Copyright

[whitevanman]

I was at a local show today and photographing anything that stood still long enough.
Anyway I photographed a woman creating a sculpture, and as I was doing so another woman nearby said thats breach of copyright to photograph an artists work. I said it wasn't for commercial gain she said that doesn't matter.
Well I did what any self respecting person would do and ignored her and walk off but it did get me thinking was she right ?.
Over to you lot

 

[admirable]

Methinks she's talking *******s

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Photographing act is not a violation of copyright. The use of art photographs in some particular context might be. However if the photograph depicts the artist and the creation of artwork, this is simply photojournalism.

 

[whitevanman]

Thanks for that daugirdas, I shall have to try and remember that.

 

[Musicman]

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s62

62 Representation of certain artistic works on public display

(1) This section applies to—

(a) buildings, and
(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.​

(2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—

(a) making a graphic work representing it,
(b) making a photograph or film of it, or
(c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it.
​

(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.

The author of the work (the sculpture) retains moral rights, however

http://www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/copyright/qualifying-for-copyright-protection/public-sculpture.htm

in the UK, all two-dimensional uses of the sculpture do not need the artist's consent, do not therefore breach copyright in the work - because it is permanently situated in a public place where the public can see it (that was the artist's intention) - and can therefore make two-dimensional versions of it. However, the makers of such 2D images are obliged to publish an acknowledgement of the author of the work when they make and issue such reproductions, whether doing so on a commercial or non-commercial basis. Furthermore, the makers of such 2D images must not publish such reproductions that treat the sculpture in a derogatory manner - they cannot add to, alter, amend or delete anything from the image of its original shape and form - so as to damage the integrity and reputation of the sculpture and its author. The right to object to derogatory treatment, and the right to be acknowledged as author, both derive from artists' statutory moral rights brought into UK law by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

If you were at a local show, then I think it may be reasonably drawn that the sculpture was being exhibited at a place open to the public, though I am open to correction on the point.

 

[HoppyUK]

It would only be a copyright infringement if your camera, by some kind of magic, churned out a 3D replica of the sculpture.

A better parallel might be if she was painting, and you took a picture over her shoulder, effectively 'copying' her picture, and then reproducing it as an original work.

That would be a technical breach, but since your photograph is unlikely to get mistaken for the original, even if you did try and frame it and sell it, what she might take you to court over is moot.

 

[Coldeh]

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s62



The author of the work (the sculpture) retains moral rights, however

http://www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/copyright/qualifying-for-copyright-protection/public-sculpture.htm



If you were at a local show, then I think it may be reasonably drawn that the sculpture was being exhibited at a place open to the public, though I am open to correction on the point.

Looks right to me. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act is there to protect artists from having their work copied, the act of taking a photograph of an artist whilst creating artistic works would not be copyright infringement as it could not be said that your sole intention was to copy the works.

A better parallel might be if she was painting, and you took a picture over her shoulder, effectively 'copying' her picture, and then reproducing it as an original work.

That would be a technical breach...

It could then be said that you were attempting to make infringing copies of the works, doesn't matter about the quality though.