DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,

Haven't been around for awhile, I have a question I want to pose to some of you learned folk.

Say I take a photo of an Artists image in a book, you can still see it's the Artists work if you know your art.

I crop it so it changes it, I apply different filters to enhance it, ( I change it a bit )

It's an Artist from 2 century's ago, I frame it and sell it.

Have i broken the law of Copyright and can I be charged or thrown in jail ?

I know it is propbably a very simple NO you can't do any of these things, but I just thought I would ask.

Because I have done a few experiments and a friend told me I should sell them.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Mic

If the artwork is over 70 years old then copyright no longer exists unless the artist is still living. However, if you are reproducing a photograph that exists in a book, magazine etc then you are breaking the copyright of the publisher and that is an offence.

let us know what jail you will be in so we can send photo's of the outside world....... or you could get lucky and become cell mate to Paris

If the original artwork is over 200 years old then it would be in the public domain - you can do whatever you want with it. However, there might be an issue since the artwork was copied out of a recently produced book - I don't know.

I'd recommend talking to a copyright lawyer.

You might also try digging around http://www.copyright.org.au/

Hope this helps.

[Edit] Oops, just noticed your post Chris..

Honest question mic, not sure how bp's response is of any value though. I'd say speak to a lawyer about this as anything that old is public domain however ownership could fall to someone else or to the publisher.

Hmmmm thanks guys,

bp, I will send you some soap shots from Jail

I think I will seek out a Copyright Lawyer before I do anything.

Cheers guys.

Mic

mic wrote:bp, I will send you some soap shots from Jail

Mic

....... I will put them on my wall..... along with the other inmate shots....

Let's assume that you are copying the Mona Lisa, you can find a photo reproduction of it in hundreds of books and they all look the same. How can the publisher of a book prove that it was taken from their book?

phillipb wrote:Let's assume that you are copying the Mona Lisa, you can find a photo reproduction of it in hundreds of books and they all look the same. How can the publisher of a book prove that it was taken from their book?

exactly what i was thinking...

I have a question now...... I understand the publishers rights, but how about the photographer that took the original photo that got published .... doesn't he also potentially hold copyright ????

blacknstormy wrote:I have a question now...... I understand the publishers rights, but how about the photographer that took the original photo that got published .... doesn't he also potentially hold copyright ????

He/she would have either been employed to take the shot for the publisher or, if freelance, they could have possibly assigned rights to the publisher.

A well known Australian designer submitted designs for a top Australian bank - they were accepted and he made $1 milion dollars. He also submitted designs for the rail network - on this he was turned down as they were found to be a rip off from an American railway - his reputation declined rapidly, especially when it was realised that the bank design was a rip off of an American bank.

The moral here is if you are going to rip off - cover your tracks

From http://www.copyright.com.au:

Generally, photographs are in copyright for a
period of 70 years after the photographer’s death,
if the photographer died on or after 1 January
1955.

And from http://rubens.anu.edu.au/copyright.html

Scanning work: Do I need permission to scan & alter an image to create a new work?

Scanning an image to produce a digitised version will usually reproduce the image, and thus require permission (unless the copyright has expired). You will also generally need permission to produce a new image by altering the digitised image, if an important part of the first image is recognisable in the new image.

and plenty of info at:

http://www.copyright.org.au/

cheers,

André

The answer in short is: you are breaking the copyright. As you said the artist or work of art is 200 years old, but the publisher of the book would have had to get permission from the art gallery or the rightful owner of the work. Now cropping an art image is not altering; it is simply an act of mutilation of work because that is not what the artist intended. Just like adding filters to enhance an image is not altering it either in the same manner that the restoration of a work of art does not imply that the person doing that restoration is able to claim ownership of such work.

However, if you went to the museum, where the work of art is being exhibited, got the appropriate permits to photograph it and then changed it adding new elements and in such an extreme fashion that it became a new image; albeit still recognisable then you could argue to have an original. Therefore the issue of copyright might be debatable.

But, would you like me to get your photos alter them somehow and then claim ownership because I changed the sky, the colour of the subject's blouse or removed a few pimples of the subject's face? I believe you wouldn't like it, especially if I were to do it without your consent and for a profit.

zafra52,

I don't think that it as b&w as you say. I refer to this paragraph:

Do I need permission to copy a photograph of an artistic work from a book?
There may be two copyrights: copyright in the artistic work (for example, a painting) and copyright in the
photograph of the artistic work. You will generally need permission from the owner of copyright in the artistic
work unless the copyright has expired.
It is not clear whether you need permission in relation to the photograph, where the photograph depicts nothing
but the artistic work and is indistinguishable from other photographs of the same work. There are strong
arguments that you do not need permission in such cases. However, if the photograph of the artistic work is
distinguishable from other photographs of the same artwork, you will generally need permission from the owner
of copyright in the photograph.

That is from:
http://www.copyright.org.au/information/G033.pdf


As an example, Mic finds a photo of the Mona Lisa in a book. That photo is basically just a straight photo of the Mona Lisa. Obviously, the DaVinci copyright is expired. The photo is indistinguishable from any other stock photo of the Mona Lisa. So I don't think he would need permission from the publisher of the book, as outlined in the quoted paragraph. He probably would also not require a special permission from the Louvre either. He is not modifying an original photo of the Mona Lisa, he is modifying one that looks like any other Mona Lisa photo found in a multitude of books.

Note, IANAL, so take it for what it's worth


cheers,

André

Reminds me of shot I took a few years ago....



(you have to look carefully at the centre).

Wow thanks for the thoughts guys and the research Radar, very interesting.

Still confused though ?

Thanks,

Mic

mic wrote:Still confused though ?

That's why most lawyers make more money then most photographers

Am I reading this wrong or does it say "not copied from something else; and recorded in “material form” ... taking a photograph..."

Copyright protection for artworks
Copyright protects “artistic works”, provided they are:
• not copied from something else; and
• recorded in “material form” (that is, in a form from which they could be reproduced: for example, by making a craft item, painting a picture, taking a photograph or making an artwork in digital form).
A wide range of things are included in the category of “artistic works”, including:
• drawings
• paintings
• sculptures
• photographs and
• craftworks (such as mosaics, tapestries, jewellery and woven art).
There is no registration procedure for copyright protection in Australia. You do not have to register your work or
go through any other procedure. An original artistic work is automatically protected as soon as it is created.

zafra52 wrote:Am I reading this wrong or does it say "not copied from something else; and recorded in “material form” ... taking a photograph..."

No you are reading it right but that applies to artwork that is still under copyright, once it is out of copyright, that's it.

You will generally need permission from the owner of copyright in the artistic
work unless the copyright has expired.

In the case that Mic started off with, the copyright has expired since the work is over 2 centuries old.

As I said, IANAL, so get the advice from a good lawyer, I know I would.

Cheers,

André

I took the view that although the art work itself had expired the book illustration had not; and therefore it was an infringement of that copyright. I deal with this issue with my students and ask them to research the issue, but in this club we all know that copyright is murky waters.

I also like Garry's point that "an opinion is never right or wrong; it is just different" for I always have sustained that I am an authority in my own opinion, but I like his better.

Thank you. I think we have benefited from this interchange of view points and information.

You can't do it from a book. Only from a photo of the actual original painting, if it is from a book it doesn't matter what book it is from, unless it is over 100 years old (therefore the copyright has expired). You can't use those shots without the photographer's permission. Illistrative or not, they are still professional photos and are worth money.
If you can get permission to take a shot of your own of the painting then go for your life. If not. Keep the sales on the low-down!

Harry

The Mona Lisa analogy is spot on. If a work in no longer copyright then it is in the public domain. If I make a reproduction of the Mona Lisa....and there is no other element in the image but the Mona Lisa....then I do not hold the Copyright to the image of the Mona Lisa. Do I hold the copyright to my photo of the Mona Lisa? If it's a direct copy then proving ownership would cost more than anyone could afford. If I copy images from a 100 year old book I can do what I like with them, including sell them commercially. If you have access to the same book then you have the same rights as I do. Go for it.