rights to pictures taken of an artist question

[neil85]

so i was checking out another website and saw a comment that i found odd.

As for the legality of photographs, you can't go to a U2 concert and take pictures of the band and then go post them on the internet. The band owns any pictures you take of them.

The same goes for art. You can't go to a museum and go around posting the pictures.

These are what are considered 'derivative works' of intellectual property. I am a fan of these laws as a musician since it doesn't allow people to make new things out of my original work without my permission. It's the only way I can be sure my music doesn't end up as the soundtrack to a porn movie without my express written consent.

i tried looking up "derivative work" as he states thats what the photographs of the band fall under but i couldnt find anything supporting his claim.

only thing i see for a definition of derivative work is examples of a book being made into a movie or a copyrighted work to be altered needs to have the express consent of the original copyrighter.

[tipsy]

As far as taking photos of a person, i.e a band, goes:

Unless you sign anything to give copyright to the band (which U2 ask for if you're going with a photopass) then you're fine- i think. I can't see how in a free society, people can prevent you using the photos. Sure, they can stop you taking a camera in, but if you take one in without being told not to, then you have no control over your rights.

Taking photos of art and reproducing music however is different as that is not of a thing, it's of a creative work and hence is known as a derivative work. You can't usually reproduce art in any form covered by a non-derivs license.

U2, the band, are however not an artwork of themselves. Their music might be, but the people are not art.

As far as my knowledge covers, that's an incorrect quote in that sense.

x

[neil85]

yea, i guess i should have commented that it was the photography part i didnt quiet understand.

as far as reproducion of something i understand that part. just didnt get how taking a picture of a band made that picture property of the band (unless you have a contractual agreement stating this)

[DwightMcCann]

I am not a lawyer. My rule of thumb is that if used for editorial work such as reviews in publications then it is fair use. If used by the talent themselves then copyright or right of publicity takes care of itself. I think in this particular type of scenario you are more concerned with the right of publicity which is the right, under state laws, to control how your image is used. It is what keeps me from selling prints of my images on the internet. Posting on my website is a gray area ... I do it as most performers are always happy to have additional publicity so long as it doesn't cut into their ability to sell their own (usually terrible quality) prints and other merchandise but I am fully prepared to remove images at their request. I don't think of it as confrontational proposition. I would only sign away my copyright to images for negotiated compensation. I have never been asked to do so although I have signed a few agreements prior to shoots ... mostly just agreeing not to sell my images.

As to derivative works: I don't believe that your own photograph is a derivative work of a concert. I'm not sure that a movie made from a book is a derivative work. And in general I expect that you at your level you can pretty much do whatever you want and wait for a cease-and-desist order and then just cease and desist. I would likely do this if I was not working for the casino ... I am unwilling to put the casino in the position of having to deal with legal issues although I have had one case of the talent asking that my pictures be removed from the web ... same guy who has about 1.3 million other images of his act out there on the 'Net (according to Google) ... no idea why he picked on me! :-) My boss even said, "He couldn't have asked for any better pictures to be removed because there aren't any better pictures!" One of two compliments he has ever given me. :rolleyes: But he keeps sending those checks. :D

[jmintz]

I am not a lawyer. My rule of thumb is that if used for editorial work such as reviews in publications then it is fair use. If used by the talent themselves then copyright or right of publicity takes care of itself. I think in this particular type of scenario you are more concerned with the right of publicity which is the right, under state laws, to control how your image is used. It is what keeps me from selling prints of my images on the internet.

I am not a lawyer either. However, during the course of getting my Master's in Journalism, I did take Mass Communications Law. So, there are clearly more qualified people to pass this info along.

However, there are a few things to keep in mind.

Dwight is correct - photography for use in editorial work (i.e. news, informational purpose) is generally exempt from appropriation. Appropriation is an individual's right to protect their name, likeness, image, etc. from being used for commercial purposes without consent. Basically, you can't sell your image for *profit* without consent of the artist. However, if you were to be contacted by the New York Times about purchasing an image to run alongside a story that would convey news, sell away. You're making money, but in a news-conveying capacity, not as a purely for-profit venture.

With regards to taking their pictures as a whole, what occurs in public is never an invasion of privacy. If you're standing naked on a street corner, I take your picture, and it ends up on the front page of a paper, you will never win a lawsuit against me because gave up your right to privacy when you decided to walk outside naked. So, if a band played a concert in a park where anyone could walk up and view them, I'm pretty sure (not 100%) that you can snap away with little legal implications. However, if a band plays a concert where you have to buy a ticket, I'm not sure if that then creates a private place situation, even thought anyone with the money to buy a ticket can attend.

Either way, if the band sticks an agreement in front of you before you shoot and you sign it, you're bound by whatever terms are on that piece of paper.

As for the band owning the work because it's their likeness, if you're selling something that's not exactly a picture of Michael Jackson but invokes his image, he'd probably win. Even if the work is reminiscent of the artist but not an actual likeness, they win lawsuits. Vanna White won a lawsuit v. Samsung because they ran an ad of a ROBOT standing next to a game board with letters on it. The court ruled it was close enough to Vanna's likeness.

[DwightMcCann]

I am not a lawyer either. However, during the course of getting my Master's in Journalism, I did take Mass Communications Law. So, there are clearly more qualified people to pass this info along.


More qualified than me? Oh, perish the thought! :-)

A lot of these issues are a matter of state law where the states are quite different. In California there has been legislation proposed to give the artist, their heirs and assigns, the right to control how their images are used for 100 after their deaths! And while you may have the right to take a picture of someone in a public place, you may none-the-less be constrained as to what you may do with that image, which are two different things that sometimes get mixed up.

But again, most of these issues, other than copyright, are state rather than federal. Also, terminology may differ significantly from state to state. YMMV

[jmintz]

More qualified than me? Oh, perish the thought! :-)
No, I meant more qualified than me - that my having taking one little course in school certainly doesn't make me qualified to give authoritative info on the subject!

And while you may have the right to take a picture of someone in a public place, you may none-the-less be constrained as to what you may do with that image
Yes, I guess I should have added that. If I take someone's picture, and stick it on the front page with a caption on it like "so and so is here on the corner selling drugs," they'd win the suit.

In California there has been legislation proposed to give the artist, their heirs and assigns, the right to control how their images are used for 100 after their deaths!
Also true. I broke out my old textbook for this one :) "It is possible in some states for a celebrity or sports star or some other well-known person who has died to pass on property right in his or her name to his heirs. The heirs can sue for violation of the deceased's right to publicity. Lawyers say that the right of publicity is descendible. For the rest of the people, their right to privacy dies when they do."

So, translation: If you're famous, you have more rights than the rest of us :)