Is this right (to use somebody's else photo as part of yours)?

[Olli]

Yesterday we visited a small wedding fair held in an old mansion nowadays used as a hotel, conference center and place for all kind of celebrations. One of the local studio photographers [edit: name removed] had a small exhibition there. She is a great photographer, has taken also our wedding photos (years, years ago). [edit: link to website removed].

Before starting the shooting in the mansion, I asked from the orgnanizers, if photographing was allowed. No limitations, they said.

The photographs were laid in to one room, and I liked the way how an old sofa (coach) was used as part of the setting and I took picture of that. - The artist was not around, but there was a couple of young ladies handing marketing leaflets, and they seemed to be pleased about the interest.

In my picture I have now, after Dan's post (#4) removed the original post and replaced that with desaturated, blurred placeholder. I did this as I realized that the imbedded picture is not the point here, and is not needed for this discussion.

Is this kind of use of somebody's else photographs right/allowed?

All edits in italic.

[jbkalla]

I think it's generally wise to get permission from the artist first. I doubt she'd mind. If you start selling prints, many artists might object to that...

[Olli]

John, selling the pictures is really a clear no-go. What about posting in this kind of forums, without any commercial intention, only to create discussion and this way clarifying how far we can go? And what about my editing of her picture in this kind of context?

[Woolburr]

I certainly would think that the permission of the original artist should be secured prior to using their work in any context. Beyond the potential legal issues, as a photographer, I would personally be more than a bit offended by someone taking my images, doctoring them and then portraying them in a somewhat less than flattering light. A better solution here might be to Photoshop one of your own images into the frame. That would put any questions to rest.

[Olli]

Dan, thanks for opening my eyes - the picture in in the picture is not needed for this discussion, so I removed that, even the frame as that was part of the art.

My point is, every day we see how (modified) parts of others creations are used in new contexts. How far we can go? Where is the limit?

[lakiluno]

Shutterstock will not take images of sculptures without a release from the sculptor - so I'd assume this would be a similar situation. The easiest thing to do would be to put your own image into it.

Leo

[Olli]

Originally Posted by lakiluno

Shutterstock will not take images of sculptures without a release from the sculptor - so I'd assume this would be a similar situation. The easiest thing to do would be to put your own image into it.

Leo

I've heard about that, Leo, and understand Shutterstock's rules as they are doing business with pictures. I'm not looking for an easy solution for my personal case, but try to understand where the limits are in using others art as part of your pictures.

I know that I can take a picure of a sculpture and show that to my familly, but is it wrong if I post it e.g. here in this Forum?

Our environment is full of art, and I find it impossible to avoid capturing those sometimes on pictures, by accident or intentionally.

Here is one more example, a photo I've taken in Singapore Art Museum. I liked the way water drops were contrasting the sculpture. Is this wrong to show that to you? What if I crop the picture as show? Is it then more acceptable?

[jbkalla]

Good points! I don't know the answer, but for some reason I don't see a problem with you showing the whole sculpture as it is in public view. I think the same would hold for paintings in a museum, unless you were trying to sell them. I think anything to increase an artist's exposure is a good thing. Am I going too far?

[lakiluno]

Its not showing it - you don't need a model release to show me a picture of someone, but the moment you try to make money off it then it requires permission from the person/sculpter/photographer etc (unless the photo/sculpture was made over 90 years ago, or if it hasn't been published until recently, 120 years since it was first made)(see, you do pick up stuff browsing the US Copyright office pages )

Leo