Photographer Sued....

This was a news item i saw...

There were these bronze feet that had been arranged in a side walk as dance steps and this was a fairly busy public side walk...The photographer took a picture of his feet, shoes, on the bronze dance steps and added that image to his Corbis (spelling?) account which is a on line stock photography site as i'm sure you all know...

That image sold and he had made $60.00 off the picture....Well the bronze feet have right on them that little c with the circle around it indicating copy right...Now the artist of the bronze feet is suing the photographer. The photographer felt that well its fair game being in the public viewing and all. Now the only game thats being played is by lawyers, his and the artist and he's not got the best chance...

I think the top end for copy right violation is $10,000 per infraction and that amount came about after the birth of Napster back in the day when everyone was down loading music..

So i guess if your image has copy righted works in it be very careful as to what you use that for.

ErikJonas said:

So i guess if your image has copy righted works in it be very careful as to what you use that for.

Click to expand...

Hi Erik,

Copyright can be a tricky business, so it helps to know a bit about it, if only just enough to reduce the potential risks involved. For definitive certainty, only a court of law will be able to provide that.

The fact that the bronze feet were displayed in public, is not enough to assume it's fair game. Depending on one's jurisdiction, it's probably good to know that only a permanent display of a work of art in a public place will generally reduce the possibility to protest against it being photographed. Even then, the "copy" made should not constitute the majority of the image, but it may be used as a secondary element (e.g. part of a backdrop) in a wider view which will then become a new original work.

Anything that's temporarily displayed, even in a public place, is even more likely to be fully covered by the original author's copyricht protection (one example is a shop-window). The US copyright act mentions a couple of exceptions such as monumental buildings that are not protected by copyright, but that doesn't necessarily apply to other jurisdictions outside the US.

Usual disclaimer, IANAL.

Cheers,
Bart

There is no copyright violation since there was no copy. He would have had to had to make bronze feet for it to be a copy or at least some other 3D object. Additionally the subject of the photograph was the photographers feet, the bronze was only the background in a public place.

Anyone can be sued at random for no reason at all!

Hi, Will,

Will Thompson said:

There is no copyright violation since there was no copy. He would have had to had to make bronze feet for it to be a copy or at least some other 3D object.

Click to expand...

I used to believe that. But reading some case law on the matter, I find that many courts, in the case of a photography of a sculpture, have considered that the photograph was a derivative work (a new work drawn directly from elements of the work of interest) and as such has to be considered as a potential infringing use.

In some cases, sadly, the court's decision did not bother to mention the derivative work aspect, and just declared a photograph of sculpture to be a "copy".

I do not mean to suggest that in the case being discussed the photograph would be considered a derivative work - I just wanted to introduce that "connection". And of course the matter of whether the sale of the photograph was in fact infringing is very complex.

In particular, there is the pivotal, but very foggy, doctrine of "fair use" on which actual litigation in a case such as this might turn.

Best regards,

Doug

This may lend an additional interpretation/expalnation (from Wiki, so take it with a grain...):

Buildings are works subject to copyright in the U.S. according to 17 USC 102(a)(8) since the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act was passed in 1990. It applies to all buildings that were completed (not begun) after December 1, 1990, or where the plans were published after that date.
However, the U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts photographs of such copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a). Anyone may take photographs of buildings from public places. This includes such interior public spaces as lobbies, auditoriums, etc. The photographer holds the exclusive copyright to such an image (the architect or owner of the building has no say whatsoever), and may publish the image in any way. 17 USC 120 applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures.
For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork. However, public artwork installed before 1923 is considered to be public domain, and can be photographed freely. (Prior to 1978, when the definition changed, works of art such as statues or sculptures that were permanently installed in a public place were considered in general to be published,[10] so usual U.S. copyright law such as {{PD-US}} or {{PD-1923}} applies.) In these situations, document the date of installation and the creator (sculptor) of the pictured work as much as possible. (A good resource for finding information about U.S. sculptures is the Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalog.) {{PD-US-no notice}} can also apply however, demonstrated in the infamous case surrounding Chicago Picasso.

Hi, John,

A worthwhile reference. However:

John Angulat said:

For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork

Click to expand...

.
That facile explanation completely jumps over the matters of:

• whether a photograph of a sculpture is indeed a derivative work (which is the premise under which a photograph can be subject to the same considerations as an actual "copy"), and
• whether "fair use" obtains

both of which are of course complex and subtle. However, to jump over them with the flat assertion that "any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork" is a bit agricultural.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi Doug,
Not my expalanation, just Wiki's (it came with the disclaimer...).
I'm not "jumping over" anything.
Just wanted to share some add'l information.
I'm not pretending to be a an expert in copyright law.
None of us here are.

Hi, John,

John Angulat said:

Hi Doug,
Not my expalanation, just Wiki's (it came with the disclaimer...).

Click to expand...

Of course.

I'm not "jumping over" anything.

Click to expand...

I understand. It was the "material" to which I referred.

Just wanted to share some add'l information.

Click to expand...

And thanks.

I'm not pretending to be a an expert in copyright law.

Click to expand...

Me neither.

None of us here are.

Click to expand...

Dunno. I haven't looked at the credentials of all the members.

Thanks again.

Best regards,

Doug

Some very good points brought out here...I cant explain the picture in question other then to say the brass feet in the side walk are the focal point of the image...Not something thats some what visable...They are front and center...

Any resolution of this one known ?