So that famous Obama poster was 'lifted' from a photograph withour permission

[boskysquelch]

who cares.

lots...rippers are fucktards


arse_onally...on This Site http://www.urban75.org/community/index.html ... I took frkkkn umbrage to MY Photgraph being RAPED by the Editor///for HIS Own ends...but hey... I jus got told it was Kudos. :rerleyes:

ALL that had to be done...was a courteous enquiry as to whether or not it could be used.

But no...

I ask why?

I get SHIT forrit...which I have to live with...with which I will always associate with the shot/image...funny THAT. izzn't it?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Did someone go back in time and erase Andy Warhol - who gives a flying fuck, copy, resample, edit, re-edit, chop, copy, paste. I'm sure Fairey is under no illusion as to what he does - but all this crediting sources and bullshit, people wasting time crawling through old art and posters and go look, look he copied that - who cares.

actually i'd e fucked off to the back teeth if i was paid a pittencet for some other cunt to get rich of my work as i'm sure would any fucking normal person particularlly if they had in effect broken into my home and nicked the goods which are making them rich...

what kind of a clueless fuck wit wouldn't be pissed off about this...

 

[purplex]

Well is Fairey a naughty boy or is it all just a fuss over nothing much?

All very silly imo
More money in the pockets of the legal community.

 

[Paul Russell]

Fairey's got other things to worry about at the minute -- he was arrested a few days ago (as he was on his way to the opening of his latest show) because he had admitted tagging (or whatever the kids call it) buildings.

 

[wordie]

erm if it's image is subject to copyright (which the gherkin like the effile tower) is then yes you'd have to credit the architecs or find yourself in court.

er... actually, you need the permission of the copyright owners, in this case, the Gherkin, or the Eiffel Tower at night, or indeed the London Eye, before publishing the image.

Any breach would leave you as the provider of the image (photographer, image library) subject to legal action. Also included would be the publisher.

You might ask; "How does that work? I see the London Eye in papers and in the news all the time...?" but if the building/structure is not the predominant part of the overall image, then it is public domain.

In short, if you take a pic of a structure that is copyright protected, and attempt to make money from that image, the copyright owners have the right to share in the profits, or restrict the use of your image.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

er... actually, you need the permission of the copyright owners, in this case, the Gherkin, or the Eiffel Tower at night, or indeed the London Eye, before publishing the image.

Any breach would leave you as the provider of the image (photographer, image library) subject to legal action. Also included would be the publisher.

You might ask; "How does that work? I see the London Eye in papers and in the news all the time...?" but if the building/structure is not the predominant part of the overall image, then it is public domain.

In short, if you take a pic of a structure that is copyright protected, and attempt to make money from that image, the copyright owners have the right to share in the profits, or restrict the use of your image.

This is not definitive though. In this country there's no precedent that I can remember. In cases like the Eiffel Tower and iirc a factory in Belgium and so on, there are specific laws with precedent, but they still get challenged.

I remember speaking with a copyright lawyer who said "the only reason copyright law survives is because it's almost never used". Technically there are lots of things that are illegal. Practically the law doesn't get used because it wouldn't survive for long.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Where would this leave Richard Hamilton?

...or Andy Warhol?

...or Peter Blake?

 

[editor]

er... actually, you need the permission of the copyright owners, in this case, the Gherkin, or the Eiffel Tower at night, or indeed the London Eye, before publishing the image.

You do not need permission to publish photos of buildings in the UK, although it is different in other countries.

Can you copyright/trademark buildings? What if the architect is not dead - can you photograph the buildings? Can you design another building to look like another building?

Answer
Architects drawings are copyright. The building itself is not, so you can photograph it. If you used the architect's own drawings and amended them, then that is infringement. If you started from scratch but deliberately chose to mimic a design, then you are probably okay. It would be advisable to consult a copyright lawyer at this point in time!

http://ahds.ac.uk/copyrightfaq.htm#faq38

 

[editor]

From my own guide:

Photographing Buildings, Football Grounds and Interiors
Property owners have no right to stop people taking photos of their buildings, so long as the photographer is standing in a public place (e.g. the road outside).

However, if you're standing on private property and the landowner/occupier objects, then they have every right to request that you stop immediately and ask you to leave if you refuse.

Many museums, art galleries, football grounds, concert venues and similar places ban photography as a condition of entry, so you can hardly complain if you get turfed out after you've whipped out your camera.

The same applies to all private property open to the public in general - e.g. offices, shops, even your local chippy - with the owner or occupier having the right to demand that you stop taking photos and get the hell out.

Most shopping centres and malls stand on private land with many gaining a notorious reputation for speedily dispatching stroppy security guards demanding that you stop taking photos.

The irony that they're already busy filming you from every angle via a flotilla of CCTV cameras is generally lost on them.

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html#buildings

 

[editor]

lots...rippers are fucktards


arse_onally...on This Site http://www.urban75.org/community/index.html ... I took frkkkn umbrage to MY Photgraph being RAPED by the Editor///for HIS Own ends...but hey... I jus got told it was Kudos. :rerleyes:

ALL that had to be done...was a courteous enquiry as to whether or not it could be used.

But no...

I ask why?

I get SHIT forrit...which I have to live with...with which I will always associate with the shot/image...funny THAT. izzn't it?

What the fuck are you on about now?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

What the fuck are you on about now?

I'm hazarding a guess that he's saying he wasn't pleased about his photo being cropped and used in a banner or as a thumbnail...