I will note however, that there is a "fair use" exemption, and that applies to copying materials for the purposes of criticism and reviews ( such as a newspaper or magazine book review), private study and academic use, and for an archive to manage its collection - for example to make a copy available to be read if an original book is too fragile to be handled.Note: There is no distinction made above with respect to "personal" versus "commercial" use.
I will note however, that there is a "fair use" exemption, and that applies to copying materials for the purposes of criticism and reviews ( such as a newspaper or magazine book review), private study and academic use, and for an archive to manage its collection - for example to make a copy available to be read if an original book is too fragile to be handled.
As always, there are guidelines and rules around these uses.
If I take a photo of the piece of art, that photograph is my own creation and I am the copyright holder of the photograph - not of the original piece of art; each is considered a separate, original work.
A more or less reproductive photo of a work of art is not protected as own creation.
And just as I thought... there is nothing in copyright law preventing the taking of exterior photos of a building in a city and doing with those photos as the photographer pleases.
In the United States and Germany, that's true. It's not true in France, which, for building less than 70 years old, requires licenses for Images shot by an individual person for Commercial purposes.
In the United States and Germany, that's true. It's not true in France, which, for building less than 70 years old, requires licenses for Images shot by an individual person for Commercial purposes. This is why you shouldn't rely on legal advice from random internet posters.
You may safely assume that I'm a random internet poster.
The building owner owns the right for commercial usage of the building's image. Anyone can take photos or make a drawing of the building, they just cannot sell it commercially without the owner's permission. Another example is the lighting on the Eiffel Tower. The tower itself is not protected, but the lighting scheme is. No commercial usage without permission. Of course, if the building in question is part of a larger cityscape or a skyline, then it is fair game, as long as it is not the obvious focus or subject of the image. Sort of like if you were to take a photo of a celebrity on the street. Then you try to sell it for usage in an ad. No go.
As to copyright of photos of displayed artworks - how much Originality is there in your copy work?
It’s based on trademark registration:
As in the RnR museum case, it all comes down to income generated by the image. If you copy a displayed artwork you are technically denying the institution income that would have been made if they also sell reproductions of the artwork in their museum store. The ones who really get screwed there are the artists or their estates who get zilch.
I have a question about US Copyrights. What is copyrighted? For example, if I take two pictures and combine the sky of one with the ground of another, are all three photos mine as far as copyrights are concerned?
Is an extremely edited photo a new photo of mine?
How does fair use affect what I can do with each of them?
The copyrights of all three initially vest with you. The first two photos are original works, while the third is a derivative work of the first two.
Who took the original photo and who made the edits?
If you're referring to your original scenario, fair use is not at play because you held the copyrights to the original photos and if you're the one altering them you hold the copyright to any derivative work. As such, you do not need any permission to do so (or rather the permission is implied as you're the one doing it).
IS a derivative work of a photo considered a photo? What if it's a derivative drawing of the original photo? Is the copyright for a photo of the derivative or copyright for some other type of art?
Unfortunately, short of visiting (and paying) an attorney with experience in U.S. copyright law, my best advice for you is to read the information put out by the U.S. Copyright Office: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/ Pay close attention to the "definitions" section under Chapter 1.
For works that pertain to photography (visual arts), this can be helpful: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap900/ch900-visual-art.pdf
Or maybe read their Circulars (they're actually quite good): https://www.copyright.gov/circs/
Short of that, see if there is a law school nearby that offers a semester on copyright law, and see if you can audit that course.
Consult a Lawyer if you need legal advise of any importance to you.
Anyway, artefacts from ancient Egypt are not covered by copyright.
That's the problem with the law regarding Copyright. It's very confusing and obscure. It should be simple enough so photographers like us don't have to hire an attorney to figure out what it is. It would be nice to know where we stand before getting sued.
Actually, it's not that difficult at all, especially if you take a few minutes to acquaint yourself with a few basic definitions.
As for the "getting sued" which you allude to... that's most likely a tempest in a teapot.
If it's so clear, why are they fighting about the definition of words in the Supreme Court? For example, when does a derivative work begin and end? When is your work no longer considered derivative?
Derivative work is defined: "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”."
Chapter 1 - Circular 92 | U.S. Copyright Office
Subject Matter and Scope of Copyrightwww.copyright.gov
Commenting on my own post, I think the legal issue is the underlined words, "...as a whole..." Isn't that in the eye of the beholder? When do you cross over that line and where is it? How does an artist know he legally crossed passed the line where it's no longer a derivative work?
Commenting on my own post, I think the legal issue is the underlined words, "...as a whole..." Isn't that in the eye of the beholder? When do you cross over that line and where is it? How does an artist know he legally crossed passed the line where it's no longer a derivative work?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?