Comments on: Public Art Lands Photog in Hot Water

By: ‘Dance Steps on Broadway’ Lawsuit Ends with Photographer Paying Settlement

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:37:37 +0000

[...] legal battle between photographer Mike Hipple and sculptor Jack Mackie over a photo of Mackie’s public art [...]

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 11 May 2011 22:56:00 +0000

The point is not about whether someone can take a photo of the sculpture, but what usage is permissible. Hence, the discussion about Fair Use. You can take all the photos you want of the sculpture–and they could certainly be used editorially, but commercial usage is where it gets more complicated.

By: Fair Use in the Media Production Classroom

Fair Use in the Media Production Classroom — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:48:12 +0000

[...] of fair use as there are many examples of aggressive legal action against alleged fair users: example 1, example 2, example [...]

By: Kailtin Bledsoe

Kailtin Bledsoe — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:09:00 +0000

Hmm. Here’s my two cents:

The sculpture is in a public place. If you take a photo at say- the Eiffel tower in Paris, that doesn’t mean Gustave Eiffel or his descendants, could sue you for taking a picture of it. That’d be ridiculous.

So it’s the same thing with these “feet.” They’re in a public place where people everyday take photos. It doesn’t matter if the person taking the photos is going to sell them (with another subject in the frame; in this case the man’s feet, which honestly make the photo in my opinion), the sculpture is in a public place.

By: onny21

onny21 — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:43:00 +0000

Yeah, no difference at all…stealing a car and taking a photo with a PUBLICLY FUNDED, public art. You’re an idiot.

By: onny21

onny21 — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:43:00 +0000

Yeah, no difference at all…stealing a car and taking a photo with a PUBLICLY FUNDED, public art. You’re an idiot.

By: VivaUSA

VivaUSA — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:36:15 +0000

Hi Slenderthread… Question for you, If a statue is defaced with additional clothing and other elements and pictures of it are sold will the copyrights still be enforced? Aren't you making a parody of the original statue? Thoughts?

By: Slenderthread

Slenderthread — Tue, 04 May 2010 23:49:13 +0000

Fair use considers whether the use is commercial or noncommercial. You can take a photograph of the sculpture for your personal use. If you make money from selling photographs of other people's art, that's a whole different story. It's not fair *art*, it's fair *use*, and you have to consider how people are using the copyrighted work.

By: Slenderthread

Slenderthread — Tue, 04 May 2010 23:43:55 +0000

Artists are entitled to copyrights in their creations, which include reproductions (even in different media) and derivative works. Even if the derivative is original enough for copyright protection itself, it still can (and very likely will) infringe the original copyright owner's rights (in, say, reproduction and derivative works). I am a copyright lawyer, and I am really shocked at the misinformation that so many people have about copyright.

By: bick mylum

bick mylum — Sat, 01 May 2010 08:14:36 +0000

If i take a wide city landscape shot of london and I want to sell it, do I now need to contact the owners of every building, the architect, the brick suppliers, the glass manufacturers the window cleaners, the cable companies, the man who invented the satellite dish on every roof top…etc…etc…etc….? Do I just photoshop out the ones who wont give permission?

What about every stock library shot with an apple laptop in it? or an iphone? do they need paying because I used their product in my shot?

Obviously the artist needed a bit of publicity and some cash as he struggles through the recession….seems like he doesn't get out much either and needs to get a life…

On the other hand….for those who are buying! I just created a photograph that has me holding a photograph of this image in question and I'm selling it….screw the artist and the photographer right? HAHAHA! no seriously…drop me a line if you want it!