| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/29/2004 08:04:43 AM · #1 |
I thought I would open a can of worms with a debate on. We've talked about where the line is on changes with PhotoShop or filters on a photo.
When is it stealing others art ? Where do we draw the line in our own minds ?
We've heard and received comments that taking photos of a statue is like stealing from the artist that created it. I can understand that.
Sooooooooooooo..... let's look at a few other, in my mind, similar objects.
What about store front window setups ? A beautiful landscaped garden or park ? Buildings where the architect spent years and dreams to make it come to life ?
I'm not saying in any way that these are not ok to take photos of. I just want to know where your thoughts are on the subject.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2004 08:13:37 AM · #2 |
| I think that it's stealing if you try to say that you designed the structure or were in anyway part of something you are not a part. But to capture someone else's art on camera is simply a matter of trying to represents someone else's art through your own. I don't know if this makes sense. I took a VERY BAD picture of an Angel on the side of a building and while it was a poor representation as well, I don't think that I was stealing that persons artwork. I was not the architect, just the photographer who admired the architects work. . . and tried unsuccessfully to represent that persons art through my own form of photography. I don't think it is stealing so long as you acknowledge that you didn't create what you capture on film. After all, art can be so subjective that nature as a whole could end up under that category and then would we be stealing God's art (provided we believe it's his)? |
|
|
|
09/29/2004 09:49:57 AM · #3 |
| Some buildings, usually those that are visually unique, are protected by copyright or some other, similar intellectual property device that restricts the use of it prominently in commercial photographs. |
|
|
|
09/29/2004 11:12:31 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Some buildings, usually those that are visually unique, are protected by copyright or some other, similar intellectual property device that restricts the use of it prominently in commercial photographs. |
I think that protection only started with buildings constructed after 1986 or 1978 or something ...
Copyright resources:
US Copyright Office
Nolo Press |
|
|
|
09/29/2004 11:20:33 AM · #5 |
I have thoughts on this but do not know the law so do not quote me on this.
I think that if it's a commercially used property, or a commercial freestanding structure (in denver we have a ton of 'art' that just stands in parks and on medians of avenues etc.) then it's free game. But if it's privately owned (such as this windmill I photographed a while back which was against a mountain background.) you need a release.
This is what 'the photographers market' suggests. Such as people, If you take a photo on the street and 40 people are in it you can use it without copyright, but if it's of someone on their porch than you need a release (even if you took it from the street and they are only a small part of it.)
JOe |
|
|
|
09/29/2004 11:24:14 AM · #6 |
The way I heard it is that If I can stand on Public property and take the pic then it is fair game... My theory is not to ask questions that I don't want to hear the "wrong answer" to. Guess that equates to act and then ask for forgiveness.
As for shooting statues and art (done creatively and not for sale) I find we are actually bringing attention to subjects that sometimes overlooked. If I wander around San Diego and take pictures of lessor known attractions, I am helping the establishment by showing their subject(at no cost to them) to the community. Most like that kind of publicity. |
|
|
|
09/29/2004 11:32:01 AM · #7 |
| It also depends on usage. If you are shooting for your own enjoyment, then it's probably OK as long as you aren't trespassing. If you are shooting cityscapes, architecture etc as art (evene if you plan to sell it), again, you are probably OK as long as you are not trespassing. The catch comes if you are shooting for commercial purposes, like an ad, catalog, billboard etc. Then, you will likely need a property release for recognizable landmarks that are not publicly owned. |
|
|
|
09/29/2004 11:50:37 AM · #8 |
| I guess what I'm really asking isn't the law end of things as I went through that in my college photography courses...but rather, how do you feel about such photos. I have no problem with them but have received comments on DPC for a photo of a statues face being like stealing that persons art and talent. I even received a email from that person since his comment on the photo wasn't enough for him I guess. Anyway, that's where I meant for this topic to go. |
|
|
|
09/29/2004 11:55:36 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Shiiizzzam:
I guess what I'm really asking isn't the law end of things as I went through that in my college photography courses...but rather, how do you feel about such photos. I have no problem with them but have received comments on DPC for a photo of a statues face being like stealing that persons art and talent. I even received a email from that person since his comment on the photo wasn't enough for him I guess. Anyway, that's where I meant for this topic to go. |
Its not stealing. Its showing how you look at something and what you find interesting about it. If God holds copyrights, we can't photograph much of anything huh? ;)
Message edited by author 2004-09-29 11:56:17. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 05:40:07 AM EDT.
