Photographs, Creative Commons Copyright and Roadside memorials.

ircoha

Am aware of the rules here so will just pen the situation:

You will all be aware of the [perhaps illegal] roadside memorials that are found pretty much all over Ireland.

One of them has been photographed and posted on a forum which invites photos and gives the copyright to the photographer, nothing unusual here.

The details of the deceased, who was 11 when killed at the spot, has now been sold, along with others, by the forum for commercial purposes.

We asked to have the picture removed and got the fcuk treatment.

Would welcome some what Walker54 called IMHO's.
Thanks.

Rhonda9000

IMHO...

Real world: somewhat insensitive, revolting, disrespectful
Legally: fair use

Sully

Not legal advise, as its not permitted as per charter.. but im curious..

The photographer should be able to withdraw permission for use on the site?

RedPlanet

Sully wrote: »

Not legal advise, as its not permitted as per charter.. but im curious..

The photographer should be able to withdraw permission for use on the site?

I took the OP to mean that maybe they knew the 11 yr old deceased and have a problem with the fact that the photo of the memorial is "for sale".
In which case i'd say if it's on public display, then they have no right to privacy.

Which leads me to another question, related i think.
Lets say a statue is situated in a public space, and i have my photo taken standing next to it. Can i sell my photo, or reproduce it?
I think YES of course, however i find a particular website i'm trying to upload the photo to, is of the opinion that it's somehow copyrighted material (i presume the statue). What do you think?

Victor

RedPlanet wrote: »

Lets say a statue is situated in a public space, and i have my photo taken standing next to it. Can i sell my photo, or reproduce it? I think YES of course, however i find a particular website i'm trying to upload the photo to, is of the opinion that it's somehow copyrighted material (i presume the statue). What do you think?

there is a material change, that is you + statue in a different media is not the same as the statue alone. You can take as many photos as you want and do what you wish.

It is probable however, that you cannot trade in the intellectual property rights of the creator and owner of the statue. You cannot make likenesses or miniatures of the statue and sell them.

I think it was an American case, but a museum went to extraordinary lengths to produce accurate photos of their collection of vintage paintings. These I believe were intended for use in their records, publicity materials, momentoes and books for sale, etc. It was held that their was no copyright on the photos as the were the exact likeness of the paintings whose copyright had expired.

Pines

As noted by others, this discussion is centred on the copyright situation. Clearly there is also a moral or ethical problem where the wishes of a family of a deceased child are not respected.

A building, sculpture or "work of artistic craftsmanship" on display in a public place has a special place in copyright law. It can be freely photographed or filmed without there being copyright infringement. The owner of copyright in the publicly displayed statue or sculpture has no control over the subsequent use and distribution of the photo. The relevant section of the Act is quoted below.

As regards the OP's question, I am also a little confused as to what the circumstances are and the question being asked. However, even if the memorial qualifies for copyright as an artistic work (which it may or may not, depends on its form and content) the owner of that copyright cannot control photos taken by third parties.

The owner of the copyright in the photo is (in the first place) the photographer. The photographer can control the distribution of the photo and its commercialisation, so could withdraw the photo unless (the $64 million question) the photographer has validly assigned or licensed the copyright to the website.

The exception below applies only to artistic works. An argument could be made that a memorial might qualify as a literary work, based on original text in the memorial. Photographing and reproducing a literary work is an infringement of that copyright. This is stretching matters somwhat as the question of whether a single item can be simultaneously entitled to artistic and literary work protection is open. Also, the threshold of originality to qualify has to be met. Also, there may be some other exception which could be argued such as fair dealing for criticism, review or reporting current events.

Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000

Section 93: Representation of certain artistic works on public display.

(1) This section applies to the copyright in—

(a) buildings, and

(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, where permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.

(2) The copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by—

(a) making a painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart, plan, engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut, print or similar thing representing it,

(b) making a photograph or film of it, or

(c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service, an image of it.

(3) The copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by the making available to the public of copies of anything the making of which is not, by virtue of this section, an infringement of the copyright in the work.