Copyrights again

[echnidna]

Is there any legal or ethical reason why I shouldn't download historical art works and sell the prints.?

[Zed]

so long as the copyright has time expired, no.

thats why modern ochestras, movie makers and tv ads ike the "classics" :
1)
the composer is long dead so no royalty, however a modern recording of a "classic" attracts copyright fees....
2) all the symphony musos "know" the "classics" so practice time and therefore $$ is minimised...

same for pics.

be prepared to be called a plagurist though... ;) :D

[DavidG]

Problem might be that you are downloading an image of a "Photo". The taker of that photo owns the copyright of the photo.

Take your own photo and you should be Ok.

[echnidna]

Problem might be that you are downloading an image of a "Photo". The taker of that photo owns the copyright of the photo.

Take your own photo and you should be Ok.

The collection I am looking at is overseas.

I would argue a photographer does not own the rights of the image (or artwork) of an expired copyright contained in their photo. So it could be argued that their copyright claim is specious
I feel unless they specifically state that their photo contains an abridged image then they cannot copyright the image. Vaguely seem to recall a court decision along those lines

[DavidG]

Contact a legal person who deals in this area.
All I know is that someone who takes a photo owns the copyright over that image. (Me complaining about a photo place)

[Greg Q]

The place that took our wedding photos were quite insistent on their copyrights. Fair enough. Too bad they then went and used our photos in their promo material without a model's release. That cost 'em a free album.:D

[Daddles]

Bob, if you use work done by someone else, you are stealing from them. Now, perhaps that person doesn't care, perhaps they have made their profit and are happy for others to benefit. But mate, it's like you producing some wonderful product out of wood and some other bastard making a profit from it - maybe you care, maybe you don't, maybe you are just chuffed that someone likes your work.

Sure, there are lots of legal considerations, but if go to your lawyer without looking at it from this angle, you are morally guilty of theft.

In most cases, a polite email will give you the answer you need ... and perhaps better quality images (eg Don't use the ones on the internet, I'll give you some at three times the resolution). For those tempted to bomb us with war stories, I've had it go both ways alright?

Richard

[Greg Q]

Bob, if you use work done by someone else, you are stealing from them.

snip....

For those tempted to bomb us with war stories, I've had it go both ways alright?

Richard

alright. On the other hand, I have had people assert, wrongly and stupidly, that if they take a photo of an object then all like photos violate their copyright.

[BobR]

When you come to copyright on a global scale you are getting into a complex area. In some countries no copyright exists unless the work of art (photograph) is registered. In Australia no registration is required - the photographer owns the copyright by virtue of pressing the button. When you purchase a photograph you purchase the copy, you do not purchase the copyright. This may be a separate transaction though. Where you commission a photographer to do work for you (in Aus) then the negatives are yours unless you agree otherwise. You will also, more likely than not, be asked to sign an Agreement that gives copyright and usage rights to the photographer. With digital, negatives become a non issue. A similar image does not violate anyones copyright. However, where a photographer/artist has provided some creative input to the image, and someone recreates this artistic content, then copyright MAY have been violated. Thereis different criteria around the world for when copyright expires, and my understanding is that it is not necessarily consistent for different art forms. By downloading and selling the work the risk is yours!

[echnidna]

Bob, if you use work done by someone else, you are stealing from them.

Richard

I'm talking about making prints of paintings done in the 17th & 18th century so the artists and their heirs have long passed on and the paintings are now in the public domain.

I don't regard that as stealing.

[echnidna]

I've got an idea that our copyright laws may have changed as a result of the trade deal with the states.

[BobR]

Paintings. I know that there are several people around the world making copies of some of the old masters' works. These are not prints, but painted copies - and are sold as such. An interview with one such artist revealed that these people are received with mixed feelings in the art world. I suspect that this implies that copies can be made and sold. Though prints are more likely to be acceptable as the medium is totally different and not subject to comments related to fraud. I guess that now that we bush lawyers have all had a go you are no wiser for having aske the question. :rolleyes:

[Schtoo]

On this subject, there is an art museum not far from here that doesn't have any originals, only copies.

Only one of it's kind in the world apparently and, from what I hear, pretty good.

When I get there I'll take lots of pictures because it's very much allowed, as is touching everything.

On copyright, I dunno. :D

[Studley 2436]

The Federal Government has an office that deals specifically with copyright. You can find all you need to know about the copyright law from them without getting specific legal advice.

Regarding Photographs copyright exists from the moment there is a file. The law was changed because the previous definition said physical. With digital there is nothing physical recorded.

Copyright on photos is with the photographer for all photos except for portraits and weddings. The negatives files belong in the law to the photographer the copyright to the customer. As you can see that is a mess. Both parties are legally quiet able to refuse the other any use at all.

Part of our portrait and also our wedding contract deals with this specifically that the customer gives me copyright. I won't waive this. If the customer wants to have the copyright they can go to another studio. I do include a limited model release also that allows me to show the photos in competition and various promotional uses. I will waive this if I even get a hint that the customer doesn't want other people seeing their photos. One example is a passport photo I did recently that the customer who was a fairly old woman said she didn't want shown to anyone. So I struck the model release off the paperwork she signed. Real shame there was something striking about her face and I would have loved to have sent it to be judged.


I have heard photographers say that if someone takes a photo then for anyone else to do the same photo is a breach of copyright. I think this is a theoretical possition only and I disagree with it. For one how can you possibly know for sure if a photo you are taking now has not been taken in the past? The other is how can two different photos be called the same. Same lens aperture shutter, same film, or sensor, same printing, same format, sheeze the list goes on. Even then do you have the same light the same model the same mood atmosphere. Is this thing exactly the same today as it was yesterday?

Studley

[Daddles]

I have heard photographers say that if someone takes a photo then for anyone else to do the same photo is a breach of copyright.

That stand is &&&&&&&&. Copyright is about protecting someone's creative effort and with a photo, that effort is in creating the image. Similarly with books - the words are copyrighted, the idea isn't.

Richard

[echnidna]

I have heard photographers say that if someone takes a photo then for anyone else to do the same photo is a breach of copyright. Studley

There are legal precedents that mean that cannot occur.

[DavidG]

Some reading on the subject (http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/ncas/multimedia/copyright/photo/info.html)

[echnidna]

Thanks for that reference David its very helpful.

Its very clear from the online document that photographs of an existing work of art are merely reproductions of that work of art and thus lack the necessary creativity to qualify for copyright of such photograph.

Of course if the photographer has sufficiently abridged the image then copyright may apply.:) :) :) :)