Online photo theft... again

[mauvais]

Rubbish. In any case, the photo is owned by the photographer, who controls the copyright. Simple as that. Therefore taking the kind of action detailed here is appropriate.

The side issue is that the photo contains someone else's work - arguably it is entirely based on it and does not simply coincidentally feature it. Therefore the photographer could be sued by the graffiti artist, should they desire.

Separate issues.

Edit: I believe, perhaps incorrectly, that if you'd simply posted it to document the artwork in question, you could claim fair use. Be very careful if you try to profit from it, financially or otherwise.

 

[Vintage Paw]

If it is. However, it would be very difficult to argue that someone else didn't take a very similar shot, if not the exact same shot.

Copyright is supposed to protect an artists original idea or, concept. However, it never has done. Only an image is copyrightable(?). How anyone has the audacity to take a two second snap of a piece of public art and claim ownership of that art is beyond me.

Copyright laws need a complete overhaul IMO. We need to recognise the idea as the original concept. Not the image.

In this case, a work of art was created using several images. The idea and the concept was the installation of story cubes. The original idea of story cubes and the display as a collection far outways any original creativity from any single image used. On their own, they are very mundane, everyday snaps. As a collective concept they say much more. The concept and idea should be protected by Copyright.

Yes, anyone could have taken that shot - but the point here is that Tricky Skills did and uploaded it to the website where it has been taken from along with all the others. There is no question in this case who took the shot.

Tricky is not claiming ownership of the piece of graffiti, but of the '2 second snap' of that graffiti. It matters not one bit what the subject or intent is. If you take a nice holiday snap of a couple of mates and someone comes in, raids your shoebox of prints, and puts it in an art installation, because the photo isn't some great master does that make it any less yours? Maybe you wouldn't care - but copyright protects those who do. Many photographers use motor drives to snap off as many photos as possible in order to not miss the crucial moment. They don't, therefore, sit and compose each individual shot - no time. Does it mean they forgo copyright?

It makes no difference whether the images are mundane, everyday shots or amazing photos that speak from the soul - the fact is they belong to the person who took them. The installation is a very good idea, but printing off someone else's work - no matter how long it took them to frame, take, etc. - to use in it without their consent is wrong. If the project organiser had gotten permission for such use then great. If they had gone out and taken the photos themselves, then great. But they didn't - they used someone elses without consent. It really is quite simple.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Rubbish. In any case, the photo is owned by the photographer, who controls the copyright. Simple as that. Therefore taking the kind of action detailed here is appropriate.

The side issue is that the photo contains someone else's work - arguably it is entirely based on it and does not simply coincidentally feature it. Therefore the photographer could be sued by the graffiti artist, should they desire.

Separate issues.

Edit: I believe, perhaps incorrectly, that if you'd simply posted it to document the artwork in question, you could claim fair use. Be very careful if you try to profit from it, financially or otherwise.

Good post - good point about documentary. Interesting point about profiting from it ... in the link I posted earlier the photographer had been taking 'snaps' of graffiti as documentary. When the paper in question used the photos without consent or attribution he contacted them and they paid him in the end for their use. What would the ethical/legal issue be there? I think it's a really murky area ... I certainly don't know what the law would be in that case.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

I'm going to make an all original collage from everyone else's art and stick it in a public space for some 'all for nothing' nonster to photograph and claim ownership of and then I'll stand back and watch the commotion whilst thinking 'that was a good idea'.


I'VE GOT A CAMERA AND I'M GONNA USE IT!

The world is truly bonkers.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Rubbish. In any case, the photo is owned by the photographer, who controls the copyright. Simple as that. Therefore taking the kind of action detailed here is appropriate.

The side issue is that the photo contains someone else's work - arguably it is entirely based on it and does not simply coincidentally feature it. Therefore the photographer could be sued by the graffiti artist, should they desire.

Separate issues.

Edit: I believe, perhaps incorrectly, that if you'd simply posted it to document the artwork in question, you could claim fair use. Be very careful if you try to profit from it, financially or otherwise.

Jeeezus fucking christ! It is not a photograph of a photograph. It's a photograph of a conceptual piece of art featuring many images, any single of which is worthless by itself. But, put into the story cube context...

Nah. I give up.

Copy of idea taken into other idea and none ideaist gets upset cos they had a digi to copy with. Fucking sickening from my point of view. Utterly sickening and representative of brainless, uncreative commercial shytes

 

[Tricky Skills]

I can't believe the direction this thread has taken.

As the originator, I would just like to repeat my original reasons for posting.

A website has a well defined copyright policy. This was breached. There is no other issue.

 

[Vintage Paw]

I'm going to make an all original collage from everyone else's art and stick it in a public space for some 'all for nothing' nonster to photograph and claim ownership of and then I'll stand back and watch the commotion whilst thinking 'that was a good idea'.


I'VE GOT A CAMERA AND I'M GONNA USE IT!

The world is truly bonkers.

In this scenario you would be in breach of copyright - the person coming along to document it by taking a photo of your 'collage' would own said photograph.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

In this scenario you would be in breach of copyright - the person coming along to document it by taking a photo of your 'collage' would own said photograph.

Yep. And, that is the way law in this country has served the establishment so very well for so many years.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

...

As the originator, ...

The originator of what? The thread, the snap or, the original art?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Yep. And, that is the way law in this country has served the establishment so very well for so many years.

The point isn't whether or not copyright law is broken - which I think it definitely is - the point is that in this instance, it's fucking cheeky to take a load of photos which explicitly weren't intended to be just used for anything, without even a by-your-leave, make them into an exhibition and then wank on about how innovative you are for doing it.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Jeeezus fucking christ! It is not a photograph of a photograph. It's a photograph of a conceptual piece of art featuring many images, any single of which is worthless by itself. But, put into the story cube context...

Nah. I give up.

Copy of idea taken into other idea and none ideaist gets upset cos they had a digi to copy with. Fucking sickening from my point of view. Utterly sickening and representative of brainless, uncreative commercial shytes

You seem to be confusing yourself Stanley. It is not a photograph of a photograph. It's a photograph of a conceptual piece of art featuring many images - the photograph of the installation is not in question here. The fact that a photograph that someone else took was used without permission is the point.

One might say your paint sketches of the Alhambra (I can't spell it, I apologise) lack much creativity past the first one since they are all the same. One person's creativity is another's piece of uncreative, repetitive nonsense. It's all subjective - doesn't mean the photo doesn't belong to him, or those sketches to you.

Try and get past your artist's ego and see the real issue at hand, as reiterated by Tricky Skills in post #36.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

The point isn't whether or not copyright law is broken - which I think it definitely is - the point is that in this instance, it's fucking cheeky to take a load of photos which explicitly weren't intended to be just used for anything, without even a by-your-leave, make them into an exhibition and then wank on about how innovative you are for doing it.

If I selected pics from a glossy Sunday mag and cut them up and represented them in a new context I'd feel I had no reason to contact the original artists.

Would you?

 

[Vintage Paw]

If I selected pics from a glossy Sunday mag and cut them up and represented them in a new context I'd feel I had no reason to contact the original artists.

Would you?

You seem unable to comprehend context.

 

[laptop]

I believe, perhaps incorrectly, that if you'd simply posted it to document the artwork in question, you could claim fair use. Be very careful if you try to profit from it, financially or otherwise.

Aye. Fair dealing ("fair use" is US usage) is not crisply definable - UK courts take it on a case-by-case basis.

But uses that "do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder" should be OK.

So, especially if the photo of grafitti is part of a larger body (of documentation of the streets for example), then it's very, very likely OK.

On the other hand, before making and selling t-shirts of the graf, find and negotiate with the artist. That would prejudice their interests and conflict with normal exploitation.

And the exhibition of a photo in the Tate does, clearly, fail the test and is a breach.

I bet the people who ripped it off are delighted to get a desist letter, though. Watch for press release.

 

[mauvais]

Good post - good point about documentary. Interesting point about profiting from it ... in the link I posted earlier the photographer had been taking 'snaps' of graffiti as documentary. When the paper in question used the photos without consent or attribution he contacted them and they paid him in the end for their use. What would the ethical/legal issue be there? I think it's a really murky area ... I certainly don't know what the law would be in that case.

I don't know what the law here says about that. Perhaps an interesting case: remember it's illegal to take photos of the Eiffel Tower at night, because the lighting display is copyrighted. However it has to be significantly 'of' the tower - a skyline of Paris including it would not count. This has been proven in French courts before.

IMO the moral answer is that if you add nothing significant, and take a photo purely of someone's graffiti, that's a copyright breach - fair use excepted. If you add context, post process it, use some form of creativity, you begin to take (small) steps away from that. A corporate lawyer would still have you, but I believe the case begins to erode.

I don't know where buildings etc come into it - incidentally in France, they are copyrighted; you have to get permission from the building owner/architect (the Eiffel Tower's ran out, hence the lighting instead). I imagine the UK is slightly less absurd but no doubt battles could be fought over it.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

The point isn't whether or not copyright law is broken - which I think it definitely is ...

NO - it isn't! Check it out.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

If I selected pics from a glossy Sunday mag and cut them up and represented them in a new context I'd feel I had no reason to contact the original artists.

Would you?

Maybe, maybe not. If I was taking the pictures and not doing anything new with them, just putting them in a pile with other photos, I probably would feel a bit bad. If I was making a collage, no, but then that's not what this is, it's a lot of originals being put together. I don't think this is a sufficiently new use.

 

[Vintage Paw]

I don't know what the law here says about that. Perhaps an interesting case: remember it's illegal to take photos of the Eiffel Tower at night, because the lighting display is copyrighted. However it has to be significantly 'of' the tower - a skyline of Paris including it would not count. This has been proven in French courts before.

IMO the moral answer is that if you add nothing significant, and take a photo purely of someone's graffiti, that's a copyright breach - fair use excepted. If you add context, post process it, use some form of creativity, you begin to take (small) steps away from that. A corporate lawyer would still have you, but I believe the case begins to erode.

I don't know where buildings etc come into it - incidentally in France, they are copyrighted; you have to get permission from the building owner/architect (the Eiffel Tower's ran out, hence the lighting instead). I imagine the UK is slightly less absurd but no doubt battles could be fought over it.

You make a good point about context - I think that is key.

And yes, it does seem absurd to be able to copyright a building so taking photos of it is illegal. Of course, strong arguments could be made for and against it, but again context is key.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

You seem unable to comprehend context.

Speak for yourself. It's critical in this instance.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

NO - it isn't! Check it out.

No, I mean "whether copyright law as a whole is an intrinsically broken thing i.e. has serious internal problems". Although I think that in this case, existing copyright law has been broken.

 

[Vintage Paw]

NO - it isn't! Check it out.

Copyright law is broken because Tricky Skills' photograph, regardless of content, has been used without his consent.

Deeper questions of the merit of that photograph as art or not are immaterial to the copyright case.

A separate copyrighting issue, as mauvais has outlined, might be applicable in terms of the graffiti artist's assertable rights, but that wasn't what this thread was about - and it is, as I said, quite a separate matter from the use of the photograph in question.

What you believe to be the merits or lack thereof of current copyright law do not matter - the fact is the current law has been broken, it would seem.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

No, I mean "whether copyright law as a whole is an intrinsically broken thing i.e. has serious internal problems". Although I think that in this case, existing copyright law has been broken.

In this instance only the original image maker is owner of Copyright. I.e. the peice of graffiti. That is the image and original concept. A photographer could take a pic of that image and protect it in their name but, the original artist ultimately has ownership (if they can be bothered to fight for it).


The point I'm trying to get across is that by claiming copyright of anything you photograph you're simply denying rights that artists deserve. It's all murky and getting even more murky with digital etc. The days of elitist photographers claiming ownership of anything their money gave them right to claim are/should be long gone.

Images are no longer valuable commodities. Ideas are. And, ideas should be protected above easy get images.

 

[mauvais]

Look - if someone nicks your car, then someone else steals it from the thief, and the police catch them, should they say, 'well, it was already stolen, fair play, let's not bother with it'?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

In this instance only the original image maker is owner of Copyright. I.e. the peice of graffiti. That is the image and original concept. A photographer could take a pic of that image and protect it in their name but, the original artist ultimately has ownership (if they can be bothered to fight for it).


The point I'm trying to get across is that by claiming copyright of anything you photograph you're simply denying rights that artists deserve. It's all murky and getting even more murky with digital etc. The days of elitist photographers claiming ownership of anything their money gave them right to claim are/should be long gone.

Images are no longer valuable commodities. Ideas are. And, ideas should be protected above easy get images.

The graffiti artist would have a hard time in this instance; I think that it's fairly well established that pictures of graffiti do not infringe copyright, perhaps simply because anyone trying to claim it would simultaneously open themselves up to charges of vandalism. That's a legal point rather than an ethical one of course.

In addition I don't think that pictures of graffiti would always be duplications anyway, depending on the shot. That's what is going to define the "idea" that you talk about.

I still don't see what the point is about ideas to be honest. Yes, the idea is more important than the image, but taking a photograph encapsulates an idea. We're not going to try to say that photos aren't actually creative here, are we? Surely.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Look - if someone nicks your car, then someone else steals it from the thief, and the police catch them, should they say, 'well, it was already stolen, fair play, let's not bother with it'?

Bollocks. Was just about to give-up and go out. But, but, but...


Look - if someone nicks your car (photographer nicks artists work), then someone else steals it from the thief (website twat takes a screen grab), and the police catch them (Giles and Alice), should they say, 'well, it was already stolen, fair play, let's not bother with it'?

Well, yes, perhaps they should because the police should always be there to protect the public regardless of commercial law.


Now I'm definitely going out.

 

[mauvais]

OK, so even with your argument about the morals of copyright, it's still to everyone's advantage that Tricky Skills pursue these Giles & Alice people to have it removed - because they're breaking someone's copyright.

There - happy mediation

 

[Paul Russell]

I know you're taking the piss here Stanley



Graffiti artists get their stuff buffed in a couple of days - 93% of their exposure/audience/fame comes from the pictures on the Interweb!

And the photographer should have kept his shot in his personal photo album at home. Not publish it on the web.


You're a bunch of uncreative, money for nothing grabbing capitalists

 

[Paul Russell]

Isn't there a shop in East London that sells big prints of photos of Banksy's artwork. Unauthorised. Plus some market stalls.

I don't know about the law about the copyright of graffiti. Complicated by the fact that graffiti in a public place is illegal, whether it's art or not?!

Edit: I believe, perhaps incorrectly, that if you'd simply posted it to document the artwork in question, you could claim fair use. Be very careful if you try to profit from it, financially or otherwise.

 

[laptop]

What some people have to understand is that the one photo they're arguing about is one of the cases where there's more than one copyright.

There's the artist's, and the photographer's. Even if the artist gave Giles and Alice permission, they've still clearly broken the photographer's separate right. If the artist's given permission - fine, commission someone else to take a new photo (which will be different - it's not a copy-table).

This situation where there are several (nested) rights is usual. Think of a musical track: separate copyrights in the lyrics and the musical composition, plus performers' rights, plus the "mechanical" right in the recording.

Even in a novel by one author, there are separate (thin) rights in the design and in the typeface that design uses.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yep. And, that is the way law in this country has served the establishment so very well for so many years.

"This country"? I thought you were in Spain?