photographing art and copyright of images

[michaelnotar]

to bring up an old post....

i understand that when i photograph a painting, drawing of an artist and copy it into another medium (digital or film) that i have only copied the art work and hold no copyright to the duplicate form.

i wonder about when i photograph a sculpture, who owns copyright of the images produced of it? i can see the copying of the art in the other situation holds no creative elements and therefore no more intellectual properties, but sculptures required custom lighting and many more decisions.

someone commented in the past that it depends of what the purpose of the image is or what is the focus of an image. for example, a cityscape contains many buildings that are individually copyright protected for design etc, but they are not the focus of the image.

i had just completed a lot of work with a client, who was amazing to work with, but i still am curious about this note as i am entering the art world and hope to work with other artists i want to prepare myself. i understand the copyright on the commercial side of my biz, not this side though. i think he would agree that it was a joint effort.

the one thing i have a huge problem with in the commercial world and dont want to happen when i do art copy, is if i am hired to produce something and then they sell it as their own for direct profit (merchandise, prints, etc), not posters for advertisement. i know it breaks copyright law too.


studio site: Shutterworks Photography

see art copy section of portfolio

[BobSmith]

The photographer owns the copyright to a photograph of a work of art. The photographer can control the licensing of that particular photograph. However the photographer is not free to use that image without permission from the creator of the original art. This is not much different from photography of a person. You own the copyright to the photograph and control how you license the use of that photo, but in many cases you can't publish the likeness of that person without permission from the person... and you might have to pay a fee or some other compensation to get that release.

Bob Smith

[Jerry Skrocki]

Originally Posted by BobSmith

The photographer owns the copyright to a photograph of a work of art. The photographer can control the licensing of that particular photograph. However the photographer is not free to use that image without permission from the creator of the original art. This is not much different from photography of a person. You own the copyright to the photograph and control how you license the use of that photo, but in many cases you can't publish the likeness of that person without permission from the person... and you might have to pay a fee or some other compensation to get that release.

Bob Smith

I disagree with this opinion. The photographer does not own the copyright to the photo (exact copy) of a work of art as it is not an original work. If the photo of the artwork was part of the background of a larger photo that also contained people and other objects, the photographer would own the copyright and could do what he/she wanted with the photo. No permission from the original artist is needed.

IP and Business: Using Photographs of Copyrighted Works and Trademarks

Artwork does not have rights, people do.

Laws are subject to the jurisdiction of the locality, but in general a photographer does not need permission (model release) from an individual to publish their image. If the image depicts the person in a defamatory manner, the photographer/publisher could be subject to a libel lawsuit.

[Doug_Kerr]

Hi. Michael,

Originally Posted by michaelnotar

i wonder about when i photograph a sculpture, who owns copyright of the images produced of it?

An important concept here is that a photographic image of a sculpture is in no way a "copy" of the sculpture - if it were, it would be three-dimensional.

The same is true of a photograph of a "copyrighted" building - if the photographer's work product were a copy of the building, it would be -- a building.

[BobSmith]

Originally Posted by Jerry Skrocki

I disagree with this opinion. The photographer does not own the copyright to the photo (exact copy) of a work of art as it is not an original work.

Yes but a photo of any 3 dimensional piece is NOT an exact copy. It's the photographer's interpretation of a vision of that piece and is very much a creative work eligible for copyright. You might not be able to do much with that copyright without consent from the creator of whatever you photographed but that same artist must certainly respect the photographer's copyright as well. They can't reproduce the photographers work at will just because the photographer captured a piece they created.

Bob Smith

[BobSmith]

Originally Posted by Jerry Skrocki

Laws are subject to the jurisdiction of the locality, but in general a photographer does not need permission (model release) from an individual to publish their image.

They do if it's for commercial use. That's the situation I was referencing and why I said "many cases" not all cases.

Bob Smith

[Jerry Skrocki]

Apparently no one read the link I posted. Here is an excerpt of an example where a three dimensional structure becomes a copyrighted work of art:

"The design of the lighting used to illuminate the Eiffel Tower at night is considered a work of art in itself. The Tower's official website states: "There are no restrictions on publishing a picture of the Tower by day. Photos taken at night when the lights are aglow are subjected to copyright laws, and fees for the right to publish must be paid to the Société Nouvelle d'exploitation de la Tour Eiffel."

Here is another link explaining copyright and works of art:

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sme/..._www_54903.doc