copyright with art repro

[michaelnotar]

i understand that copying 2d art such as paintings or drawings onto another medium (LF film/file) is not another expression and thus no claim to copyright can be made by the creator of the copy.

however, how about photographing 3d art (sculptures, pottery)...how is that different? can the creator of the of the original art (me) in the secondary medium (film/file) claim any copyright?

any circumstances around it that could change things up...?

thanks

[Mike Keller]

I'm not sure what the issue is? Are these photographs of the 3D art in installation views? Or studio photos of the art?

The artist holds the copyright to the artwork, and if you try to publish (sell) photos that include the art, the question is kind of "are they pictures of the art or pictures of scenes with the art?" I'm quite certain that you hold the copyright to your pictures, to the extent that if someone wants to use them they have to pay, but if anyone but the artist wants to use them, you'd pretty much need to negotiate with the artist over their use.

If the photo is a street scene that includes a sculpture, but the sculpture is not the main focus of the image, then you would have no problem. But if you're obviously photographing the sculpture, then you have some issues.

[michaelnotar]

it would be like a pot on seamless lit nicely/artistically to promote the artists work, but perhaps that the image would not be sellable esp. as their art.

[BobSmith]

This is not unlike a situation where you photograph a person... a model. You control the copyright to the photos you create but you can't use them without also obtaining permission from the model as the model has a right to control the use of their likeness. Photographing a piece of artwork is much the same. You can copyright your images but you can't use them for just anything without some sort of release/permission from the creator of the art work that you photographed.

Bob Smith

[michaelnotar]

so it would be a two way street with the artist...we can help or hinder each others reproduction of the images equally.

[Ed Gerson]

This reminds me - wasn't Buckingham Palace or some other British landmark essentially copyrighted and/or trademarked so that postcard vendors had to pay a fee?

I've seen sculptures used as subjects by photographers to make a political or a personal point etc. I wonder how the sculptors feel about this appropriation of their work?

[DougAxford]

Any landmark that can be copyrighted and used for commercial purposes can or has been - just ask Disney.

The answers to artwork is correct as I understand it. You need permission for commercial reproduction unless it is for news or editorial comment.

BTW, I listened to a radio interview today on my way to a sports field talking about software makers who put info on your computer to prevent cracking or illegal use of their software. It seems the US law is now putting violators in jail who tamper with this info. It's OK to delete it, but not to tamper with it. Problem is that by deleting it, you are tampering, in their opinion. Just what I heard.