where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
This case involves a public art sculpture that was paid for with public money and is displayed on a public sidewalk. A photographer took a picture of it and made $60USD from selling his pic on a stock photo website.
The sculptor recently found out about the photo and is suing for thousands ($60,000USD?). Be careful of what you photograph and put up for sale!
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Photographer-sued-for-photo-of-public-art.html
Thanks Andreas
Makes sense. I support the sculptor. I don't really understand why he is suing for so much, but it's gotta be tied more to the the fact the stock photo might be massively used. Moreover it's probably more of a scare tactic for future. Anyway, I support him. It doesn't matter that the sculptor made it for public with taxpayer's money. It was a contract. And he didn't give up his copyright to it, form what it seems.
EDIT:
**** I should restate my first statement. I support the sculptor in his right to protect his art from being used commercially. His copyright is still valid. But sueing the photog who made only $60 from the said image, is taking it too far.****
This is rather silly. In my view. Firstly it is a public art sculpture, funded by public money and it sits in a public space.
Technically the photographer is part of the same tax paying public. So he should have the rights to the pictures as he would have paid through his taxes.
The whole thing is ridiculous. You can't hold a citizen to ransom because he has taken pictures and sold them to a stock house.
Firstly stock places pay you pittance.
Its like saying, You coming into Sydney harbour and looking at the opera house created by the architect john utzon and saying you cannot take pictures of the structure cause the architect who built it is having doubts over all the stock photos sold of the opera house and it should be another revenue stream for him.
Actually I do wonder who has the copyrights to that. really.
If the artist has created it and put it in a public space. Its for the public to enjoy and celebrate it. Selling a few pictures for a few dollars isn't going to make the photographer any richer but by objecting to such an absurdity you lower your own self to be pedestrian at heart.
grow up.
;D
Look it's really simple. The issue is about taking pictures, and using them commercially. The artist still holds the copyright. It's not like he didn't have one and now is making a stink about it. He has the legal protection from having his art being reproduced for commercial purposes. Yes the photog made only $60 bucks from it. Yes it is pretty frivolous trying to get 60k in compensatory damages. Will he get it? Most likely not. What does he accomplish with this? The story was aired on the local news, giving him some exposure to his side of the story.
I personally would just stop on making sure that the image was removed from the microstock agency's website. Like it was. I wouldn't sue the photog. That's just being a prick about IMHO.
**** I should restate my first statement. I support the sculptor in his right to protect his art from being used commercially. His copyright is still valid. But sueing the photog who made only $60 from the said image, is taking it too far.****
What comes to mind here for me is the story of the Eiffel Tower and it's prohibition of taking pictures at night.
qwerty said: You can't hold a citizen to ransom because he has taken pictures and sold them to a stock house.
It's one private citizen suing another private citizen. The sculptor has a copyright, he can in fact sue him for compensatory damages.
Yeah it's pretty shitty of him to draw out such a long legal battle and drown the guy in legal fees, but well it's still within his right.
The rules of copyright were created to safegaurd a person and his contribution but it seems today the issue is that the very rules that are meant to safeguard are taken literally to the Nth degree.
Firstly I must say I'm no expert at copyright laws and I don't know the legalities but once things are in the public domain. Shouldn't the civic body have laid out proper paperwork?
Perhaps it wasn't much of an issue back in the day. I don't know how one can exercise copyright in the public domain!
In fact if hes being so protective of his art he should lay it on his own floor and do the boogie.
To drawn a strange analogy,
Its almost like saying here is an imaginary line on the map, latitude and longitude so and so. This is where the country X exists. Now some guy comes along and starts drawing a physical line based on some facts and say dude I have paperwork to draw this line.
Before the line was drawn there was no problem. People existed and before any imaginary lines were drawn the earth stood there perfectly as it is even today. But lies were drawn and wars were fought. Crazy huh!
Anyway that whole paragraph is out of context but it does highlight one thing.
people can be petty. If your work gives some guy some satisfaction I would be happy that someone see value in my contribution.
If I was the artist I'd say move on. Do your next best thing and stop wasting time on what has been.
Its water under the bridge.
Honestly, as a stock photographer, I'm all about protecting my copyright. However, I also recognize the "fair use" doctrine.
In this case, the photographer did not take a picture of the "footsteps art" embedded in the sidewalk, as a primary subject. His photo was of a model dancing on those footsteps, doing what the city that paid for the art intended it be used for. Only part of the artwork shows in the image, and it is clearly not the primary subject, although it is being used by the real primary subject.
This appears to be a case where an artist is getting a little greedy and looking for an additional revenue stream. He is currently suing 30 people for similar "infringments" of his copyright.
As an author, I wouldn't be happy if someone photocopied one of my books and sold it. However, if a photographer happened to take a stock picture of someone reading my book, and then sold the picture, I'd not object at all. I'd consider it free advertising.
The photographer has a donation button on his blog, and I donated $10 to him. Read the story and help the guy out. All of us have taken pictures with someone's art in them. "Fair use" must be protected as well as copyright, or we might as well put our cameras away for good.
-Darrell Young
Honestly, as a stock photographer, I'm all about protecting my copyright. However, I also recognize the "fair use" doctrine.
In this case, the photographer did not take a picture of the "footsteps art" embedded in the sidewalk—as a primary subject. His photo was of a model dancing on those footsteps, doing what the city that paid for the art intended it be used for. Only part of the artwork shows in the image, and it is clearly not the primary subject, although it is being used by the real primary subject.
This appears to be a case where an artist, Jack Mackie, is getting a little greedy and looking for an additional revenue stream. He is currently suing 30 people for similar "infringments" of his copyright. Mr. Mackie has copied the dance steps for the Waltz, Tango, and FoxTrot. Did he invent those dance steps? Nope! Did he invent the shape of a shoe that he embedded in the sidewalk? Nope! My point? He is using ideas created by others. Fair use? Yes.
As an author, I wouldn't be happy if someone photocopied one of my books and sold it. However, if a photographer happened to take a stock picture of someone reading my book, and then sold the picture, I'd not object at all. I'd consider it free advertising.
The photographer, Mike Hipple, has a donation button on his blog, and I donated $10 to him. Read the story and help the guy out. All of us have taken pictures with someone's "art" in them. "Fair use" must be protected as well as copyright, or we might as well put our cameras away for good.
-Darrell Young
Hmmm, the edit button seems to have created a copy of my post. Could a moderator delete the first post (smallest), please?
qwerty said:
Firstly I must say I'm no expert at copyright laws and I don't know the legalities but once things are in the public domain. Shouldn't the civic body have laid out proper paperwork?
Not sure I follow you ... What do you mean, "in the public domain" - that it is sitting outside? No, that is not in the public domain. What paperwork, to what effect, do you think the city should have "laid out"?
I am not a copyright expert, but it seems to me that the issue here is that the artist DID retain the copyright, the photo taken by the photog (at least what I've seen) DOES prominently portray the copyrighted footsteps, and the photo was used for commercial gain. That's pretty much copyright infringment in a nutshell.
I think the problem is the photographer cropped his picture to show just the art work on the sidewalk. It would be the same as going into a art museum and photographing a painting, then selling it.
Obviously, if he hadn't of charged for the picture none of this would of been an issue. This has nothing to do with shooting in public, it has to do with making a profit off of someone else's work.
Anyways, this is just my opinion and I can understand both sides of the issues.
I agree with most of what's already been said. I can see the sculptor's point of view and I can see the photog's too. Darrell, what if someone used a page from your book and used it as a background for a picture of a computer monitor?
The photo is of the computer monitor but what is being displayed is your page with your words and diagrams. Your name does not appear on the "photo" so you get no free advertisement. The photographer then sells this photo for $10 dollars to apple computers who then use it for advertisements of their monitor. Is that OK with you?
On the other hand I can see the photographers side of the issue too. I think he was wrong but by taking down the photo and perhaps paying an initial "fee" to the sculptor that should have been the end of it. Waiting an entire YEAR after the photographer takes the photo off-line at the stock agency to sue is what makes the Sculptor seem like an A-hole to me.
Unfortunately being an A-hole isn't against the law but making money off of someone else's work is. So I think the photog is pretty much screwed. I can't sell pictures of my family in front of Sleeping Beauty Castle during a fireworks show, even if my family is the "main" focus. The artwork might not be as well know as Sleeping Beauty Castle but it is protected under copyright just the same.
Not trying to defend either side - just an FYI. The suit may not have been filed for almost a year because negotiations were ongoing, and when no satisfactory solution was reached, suit had to be filed before the statute of limitations ran (1 year for many claims). Don't know if this took place here, but in my experience, more often than not, that is why the suit seems to be filed so long after the "incident".
When you put it that way NikoDoby, it would raise alarms with me too. However, intent is involved. I don't think there was any intention to use someone else's copyright on the photographer's part. Of course, that makes little difference in a civil case.
I think the worst thing that happened here is that the photographer probably never even though of the image as being a piece of copyrighted art. It isn't a statue or painting, just some bronze looking feet embedded in the concrete.
It certainly has made me more aware of what I take pictures of. I do a lot of editorial photography on Alamy, and there are always things in the images that would cause a lot of problems if used commercially.
In this case, the one that published the picture is at fault for not obtaining a release. The photograper has been hit with a civil lawsuit, which anyone can do against anyone else. I think I'll buy some insurance, now.
Good point warprints. That maybe true, but the way I understand it is that within that year the sculptor did successfully sue the stock agency and received some kind of settlement. After he "won" that "case" he decided to go after the photographer too. According to the photog the sculptor is the one who refuses to come to the "table" and discuss a settlement.
That's why I posted this Darrell. As photographers it is up to us to know the laws in our area. Even then that is no guarantee trouble will be avoided. People often think I'm over reacting when I bring issues like this up during a photo shoot but as a photographer I don't want a simple photograph I take to become a huge legal nightmare.
qwerty said:
This is rather silly. In my view. Firstly it is a public art sculpture, funded by public money and it sits in a public space.Technically the photographer is part of the same tax paying public. So he should have the rights to the pictures as he would have paid through his taxes.
The whole thing is ridiculous. You can't hold a citizen to ransom because he has taken pictures and sold them to a stock house.Firstly stock places pay you pittance.
Its like saying, You coming into Sydney harbour and looking at the opera house created by the architect john utzon and saying you cannot take pictures of the structure cause the architect who built it is having doubts over all the stock photos sold of the opera house and it should be another revenue stream for him.
Actually I do wonder who has the copyrights to that. really.If the artist has created it and put it in a public space. Its for the public to enjoy and celebrate it. Selling a few pictures for a few dollars isn't going to make the photographer any richer but by objecting to such an absurdity you lower your own self to be pedestrian at heart.
grow up.
;D
I agree with you 100% if I understand you correctly. This is comletely and totally idiotic! I have pictures myself taken in Seattle's Olympic Sculpture Park.
Besides that, how many photos have sold and are up for sale in galleries and stores the world over of public (and private property in the case of buildings). Regualator I hope you're paying special attention to this thread. If you were to want to seel any of your photos, this could set a horrible precedent if it were something in the US.
This case falls under US law, not Canadian. But if Regulator took pictures of Sleeping Beauty Castle he could be sued for selling those pictures. Buildings can have copyright too. A skyline however isn't.
This case centers around making profit off of other people's work. Not what you can and can't take pictures of.
qwerty said:
If the artist has created it and put it in a public space. Its for the public to enjoy and celebrate it.
By that logic Qwerty all of the pictures we have online are free and for the taking then. Anyone can take a screen capture of your photos and sell them as part of an iphone screen saver app for example.
I don't think so.
NikoDoby said:
This case falls under US law, not Canadian. But if Regulator took pictures of Sleeping Beauty Castle he could be sued for selling those pictures. Buildings can have copyright too. A skyline however isn't.This case centers around making profit off of other people's work. Not what you can and can't take pictures of.
I'm aware of both of these facts. That's why I added if it he were to ever take pictures in the US.
Also, many photos are sold of things people took pictures of that were built by some other artist. Many things photographed in cities and sold are frequently of the sort in question in this thread.
Just because it is often done doesn't mean it is not a copyright infringement. People download software and music without paying for it all the time. It doesn't make it right or legal.
This is a tough situation. I think the sculptor had the right to ask for removal of the photo, but I think the photographer most likely acted in good faith—probably completely unaware of the copyright status until he got the cease and desist notice. I also think the sculptor should have let it go at that, but I don't understand copyright law enough to have an opinion about whether a civil suit could be filed.
I'm no expert in this, but google Chuck Gentile. He's the photographer here in Cleveland that photographed the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. H e stood on a public sidewalk when he took the pictures. If I remember correctly, employees of the Rock Hall even removed trash cans from the site so they wouldn't be in the shot. He marketed one of the shots as a poster, and the Rock Hall sued him for infringing on their trademark. After a number of years, Gentile won and was allowed to market his poster. It did cost him thousands of dollars in legal fees, and loss of work while he was fighting this. I don't know how this would compare to the issue here with this artist.
Jon
Yeah that's right I remember that case. I'm not sure how it ended up though because of appeals back and forth. In that case I think the Hall of Fame is in the right. How can they let this guy make money off of their trademark? The photo was taken from a public sidewalk but the building is clearly the focus of the shot. I'd post the picture but I don't want to get sued!
NikoDoby said:
Just because it is often done doesn't mean it is not a copyright infringement. People download software and music without paying for it all the time. It doesn't make it right or legal.
I understand what you're saying and if this is true across the entire spectrum, I agree with you.
But, if someone takes a picture of a cityscape loaded with lots of buildings and other things designed by someone else and sells it which does happen, how is this different? Perhaps I misunderstood something but I was under the impression that public places were open to the public. if you design something and then donate it to the public, it quite effectively is no longer yours and therefore you've given up all rights to it.
You must log in to post.
