Licensing art photos?

[DGMPhotography]

Their copyright is still theirs.
This leans you can't use the image of their artwork without them allowing you to.

They hired you to take the images. You retain the copyright on the images you took.
You write the contract to state what the images can be used for and for what period of time. Also include your own usage on your website/social media for advertising but no sales purposes.

Yeah, I meant the copyright of the photos is mine.

 

[DGMPhotography]

The issue is dealing with a person who thinks it's ridiculous that they would need to license photos of their art.

 

[zombiesniper]

You need to find a way to make them understand that any image you take, you have the copyright for and therefore a licence is required. I know this could be difficult for some people to understand but I explained this way.

Ford may own the copyright to the Ford name and logo but if I take an image of a Ford GT, the image copyright is mine, not Fords just like their painting image copyright would also belong to me.

If this is something that they can't agree with then I would decline the job.

You may have gathered I'm not always a people person and like to kick drama to the next person as quick as possible.

 

[Original katomi]

Hi can you enlighten this fossil, here in the UK
What is this all about why the need for licences? Or have I missed the point

 

[limr]

Nitpick: Ford's design and logo is a trademark, not a copyright. Different issues and protections.

 

[Derrel]

A nice walk around lens, this is my go to lens if I am just out with the camera rather than a planned shot. On the 600d it’s a nice light combo that one can lug around and not wish it was lighter

Nitpick: Ford's design and logo is a trademark, not a copyright. Different issues and protections.

What Does Copyright Protect? (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office

 

[vintagesnaps]

If you were going to take photos of Ford cars with the Ford logo for the Ford company for their ads and marketing, that would be commercial use; you would contract for the photos, the amount and type of usage, time frame, etc.

If you took a photo of a Ford for your own personal use or to use as a fine art print (for the personal use of the buyer) you shouldn't need permission. If you took the photo at say, a car show (that was publicly in view) for your local newspaper you would contract that as editorial use.

If you took a picture of a Ford with its trademarked logo and wanted to put it on T shirts or mugs, that would be retail use; if you took the photo to try to use for marketing your business or any other business purposes that would be commercial use - for both of those you'd need permission from the Ford company.


With this situation, I think it's more than we can figure out on a message board and you'll need to get information from pro photographers organizations, or even try your local art community nonprofits for info. If the artist isn't connected to any local art resources in the community and/or doesn't understand licensing etc. I don't know what else you can do but explain it the best you can. Maybe you'll need to provide the photos you took for the artist to use online for his intended purpose and leave it at that.

 

[Derrel]

The issue is dealing with a person who thinks it's ridiculous that they would need to license photos of their art.

You made photographs of his artwork, for him to use. You are selling him rights to photos, that YOU made. Seems simple to explain.

Edited to include the OP's comment, above my response, which was made,specifically,to the OP.

 

[vintagesnaps]

But that was for online marketing/promotion by the artist, apparently to show paintings he has available/for sale. For reproduction purposes, then how would the artist's copyright come into it? (as well as the photographer's?).

As I said earlier in this convoluted thread, usually a painter would go to a printer to have giclee prints done (or something along those lines). That gets into reproduction of artwork. I don't know of artists selling copies of photos of their paintings, that's not anything I've ever seen done at any sort of art exhibition or artists co-op, etc.

 

[webestang64]

Not sure if this helps.
As a lab tech I copy many paintings/artwork. Those digital (or negatives, rare I do that anymore) images are the painters/artists images to do what they will with them. The lab does not have any rights to those images.