Theft Of/Stealing Images, Artwork ?

[destroya]

if the artist is present, i ask if i can take a photo and respect whatever they decide.

when i used to post to flickr, i had two of my shots downloaded from the site and then used in adds for various things. that i consider theft, but taking a photo of something in a public place for non-commercial use, i dont

 

[Skiver101]

''i had two of my shots downloaded from the site and then used in adds for various things. that i consider theft''

Absolutely...some people have no respect for the freedoms they are afforded.
Give them an inch, and they'll take everything.

JP

 

[jvo]

art work hanging in a museum, people take iphone shots; art student sit in front and make "copies", practicing, and encouraged to do so; photographers are allowed to take pictures at museums, ("no flash" please)... all inappropriate or theft?

 

[DF]

It didn't look as if the passerby had any authentic interest in what they were I-phoning -
just simply the usual knee-jerk reaction our species has developed as the result of hand-held technology.
Who could say what that particular painter feels about this whole issue ?

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Good for you! On rare occasion I have stopped someone taking a photograph and warned them that they could be held liable for theft. Most of them do not take the photograph at least while I am there.

 

[rthollenbeck]

Good for you! On rare occasion I have stopped someone taking a photograph and warned them that they could be held liable for theft. Most of them do not take the photograph at least while I am there.

They may have thought you were crazy!

 

[dmr]

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

Just remember all of the hub-bub a number of years ago about the people photographing Cloud Gate. (The Bean)

 

[mynewcolour]

Welcome to the 21st century.

Photographing paintings through windows? Ha, how quaint!

Try deliberate orphanage of digital content. Thanks to successful lobbying by UK news groups (Murdoch) it's easy to deliberately orphan content (it takes 5 mins), then buy rights for 7 years for £20.

So, keep your uploads low-res and include contact details in your metadata.

 

[mynewcolour]

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

I don't know how it works in the US. Here if you're standing on public property then (unless you're photographing one of a few named state military sites) you are within your rights to take photos.

 

[Moopheus]

I don't know how it works in the US. Here if you're standing on public property then (unless you're photographing one of a few named state military sites) you are within your rights to take photos.

The section of copyright law that deals with is specifically about architecture (i.e., no one can say you can't take a picture of a building's facade that is a normal part of the public view). I'd think in this case fair use would be more relevant.

 

[removed account4]

if the artist is present, i ask if i can take a photo and respect whatever they decide.

when i used to post to flickr, i had two of my shots downloaded from the site and then used in adds for various things. that i consider theft, but taking a photo of something in a public place for non-commercial use, i dont

that stinks.
i've also had work taken, not from flickr, but personal+private websites, stuff submited to clients that
were not supposed to be used &c. my mentor used to have be barely fix proofs, and we'd put a rubber stamp
on them to make they useless, its not that ez these days. the majority or people i think are respectful
and honorable, but the bad ones .. couldn't give a $4!T ... oh well, nothing you can do about it.

art work hanging in a museum, people take iphone shots; art student sit in front and make "copies", practicing, and encouraged to do so; photographers are allowed
to take pictures at museums, ("no flash" please)... all inappropriate or theft?

if it is allowed, its fine, if it isn't allowed, or the people who own or are displaying the artwork, than it isnt fine.

another example is the woman who was eating in a chipotle who was asked if she wanted to be photographed in the restaurant
she said NO, and REFUSED to sign model release. they photographed her anyways, photoshopped her a little
bit and used her just the same hoping they wouldn't get caught.
they got caught and she is clogging the court system with her case now ...
and getty ( or was it corbis this time ) snatching the work from the LOC and claiming ownership of
a donated collection.. its not passerby or people who don't know any better ...

again, if someone says its OK to take photographs ( film, digi, who cares ) or paint/sketch the subject, or
make a film or video with it in the background great, but if the owner &c says no, its not ok..

i don't know what the owner of the works or shop in the OP said, i was just speaking from a "commercial"
point of view, having had to deal with issues like this on a professinal level for 25-30 years, and one of
respecting people's privacy, not some sort of knee jerk anti current technology propaganda.

 

[mynewcolour]

It's unclear if you're making a moral assertion or stating law? Both cases are on private property with photography conducted with the property owners permission?

In the UK the chipotle lady would only have a claim if her inclusion in commercial material was money-making and this was demonstrated. Unless you're the face of a Cola campaign they don't make court.

Generally you don't need someone's permission to photograph them to satisfy UK law.

Personally I think it's good law. As ropey as the press can be, a functioning investigative media is vital for democracy.

 

[removed account4]

It's unclear if you're making a moral assertion or stating law.

In the UK the chipotle lady would only have a claim if her inclusion in commercial material was money-making and this was demonstrated.

Generally you don't need someone's permission to photograph them and to satisfy UK law.

Personally I think this is a good thing. As ropey as the press can be, a functioning investigative media is vital for democracy.

it was for commercial use. ( chipotle lady ) and she was used in ad campaigns, and chipotle made $$ off of her, and photoshopped
beer bottles around her to look like she was having a good time.

for me, part of it is a moral thing, photographing people without their permission and publishing it without consent, or publishing other people's work
as if you own it, or are given permission to do it. but having worked for a newspaper before, i agree that it is important to also be able to photograph
as part of the "get the story out" kind of thing. and even when i photographed people for a newspaper most of the time it was with permission
from whover the story was about. the only times i was told to stop, was when i was photographing in a shopping mall, which was against mall policy
and when the paper had me doing the equiv. of surveillance photographs at a hotel and the 6 foot 4, 260lb, linebcker of a security guard walked across the street
threatened me, tried to get my memory card, was all in my face. i was well within my rights, street corner they were outside/on hotel property &c
but not a situation i want to be in ever again.

===

SORRY DF FOR THE DETOUR FROM YOUR ORIGINAL POST

 

[mynewcolour]

There is creep of personal moral idealism towards law. I agree it is nice to ask permission but it's often not reasonable. You'd never see a broadcast image of a crowd ever again!

We don't own the light we reflect. The desire to make that claim strikes me as unhealthy.

Copyright infringement (of work) is entirely separate.

 

[removed account4]

There is creep of personal moral idealism towards law. I agree it is nice to ask permission but it's often not reasonable. You'd never see a broadcast image of a crowd ever again!

We don't own the light we reflect. The desire to make that claim strikes me as unhealthy.

Copyright infringement (of work) is entirely separate.

couldn't agree more...

 

[eddie]

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.

Actually, you can't say that's not happening. I've done numerous Art Festivals where someone has taken a cellphone photo of my work. Usually, it's so a spouse (who is not present) can see it. On more than a few occasions the photo has led to a sale. In one case, the husband responded within about 10 minutes, and the wife plunked down good money for the photo. On other occasions, both returned the next day, which has led to multiple sales. In fact, I now pull the photo off the display, bring it outside, and hold it for them, so they can get a better photo.

 

[Skiver101]

keep your uploads low-res

A simple and effective solution

 

[removed account4]

A simple and effective solution

it is, unless the person has extrapolation software which doesn't really cost much ...
AND it says nothing about people photographing other people's artwork and
using it without their permission ... can't really choke the rez of someone photographing original artwork ( in person ).

 

[dasBlute]

it is, unless the person has extrapolation software which doesn't really cost much ...
AND it says nothing about people photographing other people's artwork and
using it without their permission ... can't really choke the rez of someone photographing original artwork ( in person ).

Extrapolation, where plenty of information has been lost and added by the downsizing, such as texture, edges, etc, will *not* recreate the original image,

 

[removed account4]

Extrapolation, where plenty of information has been lost and added by the downsizing, such as texture, edges, etc, will *not* recreate the original image,

i've had clients do this to images (i gave the images to them to do this with, they were 300 dpi not very deep sized for 4x5 and this transaction was fine by me .. )
and they blew them up to easily 2foot on the short-side, no issues, and used them for a presentation, and from all reports they looied beautiful .... 7+ years ago

you can believe whatever you want, but the software is there and easy to use and its been 7 years ...
and if you believe otherwise/technology stopped, i mean a cellphone snapshot can be
blown uo to be a billboard .... ( and look fantastic ! )

.. not sure what to say, other than, good luck...

 

[mynewcolour]

By uploads I was thinking about files at 72dpi.

You're right, handing over images at print resolutions could (technically) be used for almost anything.

 

[dmr]

when i used to post to flickr, i had two of my shots downloaded from the site and then used in adds for various things.

I know that there's a google search for photos which you can do onesy-twosey, but is there any easy way to, say, check a whole Flickr page or Gallery3 page to see if any photos appear elsewhere?

 

[removed account4]

By uploads I was thinking about files at 72dpi.

You're right, handing over images at print resolutions could (technically) be used for almost anything.

300 dpi targeted/optimzed for 4x5 or smaller printed 2-3 FOOT x ...
is not a small extrapolation ...
things uploaded without the "save for the web" CRUNCH i would be
extremely worried about .... hell, probably 72dpi can be scavanged from flickr and used on the web
without issue ... kinda youse-less if you ask me !

every image i upload to apug or my blog or flickr, i hope somebody won't use ...
at least i have the fact most of the things i upload have extremely little commercial value ...

i feel sorry for people who post thing some advertiising agency poacher might look for ...
heck apug's own sirius glass had his bitchin' off road images scalped and posted to hundreds of off-road-sites.

poust not only low rez, but UBER low rez !!

 

[dasBlute]

"... you can believe whatever you want ..."

So can you, but I know the math. Information is lost, there is no getting it back.

However, it may look close enough for people who aren't looking for it, or have a less than critical eye, or don't care.

 

[mynewcolour]

"... you can believe whatever you want ..."

So can you, but I know the math. Information is lost, there is no getting it back.

However, it may look close enough for people who aren't looking for it, or have a less than critical eye, or don't care.

Or have a deadline, have a client demand, have no budget, are a hack, or answer to a hack, etc, etc.