Theft Of/Stealing Images, Artwork ?

[DF]

I passed by a major art gallery walking down Michigan Ave. here in the Windy City one evening and marveled at these wonderful oils in the window. I wondered how the artist felt about their work reaching such a peak in their career being on display at such a prominent location.
Another passer-bye also notices the paintings, and, without hesitation, without any genuine interest in them, , whips out the I-phone and takes pictures of each of them.
I think, "what if these were my photos on display"?
I'm sorry, but I wouldn't like It.

 

[hoffy]

Welcome to the 21st century.

 

[Moopheus]

If taking a picture of an object on public display is theft, then I have committed many such thefts.

 

[removed account4]

photographing everything is theft
photographing a building
a person ...
pretty much everything ...

 

[hoffy]

photographing everything is theft
photographing a building
a person ...
pretty much everything ...

Yep, this.
I once was accosted by a woman selling scarfs at a market. I was trying to take a photo of them in a row on a rack. She accused me of stealing her artwork. I tried to challenge her and say, if I take a picture of a building, I am therefore stealing their IP. She had no answer for it (except for yelling at me).

Consider it this way. 9 times out of 10, the person who has snapped a picture of a piece of artwork is probably very unlikely to want to purchase the artwork. If they share it on social media there may be a long shot that it piques someones interest to seek out who the artist is.

 

[Down Under]

As the creator of an original work of art, whether with paint, film or pixels, I would be flattered if someone saw fit to immortalise it with their own medium (usually a mobile phone). I say this as I long ago realised that I really have no other choice or say in this matter.

On the other hand, if someone were to steal one of my posted images (unlikely as my architectural and design photographs are secure in password protected folders in a clients only access restricted web site), I would firstly verify that the image was mine and then send an invoice for full payment for its use on 30 day terms. I had to do this only one time, in 2004,after a writer I unwisely allowed to browse in my then new web site snagged three of my best original images which were published without acknowledgment or credit with the article. After a lively exchange of emails between photographer and publisher, the editor grudgingly paid my fee, noting that that he would never again have anything to do with my work or with me. I dislike thieves, so this suited me fine. A year later I noted with satisfaction that the OL publication had folded. The last laugh, like the word, is always the best.

With photos, I consider that making an image is more recording than theft, tho' much of this depends on what use is intended for that image. If non-profit, I tend to be flexible and err on the side of generosity. If for profit, the invoice goes out immediately for 30 days payment. I firmly believe the spoils of commerce were meant to be shared.

 

[Jim Jones]

I sell my photos at a near non-profit price. Anyone who can't even afford them at that price but really wants one is welcome to snap a photo for their pleasure. At 84 years old, life is too short to quibble about it.

 

[rthollenbeck]

photographing everything is theft
photographing a building
a person ...
pretty much everything ...

Everything?
Nature?
The stars?
Portraits?

We sure are getting loose with the definition of art.

 

[MattKing]

To steal something, you have to appropriate it to yourself, and by doing so, deprive the holder of it of their use of it.
So the term isn't really stealing or theft.
Instead, it is a conversion. Essentially a trespass. An improper use of something that is subject to being shared, according to the terms imposed by the creator of that thing.

 

[Maris]

Can it be that when a camera looks and remembers, either through an exposed film or a displayable electronic file, that remembrance constitutes theft? But when I look and remember surely that isn't theft? Or is it theft only if I draw what I saw?

I'd suggest no theft happens. The camera and the eye are passive. They suck no virtue from the things they see. Quite the contrary, subject matter is the aggressor in the transaction. Subject matter showers cameras and eyes with countless streams of photons. Surely it can't be an obligation on the the part of the camera or the eye to look away from that which is wilfully exposed to view.

 

[pdeeh]

Proudhon

 

[Willy T]

Proudhon

Touche'.

 

[removed account4]

Everything?
Nature?
The stars?
Portraits?

We sure are getting loose with the definition of art.

yup, everything ...
no one said it was art ...

surveillance cameras are the wost

 

[LAG]

these wonderful oils in the window... "what if these were my photos on display"?

Negligence or recklessness is on the other side of the window, not in the side who takes the pictures!

I once was accosted by a woman selling scarfs at a market. I was trying to take a photo of them in a row on a rack. She accused me of stealing her artwork. I tried to challenge her and say, if I take a picture of a building, I am therefore stealing their IP. She had no answer for it...

Unfortunate comparison

I sell my photos at a near non-profit price. Anyone who can't even afford them at that price but really wants one is welcome to snap a photo for their pleasure. At 84 years old, life is too short to quibble about it.

With all respect, protecting any work has nothing to do with age, but with attitude. On the other hand, if you reach 104 years, it will be 20 years without worries. Admirable!

Proudhon

Courbet

 

[removed account4]

banksy

 

[faberryman]

Another passer-bye also notices the paintings, and, without hesitation, without any genuine interest in them, , whips out the I-phone and takes pictures of each of them.I'm sorry, but I wouldn't like It.

How would you know he didn't have any genuine interest in them?

If someone saw my images, and was interested enough to whip out his iPhone and take pictures of them, I'd be flattered. I'd be more flattered if he bought them, but we all know that's not happening.

 

[Moopheus]

In order to call it 'theft', something has to have been stolen. In the case described by the OP, it is far from clear that anything has been stolen. Has the art disappeared from the window? Has its value been harmed in any way? No.

 

[Wayne]

I frequently take flip-phone pic of things I want to research before buying. so their motives arent necessarily nefarious. if they print it out and hang it on their wall or sell it thats a bit different, but in the second case the artist generally has legal recourse.

 

[removed account4]

In order to call it 'theft', something has to have been stolen. In the case described by the OP, it is far from clear that anything has been stolen. Has the art disappeared from the window? Has its value been harmed in any way? No.

uploading a cellphone picture and using it as a screen saver is theft as much as robbing the shoppe.
its like doing work for someone and sending them "proofs" and they decide they want 1 so you make the print ...
in the meantime they have taken the proofs you have sent them, that they didn't pay for, and gottem post cards made from them.
same thing ...

 

[Wallendo]

In the situation described by the original poster, someone took a cell phone snapshot of an oil painting. It is extremely unlikely that the cell phone photographer is going to have his snapshot rescaled and then printed on specialty paper and framed on the wall.
It is quite likely the image will never be viewed. On the other hand, the photo could be used for purposes beneficial to the artist, possibly to invite others to view the painting.
People who buy paintings are unlikely to want a snapshot of a painting.
Photos and paintings displayed in a publically visible window are placed for advertising, not artistic, reasons. This is not significantly different from reproducing the image on a web site or brochure.

 

[cowanw]

Quite the contrary, subject matter is the aggressor in the transaction. Subject matter showers cameras and eyes with countless streams of photons. Surely it can't be an obligation on the the part of the camera or the eye to look away from that which is wilfully exposed to view.

That would be entrapment.

 

[rthollenbeck]

While I agree that a great part of arts value lies in the uniqueness of the idea and that reproducing it in anyway infringes on that uniqueness.
At the end of the day clutching to tightly to this idea in a philosophical way only can end in: No one can copy this art work in part or in whole- furthermore no one may discuss this idea, imagine it outside the presents of the original, or use it for inspiration.

Someone invented photography and that was his idea..... cease useing it form this day forward. Have some respect for the inventors IP.

 

[cowanw]

While I agree that a great part of arts value lies in the uniqueness of the idea and that reproducing it in anyway infringes on that uniqueness.
At the end of the day clutching to tightly to this idea in a philosophical way only can end in: No one can copy this art work in part or in whole- furthermore no one may discuss this idea, imagine it outside the presents of the original, or use it for inspiration.

Someone invented photography and that was his idea..... cease useing it form this day forward. Have some respect for the inventors IP.

Your idea is well said but the analogy to photography is sketchy, Photography was heavily involved in the restriction . Daguerre was paid well for his process both on behalf of the world and separately for use in Great Britain and the Colonies and Plantations and Newcastle. Talbot vigorously defended his patents. The tintype patent fee was paid for with each plate. And of course Eastman built the Kodak empire on patents and patent purchases. Noticeably losing one to Ansco.

 

[Skiver101]

I think that if a photo opportunity is within the public realm - it's fair game.
In the OP's example, I'm sure the mobile phone image quality, shot through a window, was nowhere near the aesthetic qualities of the actual paintings.
Who in their right mind would equate the two ?

JP

 

[Moopheus]

uploading a cellphone picture and using it as a screen saver is theft as much as robbing the shoppe.
its like doing work for someone and sending them "proofs" and they decide they want 1 so you make the print ...
in the meantime they have taken the proofs you have sent them, that they didn't pay for, and gottem post cards made from them.
same thing ...

I should hope that these are not the same thing at all. If I ordered a print proof and it came looking like a cell phone snap shot through a window from the sidewalk, I would be quite incensed.

But in that case, I would indeed be not paying for services I had contracted for. Again, it is not the same as the situation in the OP. The art is being placed in a window display for viewing from the street, and the passerby has no agreement with the shop. The value of the art is not diminished. Is any potential buyer going to come in and say, I will pay less for this because someone snapped it from the street? Of course not. If that were true, then the gallery owner would have done their client a great disservice by placing it there.