There has frequently been controversy over what is legal when it comes to existing artwork in a challenge entry. I think the answer becomes more intuitive if you think of it in terms of dimension.
First, a little modesty is needed. We have to admit that almost everything we photography is existing artwork. The cityscape has a thousand architect artists, the portrait is the artwork of the model and the makeup artist. The landscape is the artwork of God (nature for nonbelievers). We certainly may participate in creating the artwork we photograph, but we are still photographing existing artwork. Our purpose is to take a three dimensional scene, and to compress it into a two dimensional scene that retains its three dimensional feel. Hopefully our two dimensional image will be pleasing in one of many aspects.
There is no problem in photographing three dimensional objects of existing artwork. It is essentially what we do. The problem comes when we photograph two dimensional objects of existing artwork.
The solution to two dimensional artwork in our photograph is easy. If our photograph represents two dimensional artwork as two dimensional artwork, it is legal. For example, a painting hanging on a wall in the photograph is two dimensional artwork represented as two dimensional artwork.
When two dimensional preexisting artwork is represented as three dimensional artwork in our photograph, it is illegal. By doing this, we are using the original three dimensional feel of the two dimensional work as our own work. This is what we are stealing. An example of this is the photograph of the tarry hand in front of the oil well. The oil well was a two dimensional preexisting photograph, that was represented as a three dimensional background in this photograph.
The rule should state: Two dimensional preexisting artwork may not be represented in your photograph as three dimensional. |
