| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/18/2008 07:33:42 PM · #1 |
I have noticed many people on this site get bent out of shape when someone steals an image, posts it on another site or even uses that image to create another work of art such as a painting or a digital painting. As of late I have seen a few photographs of sculptures on this site. We even had one win a ribbon not too long ago.
I was wondering what everyone thought about how, photographing someone else's sculpture and using the idea as your own relates to having someone take a photo that does not belong to them and make a painting (if your photo/photos are the one's I mentioned please do not get offended I am just trying to get a healthy discussion going).
Should we allow an image of a sculpture or any other work of art, created by someone else, to be submitted to challenges? I know we do not allow a complete photo of another photo to be submitted.
Personally, I think these two relate.
What are your ideas?
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 07:37:54 PM · #2 |
| Anything manmade is another's work of art (or your own). In that regard, a sculpture is fundamentally no different than a car, an iPod, a bridge or a building. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 07:43:31 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Anything manmade is another's work of art (or your own). In that regard, a sculpture is fundamentally no different than a car, an iPod, a bridge or a building. |
....or a digital, or analogue, two, or three dimensional image.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 07:44:17 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Anything manmade is another's work of art (or your own). In that regard, a sculpture is fundamentally no different than a car, an iPod, a bridge or a building. |
I see where you are coming from with the idea of a car, ipod, bridge, building etc. but I think the difference lies in the fact that it would really be hard to lay ownership to say the visual rights of the image of a car, bridge, building etc. because they are beyond the means of an individual to create. A sculpture on the other hand can be a little more tricky, its sometimes hard to tell if its even a sculpture.
EDIT
For instance Duane Hansons work
Message edited by author 2008-03-18 23:47:20.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 07:52:58 PM · #5 |
I think you're thinking too much. ;-)
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
...I think the difference lies in the fact that it would really be hard to lay ownership to say the visual rights of the image of a car... |
Actually, I believe there was a thread about Ford owning the copyright to any and all images of the Mustang. Also I think some buildings or architectural structures images are copyrighted.
I, personally don't consider it an infringement when one creates a work of art from another but in a completely different medium. And as far as it applies to challenge rules, I think it's been hashed out considerably over the years and I haven't seen any complaints about it in quite awhile. Might have missed some though. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 09:30:17 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Actually, I believe there was a thread about Ford owning the copyright to any and all images of the Mustang. Also I think some buildings or architectural structures images are copyrighted. |
Special Releases List of properties requiring a release for any commercial use.
Basically anything submitted to a challenge here is (by definition) for "personal or educational" purposes, and thus is legal under the Fair Use doctrine of the US Copyright law. That doesn't mean that someone can post here for distribution, sell prints, etc., but entering in challenges or posting for comments/criticism is not a problem. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 09:59:25 PM · #7 |
Two of my photo submissions have been of sculptures by people other than me. The rules state that works of art may be in a photo, but that the photo not consist entirely of them. I went to a photo exhibit yesterday and one of the photos included a sculpture in it; however in this case and in my own, the photo depends heavily upon the sculpture, and I do have my wonderments about this, thinking that at least acknowledgment should be given in some prominent place as it was in the exhibit, but there is no convention for so doing. As well, a sculpture may be permanently installed in a public place (as in one of mine) or be privately owned (in the other), and though permission was not required, it being out in an open space viewable from the road, it was sought and granted.
Perhaps not an issue, but a matter of respect. (A little like approaches to street photography). |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 04:43:59 AM · #8 |
| Bump for morning crowd, or evening depending on where you are |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 04:50:50 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
it would really be hard to lay ownership to say the visual rights of the image of a car, bridge, building etc. because they are beyond the means of an individual to create. |
Nonsense. There are certainly examples of cars, bridges and buildings with copyright restrictions. Ferrari and the Eiffel Tower at night spring to mind. Even the grandest project has a lead designer or artist behind it. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 04:54:37 AM · #10 |
I got a comment for my last challenge entry complaining because a sculupture was one of the three major elements in my shot. It's a point of view, certainly; yet by it's very nature, a sculpture, being a three dimensional object, gives the photographer a creative choice in lighting and angle which paintings etc don't.
Also the existing artwork rule mostly exists to stop people from claiming that piece of art as their photograph. That's mostly not a problem for sculptures.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2008 04:55:20 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
it would really be hard to lay ownership to say the visual rights of the image of a car, bridge, building etc. because they are beyond the means of an individual to create. |
Nonsense. There are certainly examples of cars, bridges and buildings with copyright restrictions. Ferrari and the Eiffel Tower at night spring to mind. Even the grandest project has a lead designer or artist behind it. |
...not to mention that corporations can hold copyrights also. Hollywood movies are also beyond the means of an individual to create, but no one questions that they are copyrighted.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
03/19/2008 08:48:18 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Actually, I believe there was a thread about Ford owning the copyright to any and all images of the Mustang. Also I think some buildings or architectural structures images are copyrighted. |
Special Releases List of properties requiring a release for any commercial use.
Basically anything submitted to a challenge here is (by definition) for "personal or educational" purposes, and thus is legal under the Fair Use doctrine of the US Copyright law. That doesn't mean that someone can post here for distribution, sell prints, etc., but entering in challenges or posting for comments/criticism is not a problem. |
Is this considered part of here? |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 08:53:51 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
it would really be hard to lay ownership to say the visual rights of the image of a car, bridge, building etc. because they are beyond the means of an individual to create. |
Nonsense. There are certainly examples of cars, bridges and buildings with copyright restrictions. Ferrari and the Eiffel Tower at night spring to mind. Even the grandest project has a lead designer or artist behind it. |
Nonsense? I think you misunderstood what I ment. I ment that it would be hard for an individual to claim ownership to the rights of an image of a building or a car etc. I never said there was not any rights involved there. I was implying that it would be easier to claim a sculpture as your work when it really is not. For example the Duane Hanson works I posted. They look very realistic. With a little tweaking in photoshop it would not be too hard to pass them off as an original work. In my mind a photo of a sculpture is a 2d "copy" of a 3d work. I think as an artist you have to look really hard at your ethics to think it is ok to take an image of someone elses art and call it your own. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 09:20:34 AM · #14 |
If someone made a sculpture of one of my pictures, I don't think they would be violating anything.
Why should it work in reverse? |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 09:27:46 AM · #15 |
the law seems to flip-flop on this issue quite often, too.
//williampatry.blogspot.com/search?q=Schrock |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 09:37:21 AM · #16 |
From a DPC perspective, the bottom line is this: if you forbid photos of sculptures, then (as has been pointed out) you need to extend that to ALL man-made works. Because you cannot define what is and what is not "sculpture". Marcel Duchamp signed a urinal and hung it on the wall in a seminal art exhibit in 1917. BBC just called it "the most influential work of art of the 20th century". The urinal, let us say, was created by an industrial designer. When an industrial designer designs the shell of your iPOD, is that not sculpture? or is it?
It's a distinction that can't be narrowed down in any meaningful way, and so by extension to ban sculpture from our DPC images (and remain consistent) we have to ban everything "designed" by man. Including wine glasses. Which, IMO, are sculpture :-) Not only that, but when you create a still life, an arrangement of any sort, you are by definition creating a bit of sculpture, and then you are shooting your own artwork, right?
R.
Actually, that BBC stuff was 2004...
Message edited by author 2008-03-19 13:47:22.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2008 10:23:25 AM · #17 |
Well I guess the people in this thread do not have anything to cry about then. The works might not of been sculptures, they happened to be photos that another "artist" painted but the people whos photos were "used" sure got mad about it. I guess when the shoe is put on the other foot we all want to do what we call around here "backpeddling".
Edit
We also call it a double standard.
Message edited by author 2008-03-19 14:27:37. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 10:34:21 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
Well I guess the people in this thread do not have anything to cry about then. The works might not of been sculptures, they happened to be photos that another "artist" painted but the people whos photos were "used" sure got mad about it. I guess when the shoe is put on the other foot we all want to do what we call around here "backpeddling".
Edit
We also call it a double standard. |
2 totally different issues, IMO.
If I steal a sculpture and enter it in a sculpture contest or state that the sculpture is my work then you have a point.
Stealing a photo and passing it off as your own is different than taking a photo of a sculpture.
I think most people here don't mind if someone else uses a picture from DPC as long as it isn't being used negatively, proper credit is given and the use isn't generating profits for the person or organization using it. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 10:37:15 AM · #19 |
Whats the difference? The guy painted a picture of the photo and sold it. He did not sell the original photo.
Edit
From the original posting...
Originally posted by AlexSaberi:
Photo
Found my photo turned into some art piece being sold. Whats the score? |
Message edited by author 2008-03-19 14:38:46. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 10:42:24 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
Well I guess the people in this thread do not have anything to cry about then. The works might not of been sculptures, they happened to be photos that another "artist" painted but the people whos photos were "used" sure got mad about it. I guess when the shoe is put on the other foot we all want to do what we call around here "backpeddling".
Edit
We also call it a double standard. |
Actually, if you read what Matthew wrote in that thread it may (or not) clear up the "double standard" for you.
Another thing that makes it different (to me, at least) is when you take a picture of a sculpture or something 3D, there are a lot of other elements left up to the photographer. At worst, it becomes a derivative work.
Photographer takes picture. Painter copies it. There is nothing of the painter's decisions in the copy except whether to make it an exact copy, or just use it for inspiration. (In the thread you linked to, it was an exact copy).
Sculptor makes *something.* Photographer comes along and decides to take a picture of said something. He has to decide the angle, the lighting, the dof, the exposure, etc. There are 101 different ways to "portray" that sculptor, all reflecting the photographer's distinct taste and personality (and perhaps talent ).
IF it is agree that "sculpture" should not be photographed because it is protected, exactly how would "sculpture" be defined. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 10:46:32 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
From a DPC perspective, the bottom line is this: if you forbid photos of sculptures, then (as has been pointed out) you need to extend that to ALL man-made works. Because you cannot define what is and what is not "sculpture". Marcel Duchamp signed a urinal and hung it on the wall in a seminal art exhibit in 1917. BBC just called it "the most influential work of art of the 20th century". The urinal, let us say, was created by an industrial designer. When an industrial designer designs the shell of your iPOD, is that not sculpture? or is it?
It's a distinction that can't be narrowed down in any meaningful way, and so by extension to ban sculpture from our DPC images (and remain consistent) we have to ban everything "designed" by man. Including wine glasses. Which, IMO, are sculpture :-) Not only that, but when you create a still life, an arrangement of any sort, you are by definition creating a bit of sculpture, and then you are shooting your own artwork, right?
R.
Actually, that BBC stuff was 2004... |
If you remember, the Dada movement was anti art so even if it is influential I have trouble calling it a sculpture. The dadaists, Duchamp included did not consider their work art. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 10:57:04 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Photographer takes picture. Painter copies it. There is nothing of the painter's decisions in the copy except whether to make it an exact copy, or just use it for inspiration. (In the thread you linked to, it was an exact copy).
Sculptor makes *something.* Photographer comes along and decides to take a picture of said something. He has to decide the angle, the lighting, the dof, the exposure, etc. There are 101 different ways to "portray" that sculptor, all reflecting the photographer's distinct taste and personality (and perhaps talent ).
|
Photographers have lots of creative considerations in making their images.
Painters have none ?
you really mean that ? You think photography is a far more creative act than painting can ever be ?
I think you could easily just rewrite your second paragraph replacing 'sculptor' with 'photographer' and 'photographer' with 'painter' and you'd be a lot closer to the truth.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2008 10:57:45 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
If you remember, the Dada movement was anti art so even if it is influential I have trouble calling it a sculpture. The dadaists, Duchamp included did not consider their work art. |
Is it only the creator that gets to decide if the work is art or not ? |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 11:08:31 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
If you remember, the Dada movement was anti art so even if it is influential I have trouble calling it a sculpture. The dadaists, Duchamp included did not consider their work art. |
Is it only the creator that gets to decide if the work is art or not ? |
Well, I personally think it is the creator because it is their idea. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 11:10:16 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
Well, I personally think it is the creator because it is their idea. |
So if I create a photo, isn't it my idea ? |
|
