JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

I think that it is worth noting that one well-known microstock agency will NOT accept an image of a statue or any piece of art, as it is derivative of someone else's work. Property releases in such cases are always required.

To those who disagree with this, consider how you'd feel if you had some images on display in a gallery and then someone took a pic of said image and resold it.

I have to assume from reading the facts that the sculptor did indeed retain rights to his work. I would have, public property use or not. The sculptor absolutely does have rights to his own work - unless he signed them away, and apparently, he did not.

Many years ago, I tried my handing at writing for publication. I sold an article to a magazine and as I was new to the game, I accepted a contract that gave the magazine all rights to the article. Some time after the initial publication, they started offering the article online - for pay. There was nothing I could do about it. I mean, if I wanted to republish my own article, I'd have had to get the magazine's permission.

Sometime later, it occurred to me that what they paid me isn't nearly enough to compensate me for the time and effort that went into the project. Haven't dealt with writing for magazine publication (writing) since.

mdfenton

I was taking photos from the parking lot of an interesting office building in my neighborhood when a security guard informed me that the building had a copyright. I was not aware that buildings could be copyrighted. Be careful.

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

Oh, yes. They can be and often are. The London Eye ferris wheel is one of those. So is the well-known Las Vegas sign. Try selling an image of the Alamo and see what happens. Many companies consider that their buildings, for which they paid quite a lot for the design, are a part of their corporate image.

Again, most reputable stock agencies will require property releases if the building in question is recognizable in the image. And be aware that "recognizable" is very much in the eye of the attorn....er, the beholder.


All this fol-de-rol is a large part of my decision to no longer shoot for stock. Too many pitfalls.

Ka2azman Loc: Tucson, Az

I have done many artistic things in my life. I have written an ode for my neighbor who lost a son in Iraq. I have sold a stone statue that I made. I have painted pictures, and murals, I have carved items out of wood. I have created items in metal. But if sold, I did not keep ownership. But the point is that pieces of furniture can be artistic work. A dinning room table made for someone is still a piece of artistic work.

I do not get what the difference between a news story and a publication that displays art; how they are different? They both are in it for money. Both get money for selling their publications of which include the pictured art.

Agreed it is important to know what the contract was between this artist and the governing body that conscripted the artist to do the statues of which is lacking here.

For example, here in Tucson several years ago Tucson was doing remodeling of some underpasses and hired an artist to do three statues for the project and was prepaid. Long after the time was up for the statues to be delivered, I believe it was over three years past due, the artist had only one. Tucson said fine and accepted only one. The other two were forgiven. Remember they were paid for. So our government does do stupid things and just another example of why we are in dire straights.

As for employer employee intellectual rights. The company I worked for claimed all right to anything that an employee invented. Whether on duty or off.

We had a man invent an electronic card (off duty) that increased HP and fuel economy on a locomotive by better than 15%. He was selling this card to the RR's for $25,000 per year per locomotive. Oh, it was patented.

The original RR was bought by another, and when this RR got into this arrangement, they said no. Give us the card at no cost and as many as we want, and you can charge the other RR's as you want. Went to court, RR lost. RR then cut off they nose to spite their face. They ordered that all these card be removed because they were not going to pay an employee for his intellectual property. Of course they backward engineered this advancement and it is incorporated into the new loco's.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Here's something that hasn't been discussed.

The government spent $750,000 of our tax dollars to have the sculptor create the memorial. Why in hell didn't they insist that the deal included not only the statues, BUT THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS as well?

It is imbecilic to spend so much and not insist on buying the rights as well as the hardware.

On the subject of imbecilic, the USPS has a huge and overpaid legal department. Well-run companies such as movie productions routinely clear rights including property rights. Apparently the USPS, in its imbecility and/or arrogance, doesn't even have any checklist or any routine procedure to make sure that they are not ripping people off when using intellectual property as part of stamps or other activities.

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

You should be free to take a picture of it - for personal use. The pitfalls come in when you convert that image to commercial use. See my previous comment - take all the pix you want, just don't SELL them.

Speak of the devil:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/25/news/economy/stamps-cost/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

[quote=FredB]You should be free to take a picture of it - for personal use. The pitfalls come in when you convert that image to commercial use. See my previous comment - take all the pix you want, just don't SELL them.

Correct, absolutely. There's almost never any issue about taking a photo. The issues arise when using it for commercial purposes (which is much broader than just selling it).

And speaking of Postal Service money-wasting...or insider dishonesty, here's a whopper:

The USPS made a deal with FedEx to have FedEx planes carry mail for the USPS. FedEx has a huge fleet of jets and they ALWAYS HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF UNUSED CAPACITY. Knowing that the USPS mail would be pure profit for FedEx, the USPS COULD have driven a hard bargain and gotten a bargain rate. Instead, the USPS made a deal with FedEx in which the USPS is paying THREE TIMES the going commercial rate.

Great deal, verging on larceny for FedEx. Lousy deal for the USPS and taxpayers.

ygelman Loc: new -- North of Poughkeepsie!

You had implied it was only a normal furniture store, after which there are only the usual owner rights. Specialized stores/galleries have different arrangements when they sell items.

You may object, but there is a legal difference.

That was your choice; apparently you agreed.

mel Loc: Jacksonville, Florida

If I took a picture of a sculpture and sold it, say to a stock house and they sold it for $7.00, then do you think the copyright owner would sue me for 10%, I doubt it.

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

Probably be a lot more, but the stock agencies aren't likely to accept such an image. Not for stock use, anyway. Some of them are dealing with editorial imagery now - can be used in news stories and magazine articles, but not in advertising, nothing for resale.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

If the copyright in the sculpture was timely-registered with the copyright office, the sculptor could sue you for HIS CHOICE of actual damages OR statutory damages. Statutory damages can go to $150,000, though $10,000-20,000 is far more common. Plus you'd be on the hook for sculptor's attorney fees.

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

Assuming it's allowed to use cameras, I could hop over to the Louvre, take a nice clear shot of the Mona Lisa, then come home, print it, frame it, and even hang it on my wall.

I just can't charge admission to come see it.. :) LOL

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

Can't say for sure, but I doubt the Louvre will allow you in the building with a camera. Instead, they'll suggest you visit their gift shop.

Ka2azman Loc: Tucson, Az

Sorry, not only can't you charge admission, you must blind all visitors with a sharp stick. Let me know where you live so I don't accidentally visit. I'd like to drive myself home.

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

Have seriously considered this in other situations.

:XD: