Using someone else art work in a photograph.

MrDrizz

MrDrizz

Messages
1,702
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
So I've had this idea for a long time, not going to say what just yet, but it does involve making a picture that uses part of a sculpture. The sculpture in question is one of Anthony Gormleys Iron men on Crosby beach.
Where would I stand legally if I posted the image to social media, could I be in breach of copyright? Also where would I stand should someone want to buy a print?

I'm not sure what I have planned would be classed as transforming it into something else.

Cheers.
 
DemiLion said:
Section 62 CDPA 1988
Click to expand...
Interesting. I had always wondered about that. I am thinking it would be completely different if someone took a photograph or scan of copyright work from an album cover or a magazine or a newspaper or a book and used that in a creative photograph?
 
The Iron Men is on permanent public display, so you should be fine.

Photos of sculptures can be tricky, but are generally less prone to copyright infringement because you can't really make a proper 'copy' of a three-dimensional subject in a 2D photograph, but it's not as straightforward as that, particularly bearing in mind that the main purpose of copyright law is to protect commercial interests in creative and artistic works. So if you photograph a sculpture - one that is subject to copyright - and sell photos/posters/postcards etc of it without permission, then you could well be in trouble. Unless the sculpture is incidental to the overall image, ie not the main subject, such as it appears in a shop window in a general street scene.

Good explanation here http://cjam.info/en/copyright-and-taking-pictures-of-sculptures-2/
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
The Iron Men is on permanent public display, so you should be fine.

Photos of sculptures can be tricky, but are generally less prone to copyright infringement because you can't really make a proper 'copy' of a three-dimensional subject in a 2D photograph, but it's not as straightforward as that, particularly bearing in mind that the main purpose of copyright law is to protect commercial interests in creative and artistic works. So if you photograph a sculpture - one that is subject to copyright - and sell photos/posters/postcards etc of it without permission, then you could well be in trouble. Unless the sculpture is incidental to the overall image, ie not the main subject, such as it appears in a shop window in a general street scene.

Good explanation here http://cjam.info/en/copyright-and-taking-pictures-of-sculptures-2/
Click to expand...
I haven't read your article so don't know the differences, if any, but that is Canadian laws.
 
I personally don't understand all the copyright laws of things like this, but what I find bizarre is the that there's the Richard Prince that apparently made millions selling screenshots of other people's photos and instagram posts and this was all fine and dandy as far as copyright was concerned :confused:
 
snerkler said:
I personally don't understand all the copyright laws of things like this, but what I find bizarre is the that there's the Richard Prince that apparently made millions selling screenshots of other people's photos and instagram posts and this was all fine and dandy as far as copyright was concerned :confused:
Click to expand...


Only under US law by manipulating the Fair Use exemption. In any other jurisdiction he's get hammered; which is why his 'modified' work has never been seen over here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top