Another Copyright question

brightspark

I understand that the photo is the property of the photographer, but do you need permission to use an object as the main subject of the photograph?
e.g. a piece of Waterford crystal, statue or other artistic artwork.

Last year a local group got into trouble with a stock photo company when an image of theirs was used (the person who 'found' the image online didn't know any better ) and as a result a large fee had to be paid.

PCPhoto

can you explain it a bit better ?

what are you trying to photograph ? most of the time you should be permitted to photograph an object - but some objects or where they are can be off limits.

brightspark

The object this time is a set of drama masks, from Venice, so its not easy to find who made them

but it could really be anything similar

CabanSail

I know this can be a gray area in the law. If you take a photograph of another photograph, then it's likely to be deemed a reproduction, and the copyright will remain with the original artist. The same would apply to things like paintings and text etc. If the other artwork is incidental in your composition then you have the copyright but not to the artwork included. That is how I understand it.

magicbastarder

what's the intended use of the photograph?
if it's commercial use, forget it.

brightspark

It would be used on posters and web to promote a performance

magicbastarder

if you use the masks, you won't get 'caught'.
that doesn't make it right or legal, though.

CabanSail

This is not straight forward. If the masks are "artworks" then there could be a problem. If they are an item of attire then there is no issue. The reason I say this is that if it were a hat or a pair of shoes it would be ok to use them.

brightspark

CabanSail wrote: »

This is not straight forward. If the masks are "artworks" then there could be a problem. If they are an item of attire then there is no issue. The reason I say this is that if it were a hat or a pair of shoes it would be ok to use them.

That's what I thought too, thanks everyone for the input.

hbr

brightspark wrote: »

The object this time is a set of drama masks, from Venice, so its not easy to find who made them

but it could really be anything similar

Have you any way of telling how old they are? There are time
limits on copyright.

jaybeeveedub

CabanSail wrote: »

This is not straight forward. If the masks are "artworks" then there could be a problem. If they are an item of attire then there is no issue. The reason I say this is that if it were a hat or a pair of shoes it would be ok to use them.

not necessarily.....

what if its pair of nike's and your advertising a sporting event.... that could suggest that nike are sponsoring it! something nike would not be happy about

NakedDex

That's in respect of the logo. The shoes themselves are subject to different rules than logos and trademarks that adorn them. A picture of a generic running shoe would be fine, a picture of a running shoe with the Nike "swoosh" clearly showing could raise problems. A picture of a Nike running shoe with all decals removed would be fine, however, as the design of the shoe itself isn't a trademark, just a patent.

The artworks -v- apparel question recently cropped up in the UK with the man who designed and made the original Stormtrooper helmets for Star Wars. Lucasfilm were sueing for breach of copyrights as he was still producing them in small numbers, but the court ruled that they were essentially hats/headwear, not sculptures, so the case was rejected. It came down to the point that those helmets could be worn, if the owner wished to do so, even though they were being bought as display pieces. The same thought process could be applied to the drama masks.

Paulw

NakedDex wrote: »

The artworks -v- apparel question recently cropped up in the UK with the man who designed and made the original Stormtrooper helmets for Star Wars. Lucasfilm were sueing for breach of copyrights as he was still producing them in small numbers, but the court ruled that they were essentially hats/headwear, not sculptures, so the case was rejected. It came down to the point that those helmets could be worn, if the owner wished to do so, even though they were being bought as display pieces. The same thought process could be applied to the drama masks.

The BBC report disagrees with you. - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14287864

That court has now also ruled that the 3D works should not be considered sculptures, which means their copyright protection is 15 years from the date they were marketed, and had therefore expired.

They were not works of art, so copyright didn't extend to the full extent (life of the author/creator plus 70 years.). But, they were film props, so copyright was only valid for 15 years from the release of the film. (now expired).

The court also ruled that he has breached US copyright law (by selling his items in the US), but since he had no assets in the US, this could not be enforced there. So, he can't enter the US unless he is prepared to pay there.

Anything with logos or IP is a very dodgy area.

jaybeeveedub

are they the plain undecorated plaster, or have they been adorned with feathers and such??