Another legal matter...

Dr.Louis

Hey all... I've read up on photographing people and who has the rights etc...

But something that I'd like to know is, if I take a photo of someone's art (in this case a sculpture) is it okay to use the image as my own? Or do I need permission from the artist?

The sculpture is a large rock with bronze faces spiraling around it and the photo is of one of the faces... So it's only part of the sculpture- not a full frame shot.

Any advice would be very much appreciated! Thanks

rymus

I'd be fairly confident saying that you'd need permission from the artist. You could find yourself in awfully hot water if you tried to sell a copy of the image.

Paulw

I'd have to agree. Most probably you need the permission of the artist.

Dr.Louis

Okidoki Thanks, what if I didn't want to sell the photo, but use it in an exhibition or something?

bigeoino

would same apply to graffiti?

Paulw

I'd stay away from using such. Really it's not showing your photography, but showing someone elses sculpture. Very thin ice to use something like that even just for an exhibition.

Dr.Louis

Right-oh, thanks a million!

rymus

same deal... sale or presentation for public viewing would need permission from the original artist.

amcinroy

This is very tricky ground. I have always felt that photographing someone elses art is a partnership at best and 100% plagarism at worst.

If you feel that you can really add new artistic value to the original artwork then I would try contacting the artist and establish a working relationship. Otherwise I wouldn't bother unless they are for purely for personal use. And I mean that strictly, i.e no uploading to web forums etc. If the artist finds them you could be in big trouble.

But then we could get really deep and argue the morals of architectural photography. The architect surely holds a large portion share of the artistic value in this case too ?

On a side note, did you know that the eiffel tower is copyright when lit only? So you can photograph it during the daytime and sell your images but you can't when it's got it's lights on. The lighting arrangement is under strict copyright control.

Andy

Oriel

bigeoino wrote:

would same apply to graffiti?

Why anybody would want to photograph ****ty vandalism is beyond me.

City-Exile

I believe that if something is in a public place, you are free to photograph it and would not be obliged to require permission from the artist.
To give and example, I've seen countless pictures, for sale, of the Molly Malone statue, in Dublin. There is never any reference to the image being used by licence.

amcinroy

I believe that you have the right to photograph anything and anyone while standing in a public place (obviously there are exceptions like military installations etc).

The trouble is publishing. And self publishing on the web would fall under this too.

Publishing copyrighted artwork (sculpture, painting, architecture etc) could land you in trouble if the copyright holder decides to sue.

Publishing photos of people will land you in similar problems if you are using these people to send out a message or endorsement. Different laws here obviously.

Andy

TJM

Copyright in sculptures, etc. will extend to photographs of same. See section 39 of the Copyright & Related Rights Act

"References in this Part to copying shall be construed as including references to all or any of the following, namely ... in relation to an artistic work, the making of a copy in three dimensions of a two dimensional work and the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three dimensional work"

However there is a specific exemption in respect of sculptures, etc., which are on public display. Section 93 CRRA:

93.—(1) This section applies to the copyright in—

(a) buildings, and

(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, where permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.

(2) The copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by—

(a) making a painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart, plan, engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut, print or similar thing representing it,

(b) making a photograph or film of it, or

(c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service, an image of it.

(3) The copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by the making available to the public of copies of anything the making of which is not, by virtue of this section, an infringement of the copyright in the work.

To that extent city exile is correct and (subject to other applicable rules of law such as moral rights or passing off) photographers are free to photograph and publish photographs of public art.

As usual this does not constitute legal advice on your particular situation nor does it create a lawyer client relationship.

magicbastarder

i doubt there would be any issue taking a photo from public land of a sculpture, for editorial purposes. if there was, any photo used by the irish times, say, would have to be vetted for any intellectual property visible in the photo.

City-Exile

TJM wrote:

As usual this does not constitute legal advice on your particular situation nor does it create a lawyer client relationship.

That disclaimer goes for me too.

gandalf

Jaysus must check this cause I want to use one of Big Jim Larkin for the Peoples Photography exhibition at the very least. I logve taking flicks of statues.

Dr.Louis

Hmm okay, thanks again guys- the sculpture in question is actually on private grounds...

The only thing in my defence is that I believe the photo has created another aspect of the sculpture, ie- it doesn't look good because it's a nice sculpture, but because the photo is good... Haven't a clue how to say that without sounding full of myself so sorry about that!