museum copyrights

[ajc518]

I have seen a couple topics talking about whether people could sell photos they took in museums. Basically that you should get a property release from the artist if you intend to use the image commercially.

But my question is different from all theirs. For example, I have quite a few photos that were taken of paintings in museums. Now, if I were to try to sell those photos, I could see were copyright problems could come in. BUT I had to buy a seperate ticket specifically for being able to photograph.

So, having to pay extra money to buy a ticket allowing me to photograph. Would that basically be the same as like a property release?

Also, if I gave credit to the original artist of the paintings, or the museum they were from as well, would I be legally ok to sell the photos.

I mean, some of the paintings were quite old. The museum sold picture copies of the paintings, and I doubt they had a copyright release from all of the painters ;-)

[RDKirk]

So, having to pay extra money to buy a ticket allowing me to photograph. Would that basically be the same as like a property release?

No. In no way does merely buying a ticket give you any kind of rights to the use of photographs you may have taken at the venue or the event, even if it's a ticket that expressly gives you permission to photograph. Not unless it is specified in writing that the ticket gives you that license (and I suspect it's likely to specifically deny that license).

However, if the artwork in question is truly in the public domain (say, a photograph you took of the Mona Lisa), then you can use it commercially. But you have to be sure that what you photographed is truly in the public domain.

For instance, the theater script of Romeo and Juliet is in the public domain, but any given theatrical production will be copyrighted. You can't photograph anyone's performance of Romeo and Juliet and use that image commercially without their permission.

The works of Mozart are in the public domain, but you can't record anyone's performance of Mozart and use it commercially without their permission.

[DDCSD]

Do the photos simply contain the other works, or is the other works the only thing in the photos?

It also depends on how you intend to sell the photos.

[ajc518]

Could you explain more what you mean by being in public domain? Like how would the Mona Lisa be in public domain compared to any other painting in the museum?

Also, does the copyright law like this also apply to things like sculptures too.

[Hannya]

Hi. I work in a museum. From my limited experience I would venture that most 'visitor' photography in a museum or gallery is unlikely to result in publishable objects because of (1) glass (2) low lighting. Most of the catalogue photography is done in studio conditions. You can always order good quality shots from the institution.

Visitor photography is allowed for 'private' use, which although not specified, I would imagine would include publishing on the web or for editorial use (say, a shot of the outside of the building).
http://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/business_services/photography.aspx

Commercial photography is different. If you want to do this, you have to apply specifically, be approved, and probably pay for the privilege.

[ajc518]

[quote= It also depends on how you intend to sell the photos.[/quote]

Like prints that you could order off of a website.

[DDCSD]

Could you explain more what you mean by being in public domain? Like how would the Mona Lisa be in public domain compared to any other painting in the museum?

Also, does the copyright law like this also apply to things like sculptures too.


There were no copyright laws in place when the Mona Lisa was created, therefore no copyright laws apply to it.

[ajc518]

There were no copyright laws in place when the Mona Lisa was created, therefore no copyright laws apply to it.

So how old does a painting have to be in order not to have a copyright?

[SwitchBlade]

IIRC copyright lasts 50 years after the death of the creator.

[DDCSD]

So how old does a painting have to be in order not to have a copyright?

Depends on the copyright laws in place in the country that the work was created.

IIRC copyright lasts 50 years after the death of the creator.


Not everywhere, and it isn't that simple. In the US, it's currently 70 years after the death of the creator if the work was made after January 1st, 1978.

[RDKirk]

Not everywhere, and it isn't that simple. In the US, it's currently 70 years after the death of the creator if the work was made after January 1st, 1978.

You're right that it's not simple. For instance, prior to 1978, the work had to have been properly marked for copyright to be covered at all. If it had been properly marked as far back as 1910 (the Buenos Aires Convention), then it's covered today for 120 years if the copyright is owned by a corporation (yeah, Mickey Mouse).

With the twists and turns copyright has taken over the years (as the US struggled and writhed long and hard for a century before finally accepting the Berne Convention), I believe that in the US anything produced before 1910 has safely fallen into public domain.

[RDKirk]

Also, does the copyright law like this also apply to things like sculptures too.

Yes. Copyright law applies to any creative work manifest into a tangible medium. So the street musician who improvises a song but never records it or writes down the melody does not have copyright on it.

A sculpture is thus inherently copyrighted.

www.copyright.gov has some easy-to-understand explanations.

[ajc518]

For instance, the pictures were taken in Russia, but I originally wanted to sell the prints in the US. Which countries copyright laws should be followed?

If I have the photos on a website for reference, but not to sell. Thats fine right? especially since I wrote who did them or where they came. Same as citing someones work in a book, and giving reference.

Speaking of copying... or I should say straight up stealing. Watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um74DKYlta8&feature=channel_page

[DDCSD]

For instance, the pictures were taken in Russia, but I originally wanted to sell the prints in the US. Which countries copyright laws should be followed?


The country in which the work of art was made. It doesn't matter where you are selling from or where the work was physically located when you photographed it, it is where it was created.





If I have the photos on a website for reference, but not to sell. Thats fine right? especially since I wrote who did them or where they came. Same as citing someones work in a book, and giving reference.


Assuming you are talking about photos that you took, yes you are fine.

[ajc518]

The country in which the work of art was made. It doesn't matter where you are selling from or where the work was physically located when you photographed it, it is where it was created.

Well if thats the case, then I should be fine with selling them. Copyright laws dont really apply in russia ;)

They sell bootleg movies and music EVERYWHERE....
Not to mention they have a complete rip off of that show 'married with children'. Everything from the family, the house, jobs, ect. is an exact copy of mwc, except in Russian. It's actually kind of funny to watch :lol:

I will see if I can find more information on the individual pieces, and the dates, and locations they were created.

thanks for all those who commented with the info

[RDKirk]

Well if thats the case, then I should be fine with selling them. Copyright laws dont really apply in russia

It's not practice, it's the laws. Russian citizens may scoff at the laws of other countries and the government may ignore the scofflaws, but that doesn't mean they won't both pounce on someone else who scoffs their own laws.

[bric-a-brac]

consider what it would be like for someone to photograph your photographs and sell them (as their own) for profit.

watch this interview with Sam Abell (http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/06/look3-video-sam.html), a famous commercial advertising photographer. His images are in the Guggenheim... most unfortunately under the name of Richard Prince, a photographer who makes his living by photographing the photographs of others and selling them as fine art under the postmodern guise of "commentary" on ownership and originality (as I understand, his "art" is not actually photography, but this idea). it's shameful that he gets away with it.

[DAMphyne]

I'd be surprised if you were allowed to photograph the Mona Lisa without prior arrangements.

[RDKirk]

I'd be surprised if you were allowed to photograph the Mona Lisa without prior arrangements.

True, but there are plenty of images of the Mona Lisa available.

Someone could copy the Mona Lisa, put his name on it, and submit it as his own work without breaking copyright laws. Someone could copy "Othello," put his name on it, and submit it as his own work without breaking copyright laws.

Hopefully, they'd be tossed out of the museum or the publishing office on their ears, but they would not be breaking copyright laws.