OT: Copyright - NOT Music, photogs

farss wrote on 3/11/2008, 5:18 PM

Client gave me a copy of "Capture". high end local photography mag that I started to read last night. There are articles titled "Fighting for your rights" and "Help! My copyright has been breached"

The stuff on outright theft I'm cool with as we all should be. If that was the limit I wouldn't be saying anything. Except I found comments by Fiona Lake, a rural photog from nth Queensland jaw dropping. She takes artists who make paintings inspired by her photography to task as their paintingd dilute the value of her art prints. Others take architects to court because their designs are based on or inspired by their photography.
What happens if we shoot a scene that frames a building in the same manner as someone's prints, what if our color grading is 'inspired' by the look of Fiona's landscapes, heck some of us down here could well shoot the same angles of the same landscapes as part of our movies. Are we 'diluting' the value of her work?

Spot once said something along the lines of 'We might stand on the shoulders of giants, that doesn't mean we can steal from them' and I agree entirely but these giants seem pretty determined to squash us, where is the line in the sand. Don't we all take inspiration from the work of others, don't we copy styles, angles, timing of cuts and looks. I'm all for protecting the work of others but how do we progress without in some way diluting the value of their work.

Bob.

Comments

AlanC wrote on 3/12/2008, 3:16 AM

Surely the owner of the item or property that has been photographed holds the copyright and it is the photographer who is in breach.

Even if the photograph is of a landscape, unless the photographer owns the elements of the landscape they could only claim copyright to the photographic image, not to the scene and if they didn't get permission from the owner of the landscape, then they themselves could end up in hot water.

JJKizak wrote on 3/12/2008, 6:43 AM

Gee, I would hate to be Rudy Maxa taking all those travelog pictures of buildings and museum paintings. He would owe billions in copyrights.
JJK

AlanC wrote on 3/12/2008, 6:48 AM

My point being that a photographer can not expect to copyright something they did not create. They may claim protection of the photograph but nothing more than that.

Spot|DSE wrote on 3/12/2008, 9:09 AM

David Hague sent me that article for commentary, Bob. She's a little nuts, IMO.
If the painters were taking her prints and painting over the subject...then she'd have a commentary obligation, IMO. But for someone to look at her photo of anything that is outside of her personal domain and be inspired of it, such as her images of cowboys around a campfire, and paint what the images inspire, is just plain nuts. Inspiration comes in all forms, and if the words, images, melodies, yadayada of others are influential...so be it, IMO.

corug7 wrote on 3/12/2008, 9:28 AM

I heard cavemen were planning to strike over their FIRE royalties.

farss wrote on 3/12/2008, 2:39 PM

Agreed.

I just got the email from the ACC about proposed changes to the resale rights of images. I can understand that we all have to eat but whenever I talk to clients about copyright and it gets to photographers I can see the veins on their necks about to pop, it seems it's almost impossible to get one to work as work for hire. At the same time these guys are moaning about doing it tough thanks to the low cost of DSLRs and Getty dropping the prices on stock images.

Bob.

sibeliusfan wrote on 3/12/2008, 9:28 PM

I think the photographer has a case if the painting is so VERY close, that it's instantly recognizable as being from her photo. Some artists don't even draw anymore—they just use a projector and trace over the photograph, onto their canvas. It's almost like paint by numbers (well, not quite, but in some cases, pretty close). I think that's pretty shameless.

I am a *VERY* amateur photographer and artist, and my feeling is, if an artist uses my photograph of, for example, the Grand Canyon as inspiration, and I cannot instantly TELL that they used my photo, then I really don't care. But if it is so obvious that everyone can tell, then it matters!

I don't trace other people's photographs, but occasionally I will use someone's photo as reference for a very simple sketch, or to give me an idea. I can't imagine that the photographer will ever recognize their photograph in my finished artwork, (since I change it and modify it so much) so I feel no guilt about doing that, and certainly do not believe it's a copyright violation.

ushere wrote on 3/12/2008, 11:08 PM

i know quite a few so called 'artists' who shoot digital, manipulate in ps, print onto canvas, stretch and then hang them, some call them art prints, some don't even go that far....

i think every creative person should take a deep breath before getting on their high horse about the 'uniqueness' of their work. we all create our little masterpieces, but we're also influenced by what we see (hear) as well.

i think i'm going to patent having an interviewee sitting to the right of frame. and if any of you buggers copies me, i'll SUE!!!

leslie

Maverick wrote on 3/13/2008, 3:12 AM

I have been reading many of these copyright threads with interest.

I am just wondering...

Charging & sueing over copyright issues - could this just be a great way to make a fast buck without having to actually do anything?

Paul Fierlinger wrote on 3/13/2008, 5:31 AM

I deal with this issue on a daily basis in my work. I draw scenes of places I have never been to through the convenience of the Internet. If I'm working on a film about Cambodia I don't have to travel there anymore; I can find all I need to know to create a convincingly authentic representation of a food market by downloading a few still photographs from the web.

But if I come across a composition that is noticeably unique, by its setting and characters -- something that clearly shows creative thought behind the picture, I'll steer away from it.

But isn't it true that the law considers plagiarism of a painting only when the dimensions are the same as the original, by which it is clearly declared a copy by its creator if the copy is smaller than the oroginal etc.? Copyright protection in writing protects only the text, not the story. Otherwise there would be only one love story, one spy thriller etc.

I'd say that it is left to the integrity of each one of us to treat the work of others with the respect the piece deserves by our own ethical standards. If I start reading a book and soon discover that the story was first made up by someone else, I toss the book aside and put the writer on my personal blacklist.

Likewise, I would never want the public to recognize someone's unique work of art incorporated in my own for fear that I would loose the respect of my viewers. Do we need the law to tell us what not to do in every instance of our performance?