Copyright battle over Obama picture

dlpasco wrote in post #7362040
Isn't this covered by existing copyright law as a "derivative work"?

I've been asked by a friend to photograph his paintings. I own the copyright to the photos but he owns the copyright to the paintings. Nobody can copy or use my photos without my permission and I can't give that permission without permission from the copyright holder of the original work. Right? (EDIT: I should clarify - my friend's paintings are the primary subject, not just part of the background)

Why would the AP situation be different?

i dont know enough about the law to comment (bad on me eh) but this seems to make logical sense, therefore I am sure that it would NOT apply. Sense and the law dont always seem to intersect

dlpasco wrote in post #7362040
Isn't this covered by existing copyright law as a "derivative work"?

I've been asked by a friend to photograph his paintings. I own the copyright to the photos but he owns the copyright to the paintings. Nobody can copy or use my photos without my permission and I can't give that permission without permission from the copyright holder of the original work. Right? (EDIT: I should clarify - my friend's paintings are the primary subject, not just part of the background)

Why would the AP situation be different?

Well said, and I agree, but it's the opposite of what happened here. Fairey didn't take a photo of a painting, he made a painting of a photo. Then he claimed that he had every right to make that painting and distribute it to others.

That is why Fairey is the one to blame. He misrepresented the rights to the source of his painting. "Here's a painting I made. It's free and clear for you to use." That's not true.

If you were to sell a photo of your friend's painting to a photo-stock agency (a legit one), they will ask you "Do you have the authority to transfer license of reproduction to us?" If you say yes, then you have just indemnified the stock agency against legal claims by your friend. If they do NOT ask you that question, then you cannot be libel for what the stock agency does with the photo; you did not misrepresent rights of reproduction.

Robbierob wrote in post #7362344
i dont know enough about the law to comment (bad on me eh) but this seems to make logical sense, therefore I am sure that it would NOT apply. Sense and the law dont always seem to intersect

Especially when a cop knocks you senseless.

dlpasco wrote in post #7362040
Isn't this covered by existing copyright law as a "derivative work"?

I've been asked by a friend to photograph his paintings. I own the copyright to the photos but he owns the copyright to the paintings. Nobody can copy or use my photos without my permission and I can't give that permission without permission from the copyright holder of the original work. Right? (EDIT: I should clarify - my friend's paintings are the primary subject, not just part of the background)

Why would the AP situation be different?

If you presented your photos as original art, you would be violating your friend's copyright. Even then, your presentation of those photographs would be limited to critical review, education, or other activity specifically allowed under the Fair Use provision, and in such as way that it could not be used as an alternative to the artwork (such as by showing only a portion or showing it too small to be a useful reproduction other than for making your point).

Let's say your friend gives you permission to display them (it does need to be in writing to have force of law). If someone then used your photos without your permission, they would be violating both yours and your friend's copyrights.

For example, if I get permission from, say, John Williams to make a tuba quartet arrangement of, say, the Darth Vader theme from Star Wars, and someone used that quartet arrangement to make some further derivative work, they would be violating my copyright on the arrangement and also John Williams's copyright on the original work.

Rick "who has made commercial photos of artwork" Denney

BillsBayou wrote in post #7362374
If you were to sell a photo of your friend's painting to a photo-stock agency (a legit one), they will ask you "Do you have the authority to transfer license of reproduction to us?" If you say yes, then you have just indemnified the stock agency against legal claims by your friend. If they do NOT ask you that question, then you cannot be libel for what the stock agency does with the photo; you did not misrepresent rights of reproduction.

That would depend on the nature of the rights conveyed to the photographer from the artist. As you have yourself said in this thread, the artist can do anything from providing an unlimited transfer of copyright to the photographer to allowing the photographs but not their public display. The artist might, for example, allow the photographer to display them on his website for the purposes of demonstrating his abilities as a photographer of art, but not for any resulting sale of those images.

To reuse my example from above about the tuba quartet arrangement from Star Wars, John Williams (or his assigns) might give me permission to make the arrangement, but might not give me permission to sell the resulting arrangement, or perform it commercially, or outside a particular venue. This is a real example, by the way. Ask the arranger of music for the TubaFours (who played at Disneyworld) what they can do with their arrangements of Disney-owned tunes outside the park. Answer: Nothing.

In most cases between friends and individuals, this will be a hand-shake agreement, but if it ever got to court because of a downstream infringement, the lack of a written agreement would probably pose problems.

Rick "who usually treats photography of art as a work for hire and gives the images to the artist with no further expectations" Denney

rdenney wrote in post #7362461
To reuse my example from above about the tuba quartet arrangement from Star Wars, John Williams (or his assigns) might give me permission to make the arrangement, but might not give me permission to sell the resulting arrangement, or perform it commercially, or outside a particular venue. This is a real example, by the way. Ask the arranger of music for the TubaFours (who played at Disneyworld) what they can do with their arrangements of Disney-owned tunes outside the park. Answer: Nothing.

Just ask John Fogerty

My opinion is that a painting of a photograph should have the same limitations as a photograph of a painting. Does it matter the form in which the copy exists?

I added a comment with the quote.

rdenney wrote in post #7361934
Of course. And, if you were on her property without permission, you can add trespass to vandalism. (Mmm U.S. legal system at work. I'd just sue her for having knifes in her kitchen. I could have gotten HURT! - Stealthy)

A fundamental concept of private ownership is that the owner has control, even if he uses that control to neglect maintenance. Only when a neglected property provides a safety issue for those who are not trespassing would there be any justification to compel action. Of course, this principle has been encroached severely, often by do-gooders who want to make sure their neighbors don't lower their property values. Blech.

Forcing someone to receive goodness is not fundamentally different than forcing them to receive badness, for the simple reason that it puts the definition of goodness in the hands of the non-owner.

Rick "who doesn't want anyone appropriating his bad art" Denney

Pretty legalistic view.

Black and White...

Heres a new one: Grey

So doing a good deed for an old lady in need is vandalism... and "forced" goodness is somehow the same as "forced badness".

No birthday presents for Denny. Wouldn't want to force goodness on him.

I guess you believe in moral relativism, where as I believe in moral absolutes. in other words: doing something good for someone is good (despite what "blind" justice sees). If I leave my camera on my desk and someone replaces my broken 70-200 f/4L with a brand new 70-200 f/2.8L IS, I'm not going to go on about the encroaching on my "rights" and property. I'll say...

Thank you very much.

I think I'll stop now...

"Good artists copy. Great artists steal."
Pablo Picasso.

Done some "background reading" on Fairey, and I'd have to say he does seem totally "in" with ol' Picasso on this point.

As an artist of sorts, that's slightly depressing, but that's art for you I guess.
Well....most of the time.

In fact, that's almost everything we do......most of the time.

Just want the case to finish so we can see if The Law, or "being a pretty normal human being" wins.

dlpasco wrote in post #7364513
Just ask John Fogerty

My opinion is that a painting of a photograph should have the same limitations as a photograph of a painting. Does it matter the form in which the copy exists?

Only when you defend yourself.

A photo of a painting looks exactly like the painting. A painting of a photo does not exactly like the photo. In the Fairey case, it is easy to see that the photo is the source of the painting. Fairey's defense is that by painting the photo, he transformed the work and that's "Fair Use."

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #7364902
...So doing a good deed for an old lady in need is vandalism... and "forced" goodness is somehow the same as "forced badness". ...

Here in Post-Katrina New Orleans, we have a "Good Samaritan" who is going around town painting over graffiti. He's doing on his own time with his own money, but without permission. In one case, he painted over a commissioned work. Ooops!

Forced goodness = Forced Badness

He's in trouble.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #7364902
So doing a good deed for an old lady in need is vandalism.

Sheesh. Doing a good deed is never bad. But it is not doing a good deed if it is done without the knowledge and approval of the owner.

Rick "who doesn't need to be a philosopher to see that distinction" Denney

skygod44 wrote in post #7365209
"Good artists copy. Great artists steal."
Pablo Picasso.

There is a difference between borrowing a concept and stealing an image.

For example, if Fairey had admired the photograph, and had followed Obama around until he was able to see enough to be able to work from the original subject in the same style, he would not be in trouble. He would also have evidence of having worked from the source subject. And there would be more differences--given the two images, it looks like he could have projected the photo onto the canvas and started painting.

Concepts, styles, artistic vision, etc., are not protected. Actual works of art are.

I seriously doubt old Pablo was working from someone else's painting as the source for one of his own.

Rick "anarchy is not the answer" Denney

rdenney wrote in post #7368048
I seriously doubt old Pablo was working from someone else's painting as the source for one of his own.

Even if he was, he certainly did enough to transform the work.

rdenney wrote in post #7368048
There is a difference between borrowing a concept and stealing an image.
For example, if Fairey had admired the photograph, and had followed Obama around until he was able to see enough to be able to work from the original subject in the same style, he would not be in trouble. He would also have evidence of having worked from the source subject. And there would be more differences--given the two images, it looks like he could have projected the photo onto the canvas and started painting.
Concepts, styles, artistic vision, etc., are not protected. Actual works of art are.
I seriously doubt old Pablo was working from someone else's painting as the source for one of his own.
Rick "anarchy is not the answer" Denney

Hey there Rick "actually sounds like a really genuine kinda guy to me" Denney,

If you couldn't read between the lines of my last post, I'll fill you in...doing some research about Fairey made me somewhat depressed.

You see, I take photos - have done for around 30 years - I can sketch, bang out a watercolour if I want, and I'm known to be quite handy with a potter's wheel or at carving wood and stone. None are my "trades" or "profession" - I just love to create.

But Fairey's complete body of works made me feel disappointed.
He's making the minimum effort and it annoys me. I still don't like what AP are doing as I think the law has become slewed, but I wish Fairey would show some real talent.

Sky "now annoyed at BOTH parties in the case" god44.

skygod44 wrote in post #7370431
But Fairey's complete body of works made me feel disappointed.

Yes. You can tell when people are taking shortcuts, trying to get to the front of the line first without waiting their turn. He might have done better if he had rooted around in his head to find his own voice.

Rick "also disappointing as an artist, but for different reasons" Denney