DSLRUsers.com

I have just joined in the last week and have been reading the different forums, seen some familar names...and the content very intersting...I am looking for opinion on a comment made to me

I recently went to Healesville for weekend and visited a sculpture gallery in Marysville http://www.brunosart.com/tour.htm with a group of fellow photogs, took a lot of shots, some for fun, some I liked...could be used in digital manipulation or experimentation, (I will get to the point soon) I was discussing this event with a fellow photog at the camera club, and her view was you are really not taking a photo or image, but just a copy of someone elses work....I have done some travelling and seen photogs like Nick Melidonis taking images of sculptures in museums.which I presume he post processes into something...

and people love taking stained glass, is this not a similar scenario.........anyone care to comment...thanks

Pat
Mornington Peninsula

Hi and welcome to the forum, but please add your location to your profile. This is a condition of membership.

On to your question.
YOu need to distinguish commercial and non-commercial photography. If the photo is for your memories, or learning, then I would see no issues with taking a photo of an artwork.

If you intend to sell or publish an image in some way, then you may need to consider copyright. Some works are so frequently reproduced that copyright is effectively extinguished, at least as far as photos are concerned. The Mona Lisa is an obvious example here (though I think that may be out of copyright form an age perspective as well )

The third category would be where you take an image, not to reproduce the artwork, but to re-interpret it in some way. This could include, to cite some examples I have seen, superimposing an apple on the Mona Lisa's mouth, Adding an event to the background of The Scream or juxtposing an artwork with a sign, or another artwork that alters the meaning of either or both of the originals. You may also wish to highlight some aspect by shooting at an unusual angle. This third group is probably OK, but it would be a good idea to seek permission of the copyright owner before publishing.

Another issue here, is the venue. If the artwork is in private property, then you need to confirm whether it is OK to take the photo in the first place. In this country, Photos are always OK on public land ( I think APEC was exempted), though sometimes others don't realise this & take exception, but on private land, the owner can define the rules. In a gallery setting, there will always be someone to ask. Make sure you do so. If you ask first you are more likely to get an OK, even if the same person would take exception if they caught you taking photos.

Maybe I have read your post wrong Pat but I kinda get the impression that your asking if we are taking something unique when we photograph sculptures or stained glass etc rather than a copyright/legal kinda issue?...

Anyways I have decided to reply to what I think your asking and feel free to ignore me if I have it all wrong.. personally I think that anything we take is merely a copy of some else's work.. whether that be portraits, landscapes, sculptures etc... I mean we didn't create the landscape did we... but its there so we shoot it and manipulate it and that makes it our image.. we portray things as we see them.. line up 10 togs in front of a sculpture and I bet you get 10 different views on that object.. so how could this tog think that its not really an image or a photo?.. most of us end up developing their own style.. we put our own slant on our work...we see the world differently and that shows in our images... so in answer to your question (as I see it)... yes it is an image and a photograph... in fact its more.. its art..

Thanks for the replies Greg and Bindii, I wasnt really looking at the legal issue as I have sold very little work, I am mainly a hobbyist .

I am always willing to learn new stuff and new ways of creating images, so collect photos where I can...

cheers Pat

It is an interesting discussion. I went on a trip last year and saw many sculptures, stained glass windows, and other art work,
and I was photographing it like a mad man. I can see the argument that a photo of a sculpture is more about the sculptor's vision
than the photographer's vision, but the same could be said about photographing anything man made, a building for example.

Anyway, it is fun. Welcome to the forum Pat.

Here is a sculpture in Lisbon.

http://www.redbubble.com/people/gregb/art/515845-1-lisbon-waterfront

Hi all,

I would also like to make a differentiation between reproduction photography, documentation, montage and many other styles.
(I used to be a reproduction photographer eons ago )
I would believe that if we add our personal touch to photography, it can become art – where
reproduction and unmanipulated documention photography is perhaps not art.

Photography to me seems to have a variety of purposes.
There is scientific, architectural, portraiture, journalism, street, fashion, motorsport photography - and it goes on and on.

I watched the Genius of Photography on ABC2 on Sunday night and really enjoyed the program.
There are more to come and also some of these programs are broadcasted on ABC1 aswell.

My 2 cents - regards,
CD