Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]David, I am surprised that, as a previously working commercial photographer, you don't know more about copyright. At least that the moment a work is completed, it is automatically copyrighted by the creator. There are no "levels" of copyright. But you may register a copyright which gives you greater leverage in court. You may also give your copyright over to someone else. The Internet is filled with copyright and trademark info. Let me relate your question to a recent true story. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame (R&R HOF), in Cleveland, is an extraordinary building. It was designed by someone who holds the copyright to the design. It was built by someone (someone meaning companies) and the result is the R&R HOF. The R&R HOF uses its shape and uniqueness as a trademark. So now we have both copyright and trademark to worry about. A photographer, Chuck Gentile, photographed the R&R HOF one evening, with a beautiful dusk sky and the lights on in the mostly glass building. Stunning photograph so Chuck makes a poster and starts selling it. It is doing very well when the R&R HOF gets an injunction against him and he has to stop selling the posters, and they are impounded. Chuck takes it to court and the injunction is lifted. The R&R HOF then takes Chuck to court for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, etc. To make a long story short, Chuck won and the panel of judges stated that Chuck was in no way infringing upon the R&R HOF trademark or copyright and that further legal avenues pursued by the R&R HOF would be pointless. Chuck is happily selling his posters. The R&R HOF should actually be happy as it is free advertising. Minus their ill spent court costs. The second thing I will say is that nearly all use of photographs other than advertising, where, for instance, a bottle of perfume is photographed laid on "the" sculpture and the resulting photograph used as an ad for the perfume, are editorial in nature. A photograph of "the" sculpture can appear in a book, on the book cover, in or on a magazine, hanging in a fine art display, as a poster, etc., without worry of legal action. This is all editorial use (a photograph of the sculpture, not "the" sculpture) and is allowed. It is not infringing upon the creator's copyright. Don't use the sculpture in any photograph that is an advertisement. The real question is, does US copyright law protect foreign produced and owned works? You'll have to look up that one. One more story. Near here, a couple had a litter of dogs (spaniels I believe) and when they were a few weeks old, the wife took a photograph of the dogs, all in a row facing the camera with the husband behind the dogs and his arms outstretched and holding the end dogs, gently holding them together. This became a very saleable photograph. A couple of years later, a guy made a small sculpture, using the photograph as a model. He mass produced the small sculptures and sold them. They sold well. The dog owner/photographer sued the sculpturer and won big time. Cease and desist and pay lots of money. This was not editorial use of the dog photograph! No more stories... Jim At 03:11 PM 6/14/01 -0500, Rodgers, David wrote: >I'd like to throw this out for discussion. > >I just had a friend call me up with a concern. She photographed a sculpture >and entered the photograph in a national competition. She won an merit award >for the photograph. The photograph was to go on display. She began to wonder >about copyright. Can she display the photograph of the sculpture without >having to get a signed release by the sculptor? > >Just to be safe she contacted the gallery owner to try and track down the >artist. Apparently the artist is famous, but does not live in the USA and is >also not easy to contact. The gallery owner said the work was "heavily >copyrighted" (I'm a bit confused by that. US Copyright isn't something you >apply for, is it? An artist can't copyright one piece of work more than >another. Copyright can only be released, not increased, correct?) > >The sculpture was not photographed in the gallery. It was owned by a private >party. The current owner gave the photographer permission to take the >photograph. Wouldn't this fall under "fair use"? > >It seems to me if this is an issue any person taking a photograph with a >sculpture in the frame could be infringing on copyright. > >Dave > > > >