people snapping gallery photographs

[benjyman345]

hi,

I am surprised by the amount of people I have seen walking around photography gallerys and start photographing the framed photographs with their digital camera. This is obviously breaching copyright laws.

It really irritates me when i see people doing this but I don't know what to say and just leave it. It would be better at least if they were taking the photo of someone observing the photo or with the photo in the background.

[Ads]

[markc]

In these days of stealing music and movies not being seen as stealing, they probably aren't even considering photographs.

[Alex_B]

well i did that, if it is a an installation of several images which in it'S whole make some piece of artwork .. but i would not take a single image and pretend it was shot by myself.

[Alex_B]

you would be surprised by the amount of people stealing images from online galleries, cutting off the copyright notice and adding their own copyright ... to publish it on the web again ...

[JIP]

The only way it could be considered a breach of copyright is if the person were to try and sell the print or in any other way affect the originak shooter financially.

[markc]

Are you sure? I don't want to start a fight, but if you are going to give out legal advice, I think it would be good to be very familiar with the law and not just repeat what you've heard others say.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

[Alex_B]

The only way it could be considered a breach of copyright is if the person were to try and sell the print or in any other way affect the originak shooter financially.

thisd might differ from country to country... but as far as i know even if he puts them up as prints at his own wall, or if he presents them on a webpage, that would be a breach of copyright ... financial issues are not a prerequisite to call it a copyright breach.


if your logic was right, all those people downloading music from illegal servers would only breach copyright if the subsequently would burn CDs and then sell them.

[ksmattfish]

I wonder what the people are doing with the photos?

I bet most of them don't do anything with them. Digital has put the photo voodoo love whammy on everyone; people just take pictures to take pictures. There are a lot of people out there with point-n-shoots and cell phone cams that just shoot until the memory is full, and then delete it.

Maybe they are writing an article, or assignment, or blogging about photography or the show. They could get nice files from me just by contacting me if this were the case.

Some of them go home and use it as wallpaper, or maybe even make a print to hang on their own wall. I'd much rather they buy my prints for sale, and the price is reasonable at $25 for an 8"x10", but what can I do? Some people will be happy with a bootleg copy for free. The music, movie, and software industries can't stop it; I'm not even going to worry about it. I'll avoid doing it myself, and try to educate people where I can.

A few of them may be claiming the work as their own. If they are fattening their Flickr photostream for the fame it brings them, well that's just pathetic. If they are using it to get clients, I assume they would get found out when they couldn't deliver.

The thing that p*sses me off is when someone is taking the image planning to use it for business, advertising, etc.... Unfortunately it's usually easy just to steal those photos off the web without even going to the gallery.

I am conflicted because I tend to photograph things that interest me, and I'm interested in art. I rarely photograph a piece of art by itself (unless hired by the artist), but I love incorporating works of art into photos of people and landscape. I do worry about what the sculptor, painter, etc... would think. So far I've never tried to sell a photo that intentionally contained someone else's art, but I have occasionally donated them to charity auctions, and I enjoy them in my family albums.

To some extent I believe that things in the public view must be allowed to be photographed. What is the difference between a painting and a sculpture? What is the difference between sculpture and architecture? Why is it okay to photograph a building that someone created, and not something designated as art?

Most of these stay well within the realm of the family snap, and the last one is a portrait of the creator of the work. I asked gallery attendants if it was okay to photograph.


At the Nelson Atkins Museum of Art


Jason's favorite painting at the Nelson


Downtown sculpture


Downtown sculpture

[Alex_B]

well, are these breaches of copyright? they are photos taken of installations of images, so the single image is not the central focus of the image.

[astrostu]

When I would go to the art museum in Cleveland, OH, I was required to turn over all camera equipment (as well as coats, etc.). And if you snuck in with it, the guards would take it from you. However, I did get permission once to take some photos of some statues for a religion class I was taking.

My parents are also friends of a woman who owns an art gallery in Cincinnati, OH, and she was fine with me taking photos of the glass sculptures she had on display at the time.

So I think as long as you get permission from the artist/curator/"owner," then it's okay.

[JIP]

Are you sure? I don't want to start a fight, but if you are going to give out legal advice, I think it would be good to be very familiar with the law and not just repeat what you've heard others say.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

I don't know your link seems to support what I said.

[markc]

It doesn't say much about financial gain.

"To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work"

Do you have specific info that states otherwise?

[ksmattfish]

The only way it could be considered a breach of copyright is if the person were to try and sell the print or in any other way affect the originak shooter financially.

Unless given permission by the copyright owner, or used under "fair use" clauses (such as educational purposes), it's still a breach of copyright when someone uses a work they don't have permission to use.

The issue with whether it was used for financial gain or not has to do with whether it is a civil or criminal case. If not used for "financial gain or commercial advantage" it's a civil case. Penalties could be $200 to $25000 per violation (or nothing at all). If the copyrighted work is used for "financial gain or commercial advantage" it's a criminal offense, and penalties could be $500,000 and up to 5 years in jail for a first offense (double for subsequent offenses).

[markc]

JIP, you may be confusing it with releases, which determines if a copyright holder can use who or what is depicted in the image.

[JIP]

nope no confusion