Can I Sell Pictures Of Public Art.

i think we decided that if its art made by another artist - like street art, then you shouldn't. someone hired by the city. statues are out unless you got permission by the artist or its old. graffiti should be ok, however these are all things limited to what people may want to buy. best not to sell someone else's art work.

---Mike Savad

okay thank you Mike. can you tell me is this the same if i take v nice picture of statue with sun behind it and a silohette of statue only? and maybe abstract close up shots which i like?

i suppose you could, but how sellable they would be i couldn't tell you. usually unless you do something very special, statues are kind of boring. be sure your images are printable. i can't tell if your avatar was dithered on purpose or not, but if they look like that, they won't print.


---Mike Savad

oh..i remembered now also i meant to ask if its ok if someone is standing in front of statue or part of graffiti. This reminds me of the other thread with womans skirts lol

Thankyou again yes ditherd on purpose. i dont post any of my photos yet. i have only 2 pieces of ditigal art which i did in school.

also, I think they are mostly dead artist who make statues

Bonita,

Older statues generally are in the pubic domain. I would not go to a museum though and expect a to take shots of a modern statue.

Graffiti is iffy. The artists are not deceased over 70 years. Or the property owner might have the rights.

Graffiti on public works ie trains etc is probably fair game, but I dont know for sure. We have a dam locally with some
graffiti which might be usable.

I dont know what you mean by street art.

Some buildings have a copyright on them. I dont know much about this, but it came up recently on these boards.

You might or might not need releases from people/strangers who enter into your shots. I do not know much about this. And
you probably would get away without getting releases. We are not a major manufacture out to advertise, so most folks dont care
or even realize a shot might have them in it.

Best to read up on the law, if you dont want to hire a lawyer.

Dave

Out of all the things in the world to shoot, why shoot statues to sell? There are lots of living sculptors out there as well. If the statue is a larger piece of work andnot close up and personal with it, I believe it might be fair game, but like David said, either seek consel with a lawyer or read the law books yourself.

You should always have in your mind, that you offer your work interantionally. Laws are different in different countries. Selling here as print should be ok. If you want to offer licenses, things get more complicated. Most laws are pre-internet. Since the invention of the internet, the laws are far behind the modern reality.

In your case the chance of running into problems is very slim.

You really need to seek a legal opinion on this.

The laws dealing with copyright on three dimensional art are different then one dimensional.

If you want to take picture of statues, then take pictures of statures. Don't let anyone tell you what to shoot and what not to shoot.

If go look at the galleries on FAA and watch what is selling and you will a lot of great images of statures that people sell all the time.

The one that come to my mind immediately is the Wall Street Bull.

Go to the FAA search and put statures in the box. There are all kinds of public statures being photographed and sold.

You need to get an understanding of the laws regarding the copyrights of three dimensional art and art in public places then what you are going to get in these threads.

Colin. Thankyou v much. So it would not help me to read law books as they are older than now.

Joseph. Why should i not shoot satues and things on streets? And why you tell me to read books and seek consul. I am told when joined here that many people be happy to help and answer my question on forum. You are not happy to help but only condensation. not nice.

David. thankyou for your help and advise without condensation. I think graffiti artist he gives away his work when doing vandaling on streets.

I am loving to travel around europe while staying in Ireland. there are many beauty statues and buildings in europe which I like to take pictures off. Most of thees are very old and with dead sculptors.

Floyd. thankyou for advise. Yes i shoot what i want to shoot and not what anyone else tell me to shoot :::::::>

in the end what it comes down to is - you can sell anything you see, just about. however anyone can sue for anything. they probably won't, its expensive, you have to ask - is it worth it? i usually say no.

shooting a street art or statue and there are other things in the scene, that's ok. it's a part of the background. if your making it your center of interest then no. its like going to an art show and shooting other people's photos for sale.

---Mike Savad

John Lennon is dead, but that doesn't mean his songs are in the public domain. You asked our advice and mine was basically to talk to a lawyer. Sorry I wasn't nice.

some graffiti is vandalism, and other times its wall art when its an urban renewal project. when they sign it, its easy to know other times its much harder. the reason why we say to look at the law books etc, we aren't lawyers and can't give you an official word. but joseph is right, statues are rarely interesting, and they don't really make good sellers unless you can make it very unique. your better off doing street photography, though those aren't really hot sellers either.

---Mike Savad

Mike. yes i may have other thinks about this. thank you. you are very considered highly :::::>

Joseph. it is nice to be nice yes? ok. we make peace now. and no more condensation :::::>

I think i leave this open and maybe a artist lawman or lawwoman come and help.

there won't be any. even if they are a lawyer - they won't work for free. and it would be bad if they gave advice and were sued because it was wrong. each city, country, location has its own laws set up that protects people different ways. we can only speak for our own area. where you live may have totally different rules. like the rules in the US may be totally different than the UK. and someone from russia telling you this and that, may not apply. even on lawyer sites, that dish out free advice are all very cautious of what they say.

the only advice is - if you think it's wrong or its not a good idea, don't post it. it will only haunt you later on. if you go to a specific country, know their rules ahead of time. street photography in the US is ok unless it's commercial. i heard that the same thing in france isn't allowed if they are a vendor. someone was once sued because their boat was photographed and sold - the color combo on that boat in italy meant something and the boat owner won.

those are some examples. so that's why we can't offer exact advice. and if your not sure, just move onto a different image.


---Mike Savad

It is not mostly dead artists who make statues. Dead artists cannot make anything. There are thousands of statues made by artists within the past 75 years who are still alive.

Please get legal advice. Nobody here is a lawyer.

"I am loving to travel around europe while staying in Ireland. there are many beauty statues and buildings in europe which I like to take pictures off. Most of thees are very old and with dead sculptors."

Shoot them! Interpret them in your way! Try to sell the result! And - most important - enjoy your journey!

It is not mostly dead artists who make statues. Dead artists cannot make anything.

O i am so sorry that my english is not so good as you. thankyou for tell me dead artist cannot make anything. this is more condensation. not nice. i shoot mostly old statue and this was made clear. ok i will go and ask a lawman for my art question and sorry i even came here to annoy you people who are not nice.

Colin. thankyou sir you are very kind and nice.

"Shoot them! Interpret them in your way! Try to sell the result! And - most important - enjoy your journey!"

Totally agree. Best advice here so far! lol

I have trouble when anyone discourages or outright tells someone else what to shoot or paint or what will sell and what will not sell.

I just don't see that as our role as fellow artist.

You are asking for legal advice, Bonita. We cannot give you legal advice. If you want just opinions then there are plenty of those. However, please note that they are not legally given and are just opinions

floyd you can't just take pictures of anything and sell them. that will lead you into trouble down the line. shooting a statue is no different than shooting a painting and calling it yours. if you can find out who made the statues and contact them and ask, then it may be ok. if you can find out if the artist was dead over 75 years then it's ok. but that's a lot of work and trouble for something like that.

would it be worth it to you if you went to a lawyer? and the lawyer says - well it depends, and that will be $500? probably not. that's why its better to be cautious. many people have been sued for example - by taking a picture and selling it - the troll under the bridge in england somewhere. many have been sued by that one alone. many think because its in public it's ok to take it. but you can't, it's still art, its still protected.


---Mike Savad

Mike you are just flat wrong on so many levels here. Or are you now the expert an all things that can be done and not done with a camera? Did you recently get your law degree specializing in intellectually property rights?

I never said you can take pictures of anything and sell them. Why would lie about what I said?

Shooting a statue IS different then shooting a picture and calling it your own. You would know that if you took the time to look it up. I even gave you references. Are you calling the hundreds of artist on FAA that are doing it crooks?

Why are you constantly trying to scare people with the fact that anyone can sue anyone at any time? Do you really think everyone else is so stupid they don't know that?

This is the third or fourth time you have said that in recent threads.

"many think because its in public it's ok to take it. but you can't, it's still art, its still protected. "

This is just flat wrong Mike. Not everything is as simple as that.

No one suggested that in the first place, again you are lying about what I said by insinuating that I did.

Some things are and some things are not in the public domain and being dead or the age of the art is NOT the only determining factor.

How about making a statue from someone's photo? Koons sued by the photographer when he created a statue from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons

"Rogers was awarded a large monetary settlement from Koons and Koons also was required to ship the fourth sculpture, remaining in the collection of Koons, to Rogers in Germany."

floyd you just agreed to "Shoot them! Interpret them in your way! Try to sell the result! And - most important - enjoy your journey!"

you can't do that.

i'm an expert in this as you are to marketing. how about that.

i really don't know what your arguing about. show me where its ok to take other people's art and photograph it and sell it. it's their copyright look it up. i'm not lying about anything you said, your interpreting things as if it's all about you. i answered you, told you your wrong and explained why. everything else is in your head.

and i never said it was the only determining factor, i already outlined this.

i've seen people sued for a lot of things, yes you should have that thought in your head, that you can be sued over things like this and it's a 100% true. beyond that i don't know what your rant is about or why your so excited. do you have a collection of statues in your collection and that's why your defending it?

---Mike Savad

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/pdf/ip_photography.pdf this will vary from place to place, but it has enough content.

---Mike Savad

Ed, the laws are just not that simple. The are many considerations any copyright laws and they do not apply equally or exactly the same for three dimensional art. The are much more complex.

If you read that case you referenced, you can see that they are considerations that may or may not apply to any individual case.

That is all I was trying to say. I never said you can just go out and take a picture of anything and sell it. I said that one should get an understanding of the laws as the apply. I also said that the way the photo and the sculpture or statue is presenting will determine rather it is legal or not.

In a nut shell NOT BEING A LAWYER I get from reading the laws, that if the photograph is primarily reflecting the photographers own artistic expression and not just conveying that of the artist that did the sculpture, it is going to be just fine. I also said that it was my opinion that the laws seem to give a lot of leeway.

Again, I suggest that anyone that would take the time to peruse the work listed on FAA and being sold through the major publishing houses, you will see that a lot of photographs are sold that contain sculptures and statures done by artist that are not dead or in the public domain.

!

In the US, photos of the statue are considered derivative of the copyright of the statue. If the statue is under copyright, you cannot sell the photo without a license. It follows the same law as derivative art does. Only the original creator may derive another artwork from the original or a person with permission

I am not a lawyer ...this is only what I found out looking at legal sites

Mike, that does not address the conditions under which taking a photograph of a copyrighted work CAN be done legally. That is why I suggested in my original post that the OP seek legal advise.

Your responce to that was also out of line, imho. Basically telling her that it was a waste of money. Really?

Again I ask you, are all of the photographers on FAA selling image of sculpture on FAA breaking the law?

Mike, if you are so very strict to that what you´ve said, you have to delete almost your whole portfolio. Every single piece on your images (aircrafts, machines, buildings, ...) has been designed by somebody who has the copyright on this object. And as far as I know Andy Warhol died as a rich man. ;-)

Abbie, that is only one line of text out of a law or series of laws that probable takes up several volumes. If you take that at it's literal meaning, then FAA has a lot of house cleaning to do. lol

Aging, let me repeat myself, I AM NOT saying anyone can go out and take a photo of any sculpture they want and sell it under any circumstances they want. But there are circumstances where it can be done, legally. And it is being done legally, without seeking permission.

Again, that is why I suggested from the get go that the OP seek legal advice and become familiar with what those conditions are.

These were the first words I said in my first post and I still stand by them:

"You really need to seek a legal opinion on this.

The laws dealing with copyright on three dimensional art are different then one dimensional. "

I could bring up other "subject matter" of hundreds of photographers representing over six thousand images that according to Mike, all are breaking the law.

Are we to believe that all of these people, some of them world renowned photographers, all of them... got it wrong?

I will come back with exsample of my picturess to make this better discusion soon. Also i do like digital art and make pictures different with computer buttons and maybe this will change things.

Abbie you give me adcvise after say no and condensation. this is strange and i just realize you are the worker. you should not make me small for being bad at english. this is bad for me and business yes. i think you meant to help and not condensation to me for not speaking your language.

now i go for meal and i come back thankyou all and Floyd and Colin.

"Shoot them! Interpret them in your way! Try to sell the result! And - most important - enjoy your journey!"
"you can't do that."

Yes, I did agree with that statement, AFTER I suggested the op get the proper legal guidance. Something you don't think is necessary. And yes she can do it as long as she does it legally.

"I'm an expert in this as you are to marketing. how about that."

Okay, how about that. I have several years experience in marketing including my own retail business and my online galleries. I have also taught marketing seminars in local schools at the Community College level, invited to do so by the head of the business department that was a retired JC Penny Executive Vice President in charge of all advertising and marketing. I was an active partner in an advertising agency that handled the marketing for the company that, at that time, held the record for the most non-entertainment videos sold. We also handled an account for a company that set the standards for mail order marketing and selling of golf clubs. That company is now owned by a PGA Hall of Famer. We also handled all of the placement for the regional adverting for political candidates that included one for the President of The United states, a Vice President, a Governor and countless numbers of local politicians. There is more if you want more.

So, there you go. Now tell me about your legal background.

"i've seen people sued for a lot of things, yes you should have that thought in your head, that you can be sued over things like this and it's a 100% true"

It is also true that you can get run over every time you step off the curb, but that doesn't mean you should never try to cross a street.

"i don't know what your rant is about or why your so excited. do you have a collection of statues in your collection"

You are free to go look at what I sell Mike and make as big of issue out it that you care to.

I my rant is about you telling people what they should sell and what the should not sell and trying to scare them into believing they are going to get sued for things every time they turn around. THEN you tell them or suggest that they not get the proper legal advise.

You give some of the best advise, better than anyone actually, on the technical aspect of FAA and individual images.

But some of your other advise is just way off the the mark. I know, you are going to say the same thing about me. So be it, when I am out of line I expect to be challenged. But I do not worship at the alter of Mike Savad like so many seen to do here. When you're wrong or out of line, imho, I am going call you on it.

Bonita, at some point you have to decide whether to live in fear or embrace life. If you are just a little bit observant you will see that there are lots of images of statues, fan art, architecture, and graffiti being sold as art. And not just here, but throughout the web and in shops and galleries throughout the world. Does everyone have signed permission slips? No, nor do they need them.

Lawsuits against artists who photograph objects on public display and sell them as ART are extremely rare. Threats of lawsuits are less rare, but still not common. Before you get sued, you get letters. You'll have plenty of time to decide whether to take your art down, ignore the threats, tell them to F-off or file your own counter-suit.

Fact: Most people who threaten legal action never ever file a suit. Never ever. They're just blowing off steam, generally claiming rights they don't have and simply attempting to intimidate you into submission. If you stand up and push back they disappear like roaches when you click the light on.

Don't let anyone crush your dream by warning you of lawsuits that will likely never happen. That's negative goal-setting. That's unnecessary worry. That's anticipating failure before you even leave your house.

Go out and embrace life! Get some pictures! Make some art! Find your artistic path! Tigers don't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

"Tigers don't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep. "

Okay Dan, I am officially serving notice, copyright or not, I am going to steal that and I am probably NOT going to give you credit for it!!

Excellent, the entire post, as usual.

Oh no I feel the return of sheeple. Grrrrrrr!

Dan, like all of us here, is not a lawyer that I am aware of. But he may have watched a lot of "Law & Order" like I did. What he says isn't untrue, but then what Mike Savad said isn't either. Being that a lawsuit against an art is is rare, that means, obviously, it can happen. The best piece of advice given by basically all that have replied to this thread is to seek legal advice from people actually qualified to give it. None of us, that I am aware of, are.

@colin - art is under a copyright law. a functional object is not unless you make a clone of that functional object. like a chair - carved or not, isn't protected because it's for a use. same with buildings and such. the law is tricky overall. however in general if its art, it's protected, if it's utility it isn't unless you make one yourself.

works here or not - the truth is there is no condescension - dead people can't do anything. it's just a fact.

can i get run over crossing the street? yes, but you can see the car coming. i'm not saying to not photograph anything, but use common sense. yes there are 1000's of people here that have works that are copyrighted - most of which are ripped off from other sites. marvel comics, star trek, etc, and yes statues. many have no idea at all that they shouldn't be selling it. can they be sued? yes. they can. would they be? maybe - depends how much money both sides have. the main thing is - be care what is posted because it can get you in the end.

you may not realize that some things are copyrighted - eiffel at night, red double decker bus going over bridge with selective colors, certain trees and buildings from certain vantage points. those you can claim ignorance on.

my rant is about the Blasé attitude people seem to have around here regarding copyright and getting sued over it. everyone should be aware that you can be sued - am i trying to scare people? yes i am. the shoot and don't worry about until later is usually the last thing you want. stock sites are very careful what goes on their site. that's the attitude people usually needs to have. the overly cautious one. especially in a sue happy world. i don't see why your fighting this - i doubt your a lawyer or know anything at all about this topic. you wouldn't know if i'm off the line or not, just look it up for yourself, show me how i'm wrong. so far several links posted show i'm right on the money.

---Mike Savad

and just because people do it - doesn't make it legal and it doesn't make it ok. lots of people do drugs too - and i bet they lived to tell the tale - does it make it ok to do that? its not a good reasoning process. the "i got away with doing it" isn't the model to follow.

lawsuits are actually pretty common. they just aren't all publicized and many are in court and haven't been released. the art has to be found first, and then they have to see if it's worth pursuing. and that's why it seems like there aren't a lot. but you just don't know, so why in the world would you take the chance?

it's easy to tell others just to do it. it's not like you have to pay anyone if you lose in court.


---Mike Savad

"... however in general if its art, it's protected"

Yes! And that´s the reason why can do, what we do!

yes, and that's why statues are protected, it's art, it can be sued over. even if your used in an example to others, you can be sued. they would have to prove damages, you may win, but spending money on the lawyer, missed work, etc - not a good thing.

we can make art, it's not protected by the law in general, the only protection we have, is we can sue someone else for taking and using it. that's it. it doesn't give you the right to shoot and use it.


---Mike Savad

"so far several links posted show i'm right on the money"

No you are not right Mike. Not based on those links alone. You're basing your 'non-lawyer" opinion on what amounts to had full of lines in the laws as it applies to the case at hand.

You have to understand, you are not qualified to interpret law. But you keep doing it. I am not qualified either, that is why I have been saying all along that the OP should seek legal guidance as should anyone else that has those questions. And NO ONE should discourage them for doing that.

Everyone already knows that the can be sued for nearly everything or anything they do.

"dead people can't do anything. it's just a fact. "

Once again that is a legal opinion not a fact simply because it does not address the entire issue in the proper context. It is a half-truth. Are we talking about the artist being alive or dead or are we talking about the copyright being alive or dead?

Case in point Normal Rockwell is dead. He may not be able to do something, but the Post people certainly can and often do.

Then to complicate matters, not all of Rockwell's works are under copyright.

In fact there are cases working through the courts regarding recapturing or establishing copyrights of art by artist that have beer dead 200 years and there are no heirs.

Nothing almost nothing regarding copyright is just fact.

"it doesn't give you the right to shoot and use it."

Yes Mike, that is exactly what the law does under certain conditions. It DOES give you the right to "use it" if you do it according to the law.

floyd you keep claiming i'm wrong --- are you a lawyer? why do you think you know more?


and no it does not give you the right to use it.


---Mike Savad

The primary way in the U.S. that someone else's art can be used by a photographer is governed by the "fair use" provision in copyright law. And whether your use is indeed fair use, is defined by these four tests.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of 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

The only other way use of someone else's art is allowed is for editorial purposes, or in satire, and other forms of protected free speech and expression.

If someone on here is selling pictures of company logos (Coca Cola?), cars, movie characters, and other copyrighted works, its not that they are doing it legally in most cases, its merely that they haven't been sued or threatened with a suit yet.

Here is the relevant piece of law.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

"But he may have watched a lot of "Law & Order" like I did."

Heh :-) Actually, I have yet to see a single episode. I ditched commercial TV almost a year ago.

I have appeared in court several times. Mostly as an expert witness in copyright cases. I've been in depositions where cases are stopped and settled within an hour of completion. I was a defendant once. Two or three times I've been a plaintiff. ALL instances were copyright/commercial art related. Still, I'm not a lawyer.

I owned a profitable graphic design firm/advertising agency for nine years with 14 employees. I still maintain a number of marketing clients and a virtual assistant (or two or three) in my freelance business. I can assure everyone that copyright issues and clearances are not a foreign subject to me.

In my experience, Mike's lawsuit warnings are severely out of line and just plain horrible business advice. It's like worrying about being struck by lightening. If you use a little common sense neither of those things are likely to happen or worth worrying about.



Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Mike, any one with common sense knows that neither one of us has a law degree specializing it his sort of law.

But most had the ability to interpret on a common sense level know full well that there is nothing at all as cut and dried about the laws of copyright.

When you make these absolute statements of this is right and this is wrong with out the benefit of that that law degree and based only you assumptions of drawing from a few pages of law that may or may not applied to the discussion, that in and of itself is wrong.

But what you are asking me to do is prove a negative. If you think that the thousands of the artist here on FAA are breaking the law, then you should do something about. You and you self-awarded law degree should file suit. Oh, and don't forget to include suing yourself.

Gary just posted another tiny piece of the volumes of law written on this subject. Thank you Gary.

It includes a few line that goes to what I have stated above, probably several times. Look at these four lines, 3 of the 4 tests.

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

So if one takes that as the bases for all law (and it is not) regarding this matter. There is plenty of room to argue the merits on a case by case bases. And some of those cases will be won. AND some will be lost. Making my position 100% right.

There is a lot of room for interpretation here and you know every lawyer and every judge is going to do just that. Even I I could ask several questions, not for the sake of argument, but for the sake of clarification. But there is no need to go there.

My position from the beginning has been that under the right circumstances, you can legally take picture of statues and sell them.

you may not worry about it, but i don't exactly see those kinds of things being sold in your gallery. you have mostly fractals and canyon shots. you would be far more convincing to me if you had the images we were talking about. it's easy to tell people not to worry, and you may very well be right , and you may never be sued, or you may never lose. but the fact that you did in deed go to court shows that there are cases like this and the people on either side, shelled out a lot of money before you got there to their lawyers to save their behind. just to show that this is that possibility that you may be sued, even if you don't ever have to go to court, you still have to hire a lawyer.

you were the "expert witness", not the one being sued or the one suing. you only have a glimpse of the final results and nothing more. not the amount of time, energy or money spent up to that point.

you should always air on the side of caution. just because you may not get sued, doesn't mean you won't. companies will send a cease and desist most of the time. but there is always that once in a while case where they make an example out of you. and considering it has happened, can mean it can happen to you.

if you know that lightning exists - you know it's not a good time to fly a kite, carry a pole or play in that storm - because you know it's possible, you don't do those things. you may never get hit at all doing all those things, but your chances increase if you do. i'm not scaring people off, but people are very naive, and telling people that it will never happen is terrible advice.


---Mike Savad

I think the best advice is, that with all the things in the world to photograph, why does one need to blatantly copy another artist's creation via a different medium and sell it. There is no point as I see it, in heaping that kind of potential trouble on yourself. There are more tactful ways of including the beautiful work of others in what you do, but it requires some creativity.

One other point in regard to statues is whether the work commissioned by a federal, state or local government. In many such cases the art is considered in the public domain is perfectly legal to photograph...being a work for hire. However it entirely depends on what arrangement was struck with the artist. So you need to do your homework...and sometimes that isn't easy, begging the question again whether there is enough value in your shot to make it worth the trouble.

law has nothing to do with common sense.

tell me is it safer to assume as made by a statement - that you can be sued for doing something so don't do it... this advice is wise and you shouldn't get in trouble.

or is it better to say - just go ahead and do it, don't listen to what others have to say on the subject, the chances of you getting caught is low --- this advice is poor because if you follow it, you could get in trouble.

i don't see why there is an argument here.

for the most part in court, you have to prove damages. or they won't take it. most don't know this and say they will go to court. but they may be able to prove it on their side some how, or still have you get a lawyer. it should never have to go that far if you can prevent it. its no different than wearing a seat belt. you probably won't be in an accident today, and you haven't had an accident in 20 years, and you never needed the belt to lock on you. but, you may have an accident and that's why we have them. it's like no one can foresee the possibilities of the future. many are so very future blind.

the right circumstances were mentioned way at the top of this. if you take it directly as the main art, no, you shouldn't use it. if it's in the background and there is more than one subject then your probably ok. and the thing that will get you is probably that huge COKE ad in the background.

---Mike Savad

Mike, I have no problem with you worrying about people suing you. Great. I have a problem when you insist in post after post that other people share your bottomless pit of paranoia, disguised as "business" advice.



Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Another point to consider...Mike is right in that anyone can sue for any reason. And often they don't have to be in the right, to make enough trouble for you to make the whole exercise a huge time and money sink. A case in point was a frivolous lawsuit brought against an organization I once presided over as president. The accuser brought a bogus lawsuit against us, that had to be answered to avoid a default judgement. This required hiring an attorney to file proper paperwork, etc. In the end, the whole affair cost several thousand in lawyers fees, with absolutely nothing being settled or for that matter accomplished. Makes you wonder some times if lawyers are in collaboration just to burn the money of each others clients.

I think this has gone on long enough now. Neither of you will change each others mind and neither of you are right,nor wrong BUT, the ONLY person who may tell someone what to do legally, is a lawyer so I am going to repeat, all posts here are opinions only and you will need to get professional assistance for legal advice

You should always seek advice from a qualified attorney that specialises in copyright law.

Any advice given to you on this forum is not legal advice (unless giving opinions only which will not help) as nobody here is a copyright lawyer.

Please contact official help.

As far as FAA is concerned, you may load those as long as you have read our Terms of Use and they are applicable

http://fineartamerica.com/termsofuse.html?document=contributortermsofuse

Representations and Warranties

.......(C) The Images and all parts thereof are owned and/or controlled by You, unencumbered and original works and are capable of copyright protection in all countries where copyright or similar protection is available;
(D) If the Images contain any human likeness from which an individual may be identified, You own or have acquired all rights to use such human likenesses;

Thanks

Community Manager
PIXELS links TECH QUERIES OR BUG REPORTS | FORUM RULES | CONTACT US | GROUP ADMINS | TAKE A TOUR | MEMBER WRITTEN TUTORIALS
FAA Links TECH QUERIES OR BUG REPORTS | FORUM RULES | CONTACT US | GROUP ADMINS | TAKE A TOUR | MEMBER WRITTEN TUTORIALS