February Photo contest ideas

[Gatorbyte]

I was thinking about the inclement weather that February serves up on occaison and thought "Futility" would make an appropriate theme.

The one that got away, the dropped box of split shot, tying on that size 26 midge with 8x tippet in 18 degree weather.

What do you guys think? Any other ideas?

[fishmonger]

How about fishing based art? I'm sure we all have some fishy art to take a pic of and share.

FM

[Gatorbyte]

How about fishing based art? I'm sure we all have some fishy art to take a pic of and share.

FM


I like that even better.

I second it, can we get a third?

[kevin m]

Be carefull taking pictures of art you did not create and posting it online with out written permission form the artist. That is a copyright violation and could get you in trouble.

[fishmonger]

Assuming it is copyrighted. I think you would have to be trying to sell it, or use it as part of something commercial, for it to be a problem.

FM

[kayakerguy]

You can post any photo, just so long as you credit the original artist if you're not the original.

[Musselwhite]

Third! I will try to get a pic up this month.

Musselwhite

[Fishbreath]

Ill fourth it...

[kevin m]

Original art is protected under law weather or not the artist has registered it formally or not. It does not mater that you are not trying to sell it, there is paid advertising on these pages and that could put someone in hot water. I doubt an artist would complain but you never know.

Not trying to be a wet blanket, just don't want to see any of y'all or NGTO end up in a law suit.

[Gatorbyte]

That's like taking a picture of a sculpture at the sculpture garden at the Smithsonian and posting it and claiming it is yours. I don't think anyone is planning on doing that.

[Buck Henry]

This is an interesting debate forming here that I think is worth pursuing a bit more before we proceed. (And I do not think we should be too quick to dismiss Kevin's words of caution, he is just trying to be helpful here).

Here is the scenario I think is more probable: What if I have purchased a piece of art and legally own it? Can I then take a picture of it and post it on the web? I was going to take a picture of the trout sculpture that I won at the Fling auction. Now let's pretend I do not know the artist (I actually do, it was our own Chuck Morris); is it not OK for me to take a snapshot of this and post it even without Chuck's permission?

[kevin m]

That's like taking a picture of a sculpture at the sculpture garden at the Smithsonian and posting it and claiming it is yours. I don't think anyone is planning on doing that.

I never thought anyone was nor doubted anyone intentions as being anthing more than just having fun. However it is technically illegal and some pissy artsy highbrow could ruin your day.

[Gatorbyte]

Would this picture be considered a copyright violation?

http://bobmccarty.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/chicago-cloud-gate.jpg

[kevin m]

Would this picture be considered a copyright violation?

http://bobmccarty.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/chicago-cloud-gate.jpg

No because that is owned by the city and part of a public park. However art you have purchased is part of someones livelyhood and could be a problem. I doubt it would ever be an issue but it could be if someone took the picture we post on the site and chooses to do something esle with it later.

As for photographing sculpures or other art, the only museum I know of that will allow you to take photos is the Smithsonian, and we all own that already.

[fishmonger]

I think that if have purchase a piece of art, that you are free to display it in any fashion you desire. You OWN it, it is yours. Maybe it would be a problem if you claimed it as your own work, or used it for commercial purposes, as with a copyrighted photo or music, but someone will have to prove to me otherwise, besides just posting their opinion. I am sure that there is a published legal opinion out there, but I don't have time to find it right now.

Is anybody involved in this discussion a commercial artist or a copyright
lawyer?

I think that most any artist is thrilled to have publicity and exposure. Let's post our pics, include an attribution or reference to the artist, and call it good.

FM

[kevin m]

I did not mean to offend, just inform. Just so you know I am well informed and not stating an opinion as I occasionally sell my pictures. When you put them on the internet you are not displaying them, you are publishing them, and unless you expressly bought the rights to do so when you purchased the work you don't have the right to do so legally.

Again I don't think someone would complain and I did not mean to upset anyone by voiceing my concern that NGTO or any of its members expose themselves to risk. I will not post anymore on this topic.

If I offended anyone I appoligize.

[fishmonger]

Kevin,

No offense taken, seriously. I appreciate your opinion, and judging by your background, it is more informed than mine. Still, I think we're mainly taking about pics of art pieces, not photos that are sold, as I said in all my posts. Nobody here is trying to steal anybody's work. I disagree with your opinion that posting a pic on a message board is "publishing", but that's just my opinion.

FM

[GonetoSeed]

Keep in mind that to get here most of us go through a hosting service. The service may have very strict terms of agreement concerning posting (or as Kevin points out publishing) pictures of art. They will at a minimum remove the picture, sometimes your entire collection. They do this for the simple reason that copyright laws are complex and different by country (of the original artist). To avoid pay legal fees as part of any complaints against a member they take action. Post a picture of a piece of art on Flickr and you're likely to get an email from the "Flickr police".

btw, one of the reasons hosting sites are aggressive is that artists and/or their agents/publishers crawl the Web looking for any and all reproductions. Many sell the art but preserve, depending on the laws within their country, all rights to reproduction on any medium. The example often used is they don't want a picture of their sculpture becoming a post card or e-greeting. I know that's not the intent here but a lot of this process is set in motion long before intent is documented and understood. For example, your hosting account is closed and pictures deleted based on a notification of infringement.

One way to tip toe around this is to alter the image in a way that makes it "new" and not a reproduction. For example, include Gatorbyte in the picture admiring your piece of purchased art. That would significantly change the value of the "reproduction" :).

[Gatorbyte]

this is clearly too complex of a discussion and needs clarification. I suggest that we go beyond this and since we are 4 days in to February have an "open theme" this month. Anything goes as long it is Trout fishing related.

Now back to the discussion regarding copyright. Does anyone know how we can get this clarified without hiring a lawyer? Inquiring minds want to know?

[Buck Henry]

this is clearly too complex of a discussion and needs clarification. Does anyone know how we can get this clarified without hiring a lawyer?

Who told you to take pictures of art? Did I tell you to take pictures of art? You get yourself in enough legal trouble around here without stepping on this gi-normous cow pattie! This is an outrage!

http://www.darincale.com/images/JackieChilds.bmp

[Gatorbyte]

Now back to the discussion regarding copyright. Does anyone know how we can get this clarified without hiring a lawyer? Inquiring minds want to know?

Jackie:

While I usually greatly appreciate your support and legal advice.... I was hoping you'd stay out of this, unless you are willing to work Pro Bono. Daddy's money is running tight these days.

[fishmonger]

Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act provides for the "fair use" of copyrighted material. The fair use doctrine is primarily cased-based law, where fair use is loosely based on 4 concepts:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
from "Art Law Handbook" by Roy S. Kaufman

I would guess that we would be on pretty solid ground on item 1, possibly on 2, and for sure on 4, and maybe not so much on item 3, for any pic that just was a pic of an art object. As GoneToSeed has already said, changing the image of the object, or using it in a transformative manner (adding Gatorbyte to the pic), does indeed impart a great deal more "fair use" flexability in the use of the copyrighted material.

Interestingly, the mere creation of something original initiates certain basic copyright protections. Registration adds to this protection greatly. Written permission from the creator of the copyrighted object protects the user, verbal permission does not.

I have something I would like to post a pic of, and have emailed the artist to ask permission. He is a full time art-glass blower, so I have also asked his opinion of our discussion, since he is precisely the type of party that the copyright law is intended to protect.

FM