Before And After

I love it! Very cool!

i wonder now that its more painting like, i wonder if the original statue owner can complain or not? i'm not sure how that works otherwise, but it does open up new ideas, like taking old gargoyles and doing the same thing.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

It is public art, displayed in public and purchased with tax dollars. I think that makes it fair game.

i'm not sure though, many statues are in the public, hard to say if they were paid for by tax dollars, or if that matters under copyright law. but you made it into something new, and i'm sure the statue was made from a photograph originally, so it still may be tough. it would be hard to prove in court i would think.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Very Cool and well done!

Well, Mike, it falls under the same category as the statue of liberty, Paul Revere in Boston, the Viet Nam Memorial, or any other public art.

those other ones are over a 100 years, so they are safe, like any other work that's that old. it really depends on the statue. i don't think copyright ownership is up for grabs once its on the street. if the mayor buys your image to display outside, its not up for grabs for other people.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

I'd love to know if selling public art means you give up your copyrights....

This brings up an interesting point. I've often wondered about these things. For example in stock photography, if you take a photo of someone else's property, you're required to submit a property release. Some government property is also that way. For example, it's actually illegal to take photos or be on the property of railroad tracks. When it comes to art (statues, paintings, photos,ect), can anyone take a photo of your work in a public museum & then sell it?

It most likely falls under the blanket of derivative works. It uses the original as a basis, but is quite far removed from the original statue.

Very cool, BTW!

"stock photography, if you take a photo of someone else's property, you're required to submit a property release"

Untrue. Property visible from the street does not require a release.

its a good idea to get it though. i've heard of a case where a particular bay window was used in a banking ad, something about hard times or the like. people in the neighborhood all came to the house that window was from (it must have been distinctive), and tried to help the people that were in it, and they didn't need help. i think the owners tried suing the photographer over it. it made them look bad. not sure how that worked out though, it was just a window.

and i do wonder about other houses though, if you get it on their property - and get a release your fine. but if they move, and you still have that release - is it still fine? what if the house was yours and you moved?

there are many fuzzy areas.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

John, I love what you’ve done with the sculpture!

On the copyright issue, I just hired a copyright attorney to address this very question of sculptures as public art and owned by the city.
The city attorney said they didn’t get any copyrights from the artist.

This is the shortened response from the copyright attorney:

In summary, you are OK if you stick with buildings and your photographs are taken from a public street or sidewalk. You are NOT OK with artwork unless you have express permission from the copyright owner or unless you can confirm that the work is in the public domain.

In order for me to confirm that for you, we would need to know the exact date on which the work was created, when it was first made public, who the author is, whether he/she is still living, and if not, when he/she passed away, and whether the work was a work made for hire, i.e., whether the artist created it within the scope of his employment or pursuant to a work-for-hire agreement.

As you can see, the analysis of copyright term is complicated. If you know the work is at least 100 years old, it is probably safe to assume it is in the public domain; in the unlikely event that you were to subsequently receive a cease and desist letter, then you could claim that you acted in good faith and (hopefully) work out a settlement.

If you cannot confirm that the work is at least 100 years old, I would not use it unless you have express permission from the copyright owner.”

I am in the process of trying to obtain copyright releases for a project I'm working on.

Thanks for that info, Fran!
I personally, do not think it is far removed from the original....the focal point in this piece, though color has changed, IS the image of the sculpture....all else is inconsequential.
What would this image be without the photograph of that sculpture? That answer will probably answer all other questions.....

John,

I dont know if I am being pushy here, so take with grain of salt if you want.

I like the statue colorized. I dont like the clouds. Consider reworking the statues colored etc
into a dance studio or dance hall. Make their feet touch the ground. Give them weight.

Dancing in mid air might have a nice feel to it, but dancing in a dance hall would give this piece
a clarity of sorts that MIGHT work better.

Sorry I am not really being fair, the artist should be the only say.

Dave

Fran,

That was a well thought out and well written response. I assumed such things my self when seeing this work.
Your clarity helped more than I would have.

I have to add, Picasso made works over 100 years ago. He died in 1973. I had many designs using his work. I
could not go into production at all with his work. I set all those ideas aside. Copyright covers a very big block
of time. I would have liked to use Matisse's work as well. He died in the mid 1950s. I think off the top of my head 54 or 53.

Dave

I should add that my project involves changing the photograph considerably. I did supply a before and after to the attorney.

I think its quite common to make the assumption that because it's public art paid for by citizen's that it is public domain (I made that assumption). Some of the artists I've contacted indeed have thought because the city now owned their work that they don't have copyrights to it. But if they didn't assign all rights to the city, then they do still own the copyrights on the public work.

Fran, you are right.

I spent time getting legal advice today. I have been informed that selling photos of sculptures that are original works of art, even if they are in public view and purchased with tax dollars, violates copyright law. I took down the image of the couple "dancing on air" pending approval from the artist to sell my creation. If he approves, I will repost it; if not, it will not be for sale.

The same interpretation of the law does not apply to buildings. I know I have seen copies of those sculptures I used for sale before and, in fact, Sarah Bernhardt painted them and sold the painting... but I will do the right thing.

I await Gary's (the artist) reply and will let all y'all know what he says.

Interesting digression from the OP which was only to explain how I did it.

Nice work, John.

what if you just amputate the guy, distort their hairdo, or put dumbbells in each of woman's hands.. maybe u no need approval when you do that. that is very cool transformation btw.