Your stance on artists re-creating photos without permission, but not selling?

[Destin]

But say you suspect that a landscape you took was copied as a derivative work, in the form of a painting. Good luck proving that it was based off of your photo, and that the person didn't just get inspiration from the actual location.

Obviously it's a bit different for portraits, or sports photos, but it seems like landscapes are the most common target for this sort of thing, and it'd be hard to prove.


On a slightly different note, this applies well to this thread, and I'm sure many of you have seen it before:
[video=vimeo;20718237]http://vimeo.com/20718237[/video]

 

[unpopular]

A graphic rendering of a photograph is by definition not an exact duplicate, and I am very certain that taking a photograph to be used as a commercial and turning it into a drawing which is being used as an academic study most certainly does constitute transformation as not only does it's medium change, it's intended purpose dose as well.

Three of the four factors would certainly apply to this hypothetical situation. The product is not being used for commercial purposes, the original is being changed significantly, and the effect of the use has minimal impact on the market value of the original.

Just because you hold a copyright, does not mean you can abuse the law.

 

[unpopular]

I kind of agree with both of you, lol. For one, if you're going to cite something, Wikipedia is pretty much worthless considering that anybody can edit it. Cite the actual US Code.

I also agree that the Copyright Office is pretty worthless too. Their website also needs an overhaul.

LOL, I don't often agree with Kerbouchard - but I think his "cliff notes" sum it up pretty nicely.

The first wikipedia article is very well cited. If you want more info you should look at the citations. As with any encyclopedia, it's only useful as a starting point.

But this is more of an issue of case law than statute.

 

[Josh66]

United States Code: Title 17,101. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

“derivative work” is pretty close to the top. Read the definition and decide for yourself...

 

[unpopular]

I am not saying that it's not derived. A graphite rendering of an existing work is not property of the person who drew it - but having drawn it alone does not mean that the copyright was infringed.

 

[Josh66]

So which section shows the exceptions that apply to derivative works?

(Looking now, but hoping you already know...)

 

[Kerbouchard]

I kind of agree with both of you, lol. For one, if you're going to cite something, Wikipedia is pretty much worthless considering that anybody can edit it. Cite the actual US Code.

I also agree that the Copyright Office is pretty worthless too. Their website also needs an overhaul.

LOL, I don't often agree with Kerbouchard - but I think his "cliff notes" sum it up pretty nicely.

The first wikipedia article is very well cited. If you want more info you should look at the citations. As with any encyclopedia, it's only useful as a starting point.

But this is more of an issue of case law than statute.

And, yet, case law repeatedly shows that taking a photograph of a painting does not constitute an original work...Why do you think making a painting of a photograph is an exception?

You can't duplicate somebody elses work, regardless of medium. Every article says that. I, honestly, don't know what you are confused about. Part of the case law that you linked earlier regarded somebody changing the medium to 'tile'. It was still a copyright violation and was ruled as to not be transformative.

In this case, it isn't that complicated. We are talking about whether somebody can legally or ethically copy somebody else's work in a different medium. The answer is 'No.'

 

[unpopular]

There is something about mechanical reproduction. I'm WAY too tired to research this right now. I'm pretty sure that in every single one of those cases it was for commercial use and not conducted for educational purposed. Even if you tried to make this claim, I am not sure a reasonable person could see the educational merit.

And, yet, case law repeatedly shows that taking a photograph of a painting does not constitute an original work...Why do you think making a painting of a photograph is an exception?

 

[Josh66]

OK, per section 107, I think what the OP is talking about would qualify as fair use.

 

[blackrose89]

OK, per section 107, I think what the OP is talking about would qualify as fair use.

Close. More just wondering if you people find it personally (NOT legally) unethical to recreate a photo through a different medium that was not intended to be sold.

 

[Kerbouchard]

There is something about mechanical reproduction. I'm WAY too tired to research this right now. I'm pretty sure that in every single one of those cases it was for commercial use and not conducted for educational purposed. Even if you tried to make this claim, I am not sure a reasonable person could see the educational merit.

And, yet, case law repeatedly shows that taking a photograph of a painting does not constitute an original work...Why do you think making a painting of a photograph is an exception?

Not even close to 'every one of those cases'. Heck, here is one from this year. Erotic Art Museum Sues Photographer for $2 Million Because It's Worried About Its Pristine Reputation

Not for commercial use, but still sued for 2 million dollars. In any case, it is late. Look foward to your response when you are better rested.

Happy Holidays,

Regards,
George

 

[unpopular]

So which section shows the exceptions that apply to derivative works?

(Looking now, but hoping you already know...)

I kind of changed that post. Sorry

The definition only defines what derivative work is, but does not outline under what circumstances a derivative work is a violation of copyright. The definitions are there only for the convenience of the rest of the statute which does define these things.

Typically, derivative works are copyright violations - except in cases of fair use. in my total non-expert, layman's opinion, this hypothetical situation where a student uses a photograph as a model for a drawing and not claiming any original authorship is precisely what the fair use exception is provided for: to prevent copyright holders to abuse the law in such a way that the concept of copyright was not intended.

 

[Josh66]

OK, per section 107, I think what the OP is talking about would qualify as fair use.

Close. More just wondering if you people find it personally (NOT legally) unethical to recreate a photo through a different medium that was not intended to be sold.

What do you mean close? What part of that section doesn't apply to your stated uses? The way I read your post, and the way I read that section - you should be covered as far as fair use goes.

I think the general consensus on the ethics side of it is that it would be unethical (EDIT> without permission <EDIT). Tons of (most of them, probably) unethical things are legal though...

 

[Kerbouchard]

OK, per section 107, I think what the OP is talking about would qualify as fair use.

Close. More just wondering if you people find it personally (NOT legally) unethical to recreate a photo through a different medium that was not intended to be sold.

Again, IMO, yes, it would be unethical, especially if you were to in any way, shape, or form pubish your results representing the results as your artwork.

And again, IMO, it is still illegal.

 

[Josh66]

And again, IMO, it is still illegal.

Just because it's your opinion does not make it illegal...

I mean, maybe I'm just reading this stuff wrong or something... If you're going to say that it's illegal, could you point me to the section that you read that convinced you of that? Everything I'm reading says it's legal...