photographic legalities question

bingus666

Hi all, am looking for information on photographic legalities in Ireland - most internet searches just cover US.

I am the owner, designer & builder of a large piece of art on my own lanscaped property. It has recently come to my attention that certain photographers have taken pictures of said art (from a public area) & are now selling these prints online. They never asked me for permission to do either (take the picture nor sell it online). The artwork is there for all to enjoy to look at but not to profit from.

What are the legalities of this? & can I ask them to stop selling & remove pictures from their websites?

Thanks for any help or links for more info.

PopeBuckfastXVI

My gut says it's a violation of your copyright if your piece is a substantive component of the prints being sold.

Lawyer up*.

*I am not a lawyer.

p.s. Is the piece in Galway City? Would be interested in seeing it - I'll leave my camera at home!

Ballyman

I could be wrong on this but from what I know -

They can sell photos (prints) of whatever they want as they were taken from public property and thus are the copyright of the photographer.

However they CANNOT use the images for commercial use (billboards, advertising etc.) without a Property Release signed by your good self agreeing to them using the image.

For example, if I take a photo of the GPO then I can sell those photos to the public and nobody can do anything about it. Again, if the Irish Independent wanted to use the photo of the GPO as part of a story about irish post offices then that would be ok as it is considered editorial usage and you do not need a property release for this.

However if RTE approached me to use my photos to advertise an upcoming program and were paying me for usage then I could not do this without the Irish Government signing a property release to allow me to do it as this would be considered commercial usage.

Thats my understanding of the subject anyway, I could be wrong!

You could also of course speak to each photographer and ask them to remove the photos from their website but be aware that they are under no obligation to do so.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ballyman, your logic would seem to say that if you have one of your prints up for sale in the window of a shop, and I take a picture of it, then I can sell my picture, or copy, of your print with impunity.

I don't think this is correct. The OP's issue is not a property issue, it's a copyright issue, they own a copyright on their original artistic work, and these photographers, unless the work does not form a substantive part of their photo, and their photo does not contain a substantive part of the work, are in violation of that copyright. They are effectively selling reproductions.

imo.

BostonB

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

My gut says it's a violation of your copyright if your piece is a substantive component of the prints being sold....

I'm no nothing of the law either but that, my limited understanding of it too.

Mylesie

bingus666 wrote: »

Hi all, am looking for information on photographic legalities in Ireland - most internet searches just cover US.

I am the owner, designer & builder of a large piece of art on my own lanscaped property. It has recently come to my attention that certain photographers have taken pictures of said art (from a public area) & are now selling these prints online. They never asked me for permission to do either (take the picture nor sell it online). The artwork is there for all to enjoy to look at but not to profit from.

What are the legalities of this? & can I ask them to stop selling & remove pictures from their websites?

Thanks for any help or links for more info.

This might be of interest to you http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm#1.1

Ballyman

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The OP's issue is not a property issue, it's a copyright issue, they own a copyright on their original artistic work, and these photographers, unless the work does not form a substantive part of their photo, and their photo does not contain a substantive part of the work, are in violation of that copyright. They are effectively selling reproductions.

imo.

Like I said, I could be wrong

How do you define a work of art though?? If I build a shed in my garden and you take a photo of it from a public street is that any different from taking a photo of a "work of art" that I build in my garden??

Is the GPO not a "work of art" from the architects point of view??

PopeBuckfastXVI

I'd imagine there's a legal definition of an original creative work.

BostonB

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm#1.2

Might be useful, I dunno.

Paulw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Ballyman, your logic would seem to say that if you have one of your prints up for sale in the window of a shop, and I take a picture of it, then I can sell my picture, or copy, of your print with impunity.

That, in my view, would be correct, as long as you show the window and such. If your photo is ONLY of the print in the window, then it is not a new creation of work, so would be in breach of copyright. But, if you took the photo and showed the shop window and such, then it is a new work of art.

Again, it's just my view on that part.

In relation to the OP, I would agree with Ballyman. If the image is taken from public property and shows more than simply the sculpture (which is must because there's a background), then it's a new work of art and hence would not be covered under copyright.

Tricky one though, and you'd a very good IP solicitor to give a view on it.

bingus666

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Is the piece in Galway City? Would be interested in seeing it

it's in Sligo & on the side of a mountain (kings mountain) - pretty big! if you google "trinity knot glencar sligo" then there should be a few pics of it. Click on images up top.
Take as many pics of it as you like! just don't be selling them! We didn't build it for someone else to make profit from it...

I wanted to see other points of view before either emailing the photographers directly &/or going to a solicitor...

Paulw

bingus666 wrote: »

pretty big! if you google "trinity knot glencar sligo" then there should be a few pics of it.
Take as many pics of it as you like! just don't be selling them! We didn't build it for someone else to make profit from it...

Damn, that's big.

After seeing it, I don't see how you would have any power to stop people taking photos and selling the images.

The Snipe

From what I remember, them selling a print of an image of your art would be considered plagerisim.

DaireQuinlan

Just to play the devils advocate a bit here, and I most certainly am no lawyer, but would a fairly common device (a celtic knot) rendered using different types of trees (which is how I assume that's done) actually be considered sufficiently 'transformative' or whatever to actually qualify for copyright protection ? Or is it just some nicely arranged hedges ? part of the landscape ? And therefore not eligible ?

CabanSail

Once again, not a lawyer, but I think that you would have very little chance of making a claim under copyright for photographs.

While I think what you have done is impressive I doubt you would be covered for quite a few reasons.

• The design is not original in itself, but rather a traditional figure which is well out of copyright from the original author whomever she might be.
• The design is on public display.
• The artwork is part of the landscape which is not, AFAIK, covered by copyright.
• Being a pattern of trees it is not a sculpture and would probably be closer to a garden.
• The knot would only form part of any photograph and there would be substantive creative input by the photographer. Ironically this would mean that if you were to use or copy those photo's then you would be in breach of copyright.
• If this was covered under copyright then patterns of plants that have been managed in any way would be off limits. Eg. The repetition of tree trunks in a forest plantation would be then covered by copyright.

Having said all that, there are more ways to skin a cat than sucking it's guts out through a straw. Rather than trying the legal route you could just make a polite request. Contact the owners of the images bring sold and outline the effort that has been required to make this creation. Then request they consider sharing a part of the profits with those that created the Knot. While they are not obliged to do so, it could be considered the polite and decent course to adopt. The flaw here is that the lawyers don't get a cut. I also doubt that there will be large sums of money being made out of these images anyway.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Very impressive stuff, I don't think it would fall under any sort of copyright protection though.

Eirebear

I'd be inclined to think that the selling prints, but not for commercial use is fine angle is closest to the truth in this case.

Obviously every case is different, but i'd be tempted to compare it to the eifel tower, where you can legally take pictures and do what you want with them during the day - but at night it's a different matter.

Also, this conversation is kinda one in the eye for the "Artists arent in it for profit" angle huh?

sineadw

I'll have to go look it up, won't be about till later, but my offhand understanding of it is that when it's a direct copy of a work - a facsimile- then there is breach, but if there is any artistic input from the photographer, such as use of light, position etc, or if the original piece is incorporated into a larger scene, then it constitutes a new work with its own copyright protection. There has to be skill involved in capturing the image. Something about seeking permission from copyright holders nags at me though..

You can review the Irish Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 for clarification (its online). Just do a document search for derivative works. Irish law pretty much follows the rest of europe, so if you come across another similar case, that'd be a good indication.

Also, get in touch with VAI ( i think it's visualartists.ie ). They provide legal advice for situations just like this

PCPhoto

Eirebear wrote: »

I'd be inclined to think that the selling prints, but not for commercial use is fine angle is closest to the truth in this case.

Obviously every case is different, but i'd be tempted to compare it to the eifel tower, where you can legally take pictures and do what you want with them during the day - but at night it's a different matter.

Also, this conversation is kinda one in the eye for the "Artists arent in it for profit" angle huh?

but of an unfair way of comparing it - french copyright laws are completely different to Ireland - street photography is effectively forbidden, people's personal image is a "sacred" thing and the French get quite aggressive if you have photographed them in public.

as for the Eifel Tower - I think it was PaulW said it a few months ago - the Eifel tower at night is not illegal to photograph but the light display is under copyright - so you cant photograph the light display (which lights up the Eifel Tower).

OP - why not create a similar image and sell it yourself - cheaper than the photographers !! (could bring in a couple of quid over a few years .... Do you know if the photographers are making much money from it ?)

in this situation - I don't think the OP has much recourse - the only way to stop them (Photographers) from doing it in the future would be to erect a sign which would be in the sight-line from the public viewing area, but they already have an image.

Hogzy

Clearly None of ye looked hard enough. This was the 2nd result on google when i searched "Irish law of photography".

Digital Rights Ireland Guide to Photos and the Law

magicbastarder

clearly you didn't read the article, which sheds little light on the issue at hand.

sineadw

Hogzy wrote: »

Clearly None of ye looked hard enough. This was the 2nd result on google when i searched "Irish law of photography".

Digital Rights Ireland Guide to Photos and the Law

Clearly you didn't read it, as it doesn't actually cover the OP's question

magicbastarder

great minds.

Hogzy

magicbastarder wrote: »

clearly you didn't read the article, which sheds little light on the issue at hand.

sineadw wrote: »

Clearly you didn't read it, as it doesn't actually cover the OP's question

Sorry, I quoted the wrong article

This should help

OP people cant take photos of your property for profit.

magicbastarder

sorry, am in work, and can't read the whole article - which section?

Eirebear

Hogzy wrote: »

This should help

OP people cant take photos of your property for profit.

Seems pretty clear cut that they can according to that article.

Public works:
A building, a sculpture, a model for a building and a work of artistic craftsmanship, when situated in public or in a place open to the public, may be reproduced in two dimensions; photographed; filmed or broadcast, without infringing the copyright. In addition, those reproductions can be made available to the public (including by sale) without permission. Thus, you may take a photograph of the Spire in O’Connell Street, create a postcard from it, and sell the postcard. You may not however create miniature replicas of it for sale without infringing the copyright.

Hogzy

Eirebear wrote: »

Seems pretty clear cut that they can according to that article.

A building, a sculpture, a model for a building and a work of artistic craftsmanship, when situated in public or in a place open to the public, may be reproduced in two dimensions; photographed; filmed or broadcast, without infringing the copyright. In addition, those reproductions can be made available to the public (including by sale) without permission. Thus, you may take a photograph of the Spire in O’Connell Street, create a postcard from it, and sell the postcard. You may not however create miniature replicas of it for sale without infringing the copyright.

I am assuming the OP's situation is not open to the public. OP gave F*** all details so all i can do is assume. Just because i can see into someones garden does not mean that garden is open to the public and therefore someone does not have a right to photograph artwork on my garden for their financial benefit.

@ OP
What sort of "property" is the "Art" on?


EDIT: Just read the thread there again. missed the Op's second post. It seems as if the Artwork is on the side of a mountain. I have my doubts that the OP owns the mountain or the land curtailed around the mountain. OP if its clearly on display on public property then people can take as many pictures of it as they want and sell those pictures for as much as they want.

Eirebear

Hogzy wrote: »

I am assuming the OP's situation is not open to the public. OP gave F*** all details so all i can do is assume. Just because i can see into someones garden does not mean that garden is open to the public and therefore someone does not have a right to photograph artwork on my garden for their financial benefit.

@ OP
What sort of "property" is the "Art" on?

This should give you an idea of what were dealing with.
http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1489266100010529570qJzACJ

The OP does state that it's on his/her property, however given the size and position of it - i suppose it then comes down to rights of way etc for walkers, climbers and all the rest?

Also, in my humble pinion it is designed to be part of the landscape - and there would be absolutely nothing to stop a photographer taking the image of the landscape, which indeed incorporates this work.

However, i am not a lawyer and this is not a court of law - so my opinion is very much just that.

dakar

To give you all an idea of location, scale, visibility etc, here's a linky to Google's street view, which gives a good indication of how visible the work is from the N16 Sligo > Manorhamilton road.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=54.333192,-8.411665&spn=0.01131,0.087547&t=h&z=14&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=54.331348,-8.402925&panoid=bPimjpHTFGzvcQjAB5SyNA&cbp=11,0.82,,1,3.46

I pass it every few days in the course of my work and I love the fact that it's there and the ingenuity that went into creating it

Hogzy

Eirebear wrote: »

This should give you an idea of what were dealing with.
http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1489266100010529570qJzACJ

The OP does state that it's on his/her property, however given the size and position of it - i suppose it then comes down to rights of way etc for walkers, climbers and all the rest?

Also, in my humble pinion it is designed to be part of the landscape - and there would be absolutely nothing to stop a photographer taking the image of the landscape, which indeed incorporates this work.

However, i am not a lawyer and this is not a court of law - so my opinion is very much just that.

Just to point out from the outset, Im not a solicitor either but i am training to be one so i am simply opinionating here.

What actually is that. Is it a bunch of trees in a forrest (I dont want to sound insensitive) that look like a celtic Knot? I thought we were talking about a sculpture in someones garden or something.

challengemaster

Eirebear wrote: »

I'd be inclined to think that the selling prints, but not for commercial use is fine angle is closest to the truth in this case.

Obviously every case is different, but i'd be tempted to compare it to the eifel tower, where you can legally take pictures and do what you want with them during the day - but at night it's a different matter.

Also, this conversation is kinda one in the eye for the "Artists arent in it for profit" angle huh?

PCPhoto wrote: »

as for the Eifel Tower - I think it was PaulW said it a few months ago - the Eifel tower at night is not illegal to photograph but the light display is under copyright - so you cant photograph the light display (which lights up the Eifel Tower).

AFAIK it's only the light display that happens every hour after 8 or 9pm(basically ones it's dark) that goes on for about 10 minutes IIRC... It's very impressive to see, 20,000 lights going off....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH2_mnh1XFE

challengemaster

Eirebear wrote: »

This should give you an idea of what were dealing with.
http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1489266100010529570qJzACJ

Am I the only one that looked at that and saw something....phallic? :pac:

Carter P Fly

Thats not a sculpture, its creative gardening on a grand scale.
I would have no problem with taking a photo of this landscape and selling it on and would feel no obligation whatsoever to track down and ask permission from the designer.

It like major celebrities who make a living in the public eyc suddnly expecting privacy when they dont like an aspect of the attention they get.

BostonB

Carter P Fly wrote: »

Thats not a sculpture, its creative gardening on a grand scale.
I would have no problem with taking a photo of this landscape and selling it on and would feel no obligation whatsoever to track down and ask permission from the designer.

It like major celebrities who make a living in the public eyc suddnly expecting privacy when they dont like an aspect of the attention they get.

If its not art, why would anyone be interested in buying a picture of it.

sineadw

Carter P Fly wrote: »

Thats not a sculpture, its creative gardening on a grand scale.
I would have no problem with taking a photo of this landscape and selling it on and would feel no obligation whatsoever to track down and ask permission from the designer.

It like major celebrities who make a living in the public eyc suddnly expecting privacy when they dont like an aspect of the attention they get.

What?? I'm afraid you don't get to decide what's eligible to hold copyright and what's not. And what's sculpture and what's not. :rolleyes:

DaireQuinlan

BostonB wrote: »

If its not art, why would anyone be interested in buying a picture of it.

what an odd thing to say.

Hogzy

Carter P Fly wrote: »

Thats not a sculpture, its creative gardening on a grand scale.

99% of creations that are tangible can be copyrighted.

I would have no problem with taking a photo of this landscape and selling it on and would feel no obligation whatsoever to track down and ask permission from the designer.

If its copyrighted then that would be illegal. It doesnt matter if you think its morally acceptable. Some people think its morally acceptable to speed, that doesnt make it legal.

It like major celebrities who make a living in the public eyc suddnly expecting privacy when they dont like an aspect of the attention they get.

Thats Privacy. Privacy and copyright are two wholly different subjects. One cannot be compared to the other.

OP technically your creation could be copyrighted but its gonna be dam hard to enforce. Im not an expert in Intellectual Property law (didnt even choose that module in college) so i couldnt give a definitive answer. It would appear, from the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 that what you have is capable of copyright. Its going to be pretty hard to enforce though given how public the display is. Technically speaking anyone who takes a photo in the area is capable of breaching the copyright if it shows the creation in question.

I dont know if i have explained that clearly?

BostonB wrote: »

If its not art, why would anyone be interested in buying a picture of it.

What does that have to do with anything? If i take a picture of *Insert Celebrity Name* and sell it to the media because she is smoking weed. Is that art because i sold the picture?

BostonB

Hogzy wrote: »

...What does that have to do with anything? If i take a picture of *Insert Celebrity Name* and sell it to the media because she is smoking weed. Is that art because i sold the picture?

The point is you are not going to sell a picture of a random tree and sell it.

However if someone has deliberately done something to the tree to make it of interest, then that could be considered art.

Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.

Especially if the photo contains a “substantial part” easily identifiable part of the tree.

DaireQuinlan

BostonB wrote: »

The point is you are not going to sell a picture of a random tree and sell it.

However if someone has deliberately done something to the tree to make it of interest, then that could be considered art.

I'm just going to re-iterate my right here.
I'd say people take pictures of random trees ALL THE TIME and sell them. I'd be, i'd say less inclined to take a picture of a tree that someone had "deliberately done something to" to make it "of interest". Either which way it certainly wouldn't have any bearing on whether or not the resultant picture could be described as 'art'.

Hogzy

BostonB wrote: »

The point is you are not going to sell a picture of a random tree and sell it.

However if someone has deliberately done something to the tree to make it of interest, then that could be considered art.



Especially if the photo contains a “substantial part” easily identifiable part of the tree.

Art is entirely subjective though. One mans junk is another mans treasure.

BostonB

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I'm just going to re-iterate my right here.
I'd say people take pictures of random trees ALL THE TIME and sell them. I'd be, i'd say less inclined to take a picture of a tree that someone had "deliberately done something to" to make it "of interest". Either which way it certainly wouldn't have any bearing on whether or not the resultant picture could be described as 'art'.

The issue is not the photo being art. But the tree.

If you are selling thousands of pictures of different trees then great you'd be right. But if you're selling pictures of the same tree, that's identifiable due to some ones work on it, then its a different ball game.

Its also means that if people are buying only pictures of this one tree as opposed to your other random trees photos, that that a lot of people have the same subjective opinion. If you could sell your random tree photos and avoid copyright you would. Causality and all that.

DaireQuinlan

BostonB wrote: »

The issue is not the photo being art. But the tree.

If you are selling thousands of pictures of different trees then great you'd be right. But if you're selling pictures of the same tree, that's identifiable due to some ones work on it, then its a different ball game.

Its also means that if people are buying only pictures of this one tree as opposed to your other random trees photos, that that a lot of people have the same subjective opinion. If you could sell your random tree photos and avoid copyright you would. Causality and all that.

From the little that I can actually comprehend of your
'argument' you appear to be arguing in circles. I could well be wrong though, as reading the above actually makes my head hurt as I try and tease apart precisely what it is you're trying to say.

BostonB

LOL fair enough.

Its a bit like arguing something is of no artistic value, then selling it as art (as a photo). Its kinda contradictory.

DaireQuinlan

BostonB wrote: »

LOL fair enough.

Its a bit like arguing something is of no artistic value, then selling it as art (as a photo). Its kinda contradictory.

No, because the categorisation of the PHOTOGRAPH as art is completely independent of the categorisation of the SUBJECT of the photograph as art.

caddy2

Public works:
A building, a sculpture, a model for a building and a work of artistic craftsmanship, when situated in public or in a place open to the public, may be reproduced in two dimensions; photographed; filmed or broadcast, without infringing the copyright. In addition, those reproductions can be made available to the public (including by sale) without permission. Thus, you may take a photograph of the Spire in O’Connell Street, create a postcard from it, and sell the postcard. You may not however create miniature replicas of it for sale without infringing the copyright

could someone help me to interpret this, if i take a picture of eg a shop or pub etc from a public street, and we will say if i change the details of eg the name over the shop, to sell it to someone as a gift, to put their name on it as a gift, like what they do with pictures of soccer jerseys - put a persons name on eg the number 9 jersey of manchester united is this legal? do i need permission from the owner of the property?

kfish2oo2

From what I interpret from that, you can indeed do that without infringing copyright. If, however, you were to make a miniaturised sculpture of said pub (with or without edited name) and sell that, you would be liable for copyright infringement.

Following on from that, with the OP's situation; since the work of art in question would fall under the category of sculpture similar rules would apply. However, the sculpture (trees) are on private property, so its a bit more complicated, but in general the work is easily accessible and view able by the public so photographing/filming it would not be considered a breach of copyright.

caddy2

would the owner of the shop / pub need to be asked for permission to photograph their premises and sell photos of it? becuase we would be changing the appearance of the premises ie name and possibly other items to tidy around it, would there be an issue with this?

kfish2oo2

caddy2 wrote: »

would the owner of the shop / pub need to be asked for permission to photograph their premises and sell photos of it? becuase we would be changing the appearance of the premises ie name and possibly other items to tidy around it, would there be an issue with this?

No you wouldn't need to ask - in fact, altering the image would strengthen your rights to the image due to the artistic nature of photo manipulation.

caddy2

Thanks kfish2oo2 for your input, I would actually have thought that you would definitely have to ask - most especially for two reasons - when selling a picture of their premises and secondly for changing the detail of their premises. but thats great, thanks

bingus666

Hogzy wrote: »

I am assuming the OP's situation is not open to the public. OP gave F*** all details so all i can do is assume. Just because i can see into someones garden does not mean that garden is open to the public and therefore someone does not have a right to photograph artwork on my garden for their financial benefit.

@ OP
What sort of "property" is the "Art" on?


EDIT: Just read the thread there again. missed the Op's second post. It seems as if the Artwork is on the side of a mountain. I have my doubts that the OP owns the mountain or the land curtailed around the mountain. OP if its clearly on display on public property then people can take as many pictures of it as they want and sell those pictures for as much as they want.

@Hogzy: Incorrect, the "artwork" is on a large hill by the side of the mountain which is on my private property as is the surrounding land right up to the cliffs. It is clearly on public display (as planned) however the land it is on is private property & not public property. Not sure how else to point this out!

Also! no need for the profanities dude!

bingus666

challengemaster wrote: »

Am I the only one that looked at that and saw something....phallic? :pac:

yes