Luc Tuymans Convicted of Plagiarism for Painting Photo of Politician

[imagemaker46]

I've had an artist contact me about wanting to use a several of my images as a combined source for a bronze statue, he didn't have to, I doubt I would been able to tell. In the case of the painting, it's an obvious "paint" copy of a copyrighted image. All that was needed, a phone call to the photographer, work out an agreement and everyone is happy. The artist chose to steal and use an image for his own personal gain. He should be charged.

 

[bribrius]

interesting. Seems a some painters will often draw off various photographs for inspiration i wonder if this is a precedent setter.

 

[limr]

Being inspired by a photograph isn't the same as making an exact copy of that photograph without permission.

 

[Buckster]

interesting. Seems a some painters will often draw off various photographs for inspiration i wonder if this is a precedent setter.

Not at all. Nothing's changed. See, "Shepard Fairey".

 

[bribrius]

Being inspired by a photograph isn't the same as making an exact copy of that photograph without permission.

no and it is a grey area. i would fathom some cut it "real close" on that fine line between inspiration and copy.

 

[limr]

Being inspired by a photograph isn't the same as making an exact copy of that photograph without permission.

no and it is a grey area. i would fathom some cut it "real close" on that fine line between inspiration and copy.

Agreed.

 

[bribrius]

Being inspired by a photograph isn't the same as making an exact copy of that photograph without permission.

no and it is a grey area. i would fathom some cut it "real close" on that fine line between inspiration and copy.

Agreed.

Photographs are a copy of pretty much everything just by the nature of the medium. I venture to say we can do more harm than the painters. Luckily we can shoot a photo of that building and copy the architects vision as there is enough wiggle room there for us. Shoot a portrait of someone we are copying the clothing designers. A lot of what we shoot we are copying something. I took down my street art photos. As i wondered if i was in copyright violation taking the photos and offering them for sale. Suppose on public graffiti i would be fairly safe, but i couldnt verify for sure if any were a approved mural or how private property effected the copyrights. And some are so good they really are artwork. so just took them down.

 

[limr]

Nature isn't copyrighted. Graffiti isn't copyrighted either - it's an illegal activity to begin with. Even if it's an approved mural and you take a picture of it, it might not be an issue. It would probably depend on how you take the picture, what you do with the picture, and the license - if any - that exists between the painter of the mural and the owner of the building it was painted on.

 

[imagemaker46]

Being inspired by a photograph isn't the same as making an exact copy of that photograph without permission.

no and it is a grey area. i would fathom some cut it "real close" on that fine line between inspiration and copy.

Agreed.

Photographs are a copy of pretty much everything just by the nature of the medium. I venture to say we can do more harm than the painters. Luckily we can shoot a photo of that building and copy the architects vision as there is enough wiggle room there for us. Shoot a portrait of someone we are copying the clothing designers. A lot of what we shoot we are copying something. I took down my street art photos. As i wondered if i was in copyright violation taking the photos and offering them for sale. Suppose on public graffiti i would be fairly safe, but i couldnt verify for sure if any were a approved mural or how private property effected the copyrights. And some are so good they really are artwork. so just took them down.

If you re-built the building brick by brick as a copy that would effect the copyright of the design. Same with clothes, which does happen within the designer business. If I took a picture of a painting and tried to pass it off as mine that is copyright infringement. I just found out that a graphics guy working for a company near Toronto has been using some of my football images as the base for his work. The images are being changed, but if I put the original photo beside his work, there is no mistake. I have just sent him a message and asked if he's concerned about copyright infringement. I'm waiting for his answer, should be interesting. There are always be questionable grey areas.

 

[KmH]

Note - In the USA, selling prints is an editorial use, not a commercial use, as long as mass production and distribution of a print is not involved.

As far as property visible from public places:
1. There is no copyright involved.
2. No court in the US has ever established a law, by statute or by case law, that created a right protecting the image of property.
Property Release Requirement Put to the Test | Photo Attorney
http://www.photoattorney.com//Memo-Support of Motion to Dismiss.pdf

As far as street photos that have people in them:
Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Editorial Use of Person's Photograph Is Confirmed | Photo Attorney

As far as street photos that have trademarks in them:
Trademark Dilution Revision Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Law Affects Photos of Trademarks | Photo Attorney

 

[qleak]

Tracing over an image is fast, easy, and accurate. The "artist" no doubt has done this many times before.

Wait i thought tracing paper was only used as a light diffuser!

 

[bribrius]

Note - In the USA, selling prints is an editorial use, not a commercial use, as long as mass production and distribution of a print is not involved.

As far as property visible from public places:
1. There is no copyright involved.
2. No court in the US has ever established a law, by statute or by case law, that created a right protecting the image of property.
Property Release Requirement Put to the Test | Photo Attorney
http://www.photoattorney.com//Memo-Support of Motion to Dismiss.pdf

As far as street photos that have people in them:
Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Editorial Use of Person's Photograph Is Confirmed | Photo Attorney

As far as street photos that have trademarks in them:
Trademark Dilution Revision Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Law Affects Photos of Trademarks | Photo Attorney

so if i hang a painting i made on the outside of my house and someone takes a photograph of it then it is nolonger copyright infringment because i hung it outside? How about yard art, yard sculptures.... etc. etc.

 

[Didereaux]

Belgium? Hercule Poirot would have solved this!

 

[KmH]

Note - In the USA, selling prints is an editorial use, not a commercial use, as long as mass production and distribution of a print is not involved.

As far as property visible from public places:
1. There is no copyright involved.
2. No court in the US has ever established a law, by statute or by case law, that created a right protecting the image of property.
Property Release Requirement Put to the Test | Photo Attorney
http://www.photoattorney.com//Memo-Support of Motion to Dismiss.pdf

As far as street photos that have people in them:
Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Editorial Use of Person's Photograph Is Confirmed | Photo Attorney

As far as street photos that have trademarks in them:
Trademark Dilution Revision Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Law Affects Photos of Trademarks | Photo Attorney

so if i hang a painting i made on the outside of my house and someone takes a photograph of it then it is nolonger copyright infringment because i hung it outside? How about yard art, yard sculptures.... etc. etc.

Yep. As long as the person who photographed your photo doesn't use it for a commercial (as defined by law) purpose.

For example, all these sculptures are copyrighted works of art - john and mary pappajohn sculpture park - Google Search

 

[bribrius]

Note - In the USA, selling prints is an editorial use, not a commercial use, as long as mass production and distribution of a print is not involved.

As far as property visible from public places:
1. There is no copyright involved.
2. No court in the US has ever established a law, by statute or by case law, that created a right protecting the image of property.
Property Release Requirement Put to the Test | Photo Attorney
http://www.photoattorney.com//Memo-Support of Motion to Dismiss.pdf

As far as street photos that have people in them:
Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Editorial Use of Person's Photograph Is Confirmed | Photo Attorney

As far as street photos that have trademarks in them:
Trademark Dilution Revision Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Law Affects Photos of Trademarks | Photo Attorney

so if i hang a painting i made on the outside of my house and someone takes a photograph of it then it is nolonger copyright infringment because i hung it outside? How about yard art, yard sculptures.... etc. etc.

Yep. As long as the person who photographed your photo doesn't use it for a commercial (as defined by law) purpose.

For example, all these sculptures are copyrighted works of art - john and mary pappajohn sculpture park - Google Search

thanks for the clarification.