The limits of Fair Use are very clearly defined in the Copyright Law. It's a shame that this section of the law isn't referenced whenever the notion of "Fair Use" is invoked by a journalist or artist. It would save a lot of useless debate and discussion.

The interesting Videomaker Magazine article is a case in point.

Jack

IMHO, according to the article, the question isn't "is this fair use", it's "if I buy something and am giving the rights to do, do I REALLY have the rights to it?".

I would of never questioned about what I could do with a piece of audio/video/image if I was following the stipulations outlined by the seller. Makes we wonder now if the movie Despicable Me got the rights to use the Statue of Liberty from Vegas.

So, any tips on how to contact all the architectural firms who might have rights to the buildings in New York skyline photos/video I'd like to use?

tom

I'm sorry, but the example of Western Lady liberty is just ridiculous. First of all that statue plagiarizes the real statue of liberty. Western one is a piece of $hit any way you slice it and it has nothing to do with art of any kind. It's a piece of trash on a trashy Las Vegas street. Things like this or buildings in general should not be included in copyright discussions other than "you can't plagiarize my building design". Taking pictures or movies of them definitely should be fair use.

Normally it is if it's not the focus of the piece. The issue here may of been it was the focus. I never knew it was not the NYC statue on the stamp, the thought never popped up in my mind. I never knew there was a non-copy of the NYC statue in Vegas, I thought it was just a mini-replica. If you're making a copyrighted piece off something in the public domain it should be different enough where it can be noticed without excessive scrutiny.

The USPS should perhaps also go after the photographer who handed them the war monument photo, if he said they could use it for a stamp.

Regarding the Vegas Statue of Liberty being a "ridiculaous" example...

Lest anyone be led astray by this silly argument, I doubt that a personal opinion of what is or is not art would constitute a defense in a fair use case.

It's hardly a personal opinion. It's a $hitty plagiarised statue placed above a casino to attract the easily amused and slightly retarded tourists.

If it's OK for this guy to plagiarise the statue of liberty then why is it not OK for everybody else to take pictures of it. He claims he changed a few details. Well, anything coming out of a camera is also different in some way like color hue, not to mention that it's a 2D image and not a statue any more.

Therefore using his own logic it's different enough and should be considered a new work of art.

Anyway, I did not imply this would work as a defense in court, just pointing out how retarded the law can be. Similar to nude photos of models. If they let you take them you have to get a signed release before you can use them, but if you hack their phone and steal a few or do the paparazzi thing it's perfectly fine to post on every web site you want without their permission.

Who writes these laws? Demented monkeys on iPads?

You bring up something interesting with the nude deal! :)

There's a lot of talk now about banning "revenge porn", where you post those "private" images/videos of your former... whatever. So far it's been about violating the rights of the person who was in the photo. Cases like these (against the USPS) show it's NOT about WHAT was in the photo, it's about WHO has the RIGHTS to what's IN the photo AND who TOOK the photo.

It's all a copyright claim (and some smart person will win this way in court, I'm sure): person X takes a picture of themselves and GIVE it to me, unless told otherwise, I own the photo and the rights to it. It's no different then if i was given a desk they made or a painting they painted. Unless there's limits on the rights transferred, there is no limits on the rights transferred. Just like in these USPS cases, the photographers didn't have the rights to the subjects photographed, but if I take a picture of myself and give it to my wife, it's ASSUMED the rights to the picture transferred too. If that wasn't the case people would be suing eachother over showing someone else embarrassing family photos.

I agree the statue one is absurd and that's my opinion.

An interesting OT thread. I must agree that only monkeys on iPads can write such laws and they missed out one: If I walk on the street and a surveillance camera takes a video/picture of me, can I claim my rights? Hmmm… interesting.

One of the case studies we did in my professional photography class was about photographing buildings on private property, and the final legal answer in that case was that as long as the photographer was in a public access area and did nothing "unusual" to gain sight of the property in question, the fact that said buildings were visible from the public area gave implicit consent from the owner to have them viewed and photographed. In other words, if you make something visible to the public, you can't forbid people from seeing it and taking pictures of it.

Now, this case didn't touch on commercial use of such pictures, and of course it was one small local case subject to being overruled by higher courts. It does, however, cast serious doubt on the legality of cities like Seattle and NYC being able to copyright their skylines to the point where they don't even allow non-commercial photographs to be taken and displayed. My own opinion is that that just borders on the inane attempts to bend law in their own favor without grounds for offense. Seriously, if you don't want your city skyline photographed, your only real recourse is to make it not visible, and that's just not a practical or even possible option. Since the only recourse is impossible, they need to settle themselves to the realization that they can't really expect to have a valid case.

Extending this to art on public display, i don't believe the exhibitors can honestly expect that they could enforce a prohibition on pictures being taken and distributed. What they *can* expect is that those who do so will credit the original artist.

Are we talking about public art in view from public property or art owned by the public on private property, private art in public property but not in view from "outside" public property..... ;)

[I]"I agree the statue one is absurd and that's my opinion."[/I]

It's not absurd at all although it does raise an interesting question.

Anything on view from a public place is fair game. If someone appears in my shot then that image is mine, I own the image. If I'm lucky I might even be able to sell it for a quite tidy sum. What I cannot do is "use it in commerce" i.e. use it to promote trade. The reason for this is I've now made an implication about the person e.g. that they've endorsed the trade, thing, etc.

What I see as the interesting question that the court appears to have answered is, does the use of the image of that statue constitute "in commerce?"

Bob.

Bob, i think that's more applicable in Australia. Here in the US, you run afoul of the law just trying to sell it, and you could probably get into a lot of trouble using it without money changing hands.

The laws (in America, at least) have been written and rewritten to benefit the entertainment/music/publishing industry (and their associated lawyers) moreso than the creator of the work, which was the original intent. The legal concept of copyright was to grant the creator of an original work exclusive rights of use and distribution of that work, along with the ability to derive compensation for the work.

Cities attempting to copyright a skyline is ludicrous within this definition. The “city” or its officials in virtually all cases had nothing to do with creation or concept of the structures making up the skyline.

To me it would make sense to have the laws written so that any use of a copyrighted work that is not generating revenue for a third-party or harming the creator’s ability to generate revenue (such as file-sharing sites giving away music, or posting a best-selling novel in your blog) is acceptable if the creator is credited. That would eliminate the majority of “fair-use” bickering.

If I take a skill full picture of a sculpture in a public area such as a park; specific lighting, specific angle, post rework, maybe B&W and so on, then the art is in taking the picture and not so much in the object. When I now sell the picture I am selling my skills in making the picture and not the object. A bit like a street artist that sells you a sketch of a sculpture or famous building; there are many of those in European cities. If I make art for public display, then it is what it is, public and I should have no further claims other then actual "copyright", meaning no one has the right to copy the object. Taking a photo of a sculpture isn't a copy, making an identical sculpture would well be. So is taking a photo of a photo and so on.