| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
If you take a picture of this guys public art, he will sue
Phillip Davies, Photographer
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
 |
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 7:01 PM on 02.01.10 |
| ->> What an arse... |
|
Erik Markov, Photographer
|
Kokomo | IN | | Posted: 7:16 PM on 02.01.10 |
| ->> it is amazing. I guess I don't fully understand the artist's argument. If he got public money for this in a public space and he doesn't own the space how could he prevent someone from including this in video still or a drawing? furthermore unless there is some sort of copyright attached to it or something like a plaque stating who this is how is anyone supposed to know they can't use it? it would be like me blanketing my town with leaflets of one of my photos but w/o copyright info and then when they use the photo suing them. isn't there some sort of legal "entrapment" this would fall into? |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
 |
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 7:45 PM on 02.01.10 |
->> After reading the links it appears he will sue anyone... who tries to derive profits from photos of his work.
His argument is no different than a University that sues an individual selling aerial photographs of a stadium without licensing. |
|
Will Powers, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 8:00 PM on 02.01.10 |
| ->> Isn't this similar to the complaint that the Rock and Roll HOF had with a photographer? Didn't the photographer win? |
|
Will Powers, Photographer
|
Will Powers, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 8:11 PM on 02.01.10 |
->> Phillip,
It looks like he lost in the second article, too. He was seeking damages for his "hurt feelings" according to the court, for which he could not be compensated. |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
|
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 8:37 PM on 02.01.10 |
| ->> He actually won the original suit. He was awarded $1k in actual damages, but lost his claim for statutory damages because he failed to register and couldn't quantify the profits derived from the poster...thus the court equated the only real evidence presented under the statutory damages statute was "hurt feelings." |
|
Doug Strickland, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Danville | KY | USA | Posted: 9:10 PM on 02.01.10 |
->> I encountered a similar situation at an arts fair in Danville, KY. A lady was selling "art clocks" and had signs posted everywhere saying "These clocks are intellectual property and no cameras are allowed in this tent!" I was trying to get a shot of a girl gazing at an array of clocks on the wall in front of her before the moment was gone and I hadn't noticed the signs. She came up and grabbed my camera. I missed the shot, and she angrily told me to leave...until she noticed the press badge around my neck. When she learned she could get some free press out of it, she was all for it.
I left anyway and went to a different "art clock" booth and camped out until another kid came through. |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington/Normal | IL | United States | Posted: 9:47 PM on 02.01.10 |
->> Last art show I shot was in a "protected building". I was welcomed with open arms. They must have been starving artists, they wanted the press. Even the building owners said nothing and they normally charge for use of the building by photographers - even outside in the garden.
Bad part - the mag I was on assignment folded before they could use the images the next year before the show. They had all the "art" and most of the article. It never ran, no one ever got the benefit. |
|
Joseph Zimmerman, Photographer
|
Howard | Pa | USA | Posted: 11:30 PM on 02.01.10 |
| ->> Isn't this similar to the guy how took photos of the Marlboro man photo(billboard?)? Then blew up his photo of the photo and sold them for hundreds of thousands of dollars. How can a photo of someone interacting with the sculpture in a public place not be considered derivative works? |
|
Chris La Putt, Photographer
|
Robert Benson, Photographer
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 9:25 AM on 02.02.10 |
->> I believe that Frederick Hart, the artist responsible for the statue of soldiers at the Vietnam War memorial in DC, is also very protective of his copyright when it comes to the commercial exploitation of his work.
Would you complain if, for example, someone took a picture of a woman looking at one of your photographs and then sold posters of that image? I would.
A good rights primer:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/image_rights.htm |
|
Chris La Putt, Photographer
|
Jersey City | NJ | USA | Posted: 10:11 AM on 02.02.10 |
| ->> I wouldn't. |
|
Robert Longhitano, Photographer
|
North Wales | PA | USA | Posted: 10:26 AM on 02.02.10 |
->> okay I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this thread but here it goes.
I'm assuming that the creator of the original sculpture is very protective of his work, correct? He takes legal action on others that use his art in a COMMERCIAL venture, correct?
Someone please help me out why he is being criticized here?
Don't we do the same thing to protect OUR work??
Jim spells it out pretty clear and Chris do you really mean it would not bother you if someone uses something that you created in a poster? How would you feel if this person got a six figure payout and you got ZIP?? I know I would be very pissed off. |
|
Mike Anzaldi, Photographer
|
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 11:09 AM on 02.02.10 |
| ->> if my work appeared as a background or incidental part of another artists "six figure payout" piece, my frustration would be: why didn't i think of that? a picture of someone looking at a picture is hardly worth busting balls over copyright. if everyone from architects, to city planners, to street artists, to museum owners, to landscapers copyrighted their work, we'd be limited to shooting head shots in a studio. fussing about copyright as a street artist is about the stupidest thing i've read in last hour or two. |
|
Robert Longhitano, Photographer
|
North Wales | PA | USA | Posted: 12:17 PM on 02.02.10 |
->> Just so were on the same page. I'm purely talking about commercial usage. I re-read the blog entry and he did not state if the photo was used for editorial or commercial use. If it was used as part of a editorial story then I'm not sure the artist has a case (I'm assuming the sculpture can bee seen and photograph on public property).
I still would like to see the image(s) that caused the law suit(s). |
|
Robert Longhitano, Photographer
|
Chris La Putt, Photographer
|
Jersey City | NJ | USA | Posted: 2:47 PM on 02.02.10 |
->> I agree with Mike - it's completely different from a photog standpoint.
Has anyone read anything about any countersuits to the sculptor in regards to fair use? |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 2:56 PM on 02.02.10 |
| ->> I do not know the law but, this guy, this artist, taking public money, is a real scumbag. |
|
Robert Longhitano, Photographer
|
North Wales | PA | USA | Posted: 4:16 PM on 02.02.10 |
| ->> Where can I see a photo that's getting the photographer sued, link anyone?????? I know someone posted a link to see the photo of the sculpture, is this "the" image? |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
|
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 4:19 PM on 02.02.10 |
->> It's silly to speculate about this guys blog posts...he states his "agency" pulled the photos AND paid a hefty settlement. His blog is then filled with rationalization that the photos were pulled; so no harm, no foul. His fair use defense seems to be something he pulled from somebody else's blog...It's a little far fetched that an agency's in-house didn't ponder "fair use" before settling.
Those links may be interesting, but they're dated 1996, meaning they don't account for any law changes in the past 15 years. Furthermore, the 9th Circuit isn't bound by decisions in whatever circuit Cleveland resides, and the laws could possibly even conflict...When that happens, the only person who prevails is the attorney who gets paid to argue the case before the U.S. Supreme Court. |
|
Paul Alesse, Photographer
|
Centereach | NY | USA | Posted: 6:03 PM on 02.02.10 |
| ->> He thinks his artwork is like Nigel Tufnel's guitar. You're not even allowed to look at it. |
|
D. Ross Cameron, Photographer
|
Oakland | CA | USA | Posted: 9:54 PM on 02.02.10 |
->> Shouldn't Arthur Murray be suing Mr. Mackie for "derivative use" of his dance step diagrams?
Dancing all the way to the bank,
DRC |
|
Robert Longhitano, Photographer
|
North Wales | PA | USA | Posted: 12:54 PM on 02.03.10 |
->> FYI: some info on the case: Titled "Photographer Defends Infringement Lawsuit for Photo of Sculpture" 2/3/10
http://www.photoattorney.com/ |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|