Man sued over photos of public art on Seattle street

Karl Johnston wrote in post #9557286
So what happens to photographers who photo street scenes and graffiti ? A lot of murals and stuff like that too.

Depends if it is legal graffiti or not, if people are risking their ass to name themselves as the artist

What's the problem?

Somebody is making money off it - THAT'S the problem.

You can take photos of artwork all day and all night.

Once you start selling it, you cross the line.

Imagine if you took VERY nice photo. So nice that you framed it add hung it in the Louvre. Somebody comes along and used a high-end DSLR and get's a PERFECT capture of YOUR photo.

THEN he sells it. Wouldn't you sue him?

I'm sorry, but you can't make money off other people's copyrighted artwork.
What the hell do you think a copyright is????

ConDigital wrote in post #9556721
From my understanding, this is the photo that has caused the law suit -

http://www.petapixel.c​om …ands-photog-in-hot-water/

It does show someones feet in the picture.

That link is far more informative than the original one. Yes, the image does now have more of a defense as a separate work of art. However, a court may well say that the commercial potential (and the sale of the image) is entirely down to the original sculpture and not the feet, which are still a (relatively) minor point. Without the original artwork, the image would have no commercial value at all.

The issue here isn't that he took the photo, but that he is selling the image and profiting from somebody else's copyrighted artwork.

The replies (in the linked article) are pretty polarized, many thinking it is ridiculous and some (who know the law) saying that the artist has a case against the photographer.

There is a reason for obtaining property releases when using distinctive creations as a major part of your photograph, and you intend to use it commercially. Without one, you leave yourself open to lawsuits such as this.

My personal view is that the $60,000 damages are ridiculous, he certainly has a claim to share in the photographers earnings from the work (a whole 60 bucks) and maybe some damages, but that amount is too high. Of course, from what I have seen of the American legal system, sometimes ridiculous sums are awarded.

I do find it amusing that photographers, who are normally the first to start screaming copyright infringement when somebody uses their pictures without permission, now find copyright law ridiculous when it starts to impact what they can do with the artwork of others.

It is of little relevance what we each individually think though, it is up to the courts to decide how much of the commercial value is down to the original sculpture and how much to the addition of the feet.

What was it sold for? I take it was sold through a stock agency, but was it sold for commercial or non-commercial purposes? I'm wondering if that might end up being the determining factor, and I think the feet being in the photo may affect the classification and outcome as well.

If I could have my way, the artist would be told to go pound sand AND reimburse the photographer his legal expenses, but law and common sense do not always correlate.

getbent wrote in post #9558237
Did the "public" art guy put a copyright notice on all of those art pieces? Me thinks not.

Yes he did, it was engraved into the title blocks.

It appears to be part of his complaint, that the copyright was 'removed' because the photographer cropped it out of the image - something that we see photographers moan about all the time.

If the case goes against the photographer, then that could increase the punitive damages as copyright removal, as well as infingement, gets a harsher judgement. I would imagine, of course, that the 'removal' of the copyright was simply because the blocks spoiled the composition, the photographer wasn't even thinking about it as removing the copyright marks, he simply framed the image to look good.

I would be interested to know if the sculptures were straight from the artists head, or did he base them on printed instructional diagrams from a 'learn to dance' book / dance school. If the latter, then he is being very hypocritical here.

[Edited to add: Scrub that last paragraph - I have looked deeper into the creation of the artwork and he hired dance instructors to do the steps, then outlined their footprints]

$60,000 is too much to award. Is it too much to ask for? Depends on who you are. The guy is trying to make a point, and the photographer got in the way. That sucks. That just royally sucks.

Is the guy guilty? That's not so easy. That is a great photo for a corporate something-or-another, and has a lot of potential. It all comes down to how much is the photo about what the photographer changed, and how much of the impact relies on the original artwork. Take out the extra feet and the photo looses most of it's impact; take out the artwork, though, and it's not a saleable piece.

So, $60,000 for $60 worth of profit? No. Is there a case to be made? I believe so (though I'm not sure of how much of one).

The second article.
http://www.petapixel.c​om …ands-photog-in-hot-water/

states that the image was from a stock agency, so I'm assuming that the image was being sold for commercial use?

If so, I'd say the photog violated copyright infringement.

If he is selling it as just fine art without any commercial use, then I think he's in the right.

400dabuser wrote in post #9558693
Depends if it is legal graffiti or not, if people are risking their ass to name themselves as the artist

Legal of course. I have known shop owners to pay graf. artists to do a piece on their walls, in their style, as long as its not rude or whatever.

A lot of fine painters up here make good bank on doing murals for the city or town, they turn out beautiful.

but if a passing photographer takes a pic of that and sells it for something tiny like 60 bucks, for example, and they call that infringement? It'd never reach the courts, especially at 60 k in damages...get real. IMO the way I see it is the artist who did the footwork is probably in financial trouble and wants to take advantage of the case as his ticket out of it.

Photographing photos is different from photographing street art. Totally different industry, not fair to compare the two.

The USA is known for such stupid frivolous lawsuits, though, even then I can't see this as anything close to being reasonable in the best interests of the artist. Making a statement, gotta ruin someone's life because of it...no big deal right? Anyone ever sued anyone here? Or been sued? I bet you opinion changes pretty quick when its your ass in the crosshairs. That affects entire lives, not just bank accounts...imagine if that guy had a family or something, and how it would affect them. Maybe something extreme happens, whos to tell...

I think its fair to say that it is established that the artwork in question is just that artwork. Say you had something that you had done hanging in a gallery, restaurant, really anywhere public had access and someone came along and took a picture and sold it for personal gain. Is that any different in the eyes of the law than what this case is. We are quick to defend our own but the more I read about this the more I have a feeling that the photographer probably erred in his ways, particularly since it seems that there is a © and this was cropped out of the item that was sold.

There have been many threads on here where someone's photo was used without permission. The immediate reaction is normally to sue the arse off of them, something that I don't agree with and as Karl said this is very much a US issue. The dollar value in this case will be decided by the courts if he is found guilty and the lawsuits always ask for the sky knowing full well that they will have to settle for something less in the end. I see no difference in this person suing a photographer for an inordinate amount of money and a photographer that sues someone who grabbed a copy of their work and lopped off the copyright symbol.

The "60,000" is statutory damages--it's the amount quoted in the law itself. The judge may or may not make that decision. If you'll notice, every time the media reports a case going to court, they always quote the maximum penalty.

I agree that this is a copyright infringement--the photograph does not exist without the artist's work. The amount the photographer had profited to this point is irrelevant; he had placed it with a picture agency, so it could have been picked up by a major corporation and profited him a lot more.

What a crock of ****...

getbent wrote in post #9558237
Haha. This is ridiculous. It's a picture of "public" art. If the artist didn't want anyone to see it or take pictures of it, it should have been "private" art. Seems to me the picture is art in and of itself and the photographer has the right to do what he pleases with his art. Did the "public" art guy put a copyright notice on all of those art pieces? Me thinks not.

If you display your copyrighted (and for the sake of argument, quite valuable) photograph in a public place (the Internet, for example), do you feel that makes it OK for anyone who comes along to make a copy of it and sell that without your being able to do anything about it?

Well seeing as how it was paid for by public taxes and its on open public property then he has no case. Its essentially every tax payers property and can be used however.

J_TULLAR wrote in post #9563281
Well seeing as how it was paid for by public taxes and its on open public property then he has no case. Its essentially every tax payers property and can be used however.

Sorry, but dead wrong.

The federal government, by law, cannot hold copyright on materials produced by government employees, but if the government contracts with a private entity for an artistic work, that private entity still owns the copyright (there is explicitly no "work for hire" provision for the federal government). Moreover, in the case of contracted work, it's the government that is obligated to protect the copyright in behalf of the private artist--the government (and all its lawyers) will bring suit against the infringer.

While it's possible for an artist to transfer his copyright to governments at all levels, the copyright is still in effect. State and local governments can, technically, buy out a copyright from an artist, but they seldom do so. You can expect any art purchased by any state or local government to have its copyright in full effect for the creator, regardless of the fact that it was paid for by taxpayer money.