friend may use the toys contrary the the first kid's terms, but it may still be legal, resulting in a lawsuit.
DirtFarmer wrote:
The kid with the toys can let a friend use the toys but only on his terms.
This is a great logical fallacy. Physical possessions and intellectual property are not even close to similar.
artBob wrote:
This is a great logical fallacy. Physical possessions and intellectual property are not even close to similar.
Yes, and copyright and patents and trademarks are different things too. I think one can patent intellectual property but not copyright it. Complicated. I think copyright only goes to the actual form of the work, the exact words in a piece of writing, or the exact picture of Mt. Moran, etc., even though others have expressed that same idea a thousand times before.
What did we used to do to the kids who quoted lawyers on the kindergarten playground?
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
What do we do to the kids who quote lawyers on online forums? (Analogous to the kindergarten playground).
DirtFarmer wrote:
What do we do to the kids who quote lawyers on online forums? (Analogous to the kindergarten playground).
I guess that's where the kindergarten analogy breaks down. I agree we learn a lot of our core values in kindergarten, but there is much additional knowledge we need in life, starting with the rest of our education. To deal with a contentious legal issue like fair use in copyright it's useful to have knowledge beyond kindergarten.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.