What Are The Limits Of The Publication Of Images In Fineartamerica?

Samir,
Welcome to the FAA community. If you are asking about copyright issues (pictures/images of other peoples' work like statues, etc) there are many discussions about this. Type in something like Statue and Artwork Images and see what other discussions have already covered this subject. I would post links for you but honestly don't have the time to do the search right now.

Best of luck to you! :)

Kathy K. McClellan
KeppenArt.com

Thank you Kathy. I will search for that in the site. thanks again

I am also interested in this, specially on the matter of street photography, that I love doing.

Regards,

--Pablo Lopez

The limit is called "The Mike Savat Limit", a very sophisticated, mathematically derived value that only beautiful minds can fully grasp.

There are many topic about copyrights in the site but not really organized and for the new artists seems difficult to find it.
Just if there is only one discussion about the matter and every new question that refer to copyright we put it in this discussion.
thanks Pablo for support!
thanks Robert for the remark!

contributors terms of use:

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

Samir, I am not sure about buildings and structures but when it comes to people I usually consider whether there was an expectation of privacy. For example I would sell images I took of public street scenes that contain people because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, but if I photograph a building and someone is undressing in a window you better bet I wouldn't try to sell that shot without scrubbing out that person.

Thanks dear Edward.
Dear Ursa thank you for the important information. About people is clear for me.
Just last thing. If i took a photo forexample a beautiful toy of a bear from the showcase of a shop.
Is it legal to sell the photo? Do i dont worry from the company that manufactered the toy or the owner of the shop that he makes the bear more beautiful because
he put some flowers or a beautiful chain on its neck. If he find all his work in my photo do i have problem for that. ?

Thanks again

it depends how one sells a photo. as art you can get away with a lot, with stock you walk a tricky line.


this is someone else's art work. and btw, no one will find it with those tags.


and this is someone else's art work as well, combined with that donut necklace which is also art. this may get in the way of copyrights.



statues are one you want to stay away from. this is art and another copyright. it would be no different than someone taking a picture of your picture and selling it. unless its in the public domain i would stay away from them.


this one is tricky because these are also copyrights, but they are also combined. as art its probably ok, as stock then no.

the work goes on like that. but right now you have no descriptions and no keywords so no one will find it anyway.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Many thanks Mike savad. Your anwser is detailed and clear enough.
I thing i have to avoid to be always worrying about this problem and i will delete some picture of mine.
thanks again

statues are one you want to stay away from. this is art and another copyright. it would be no different than someone taking a picture of your picture and selling it. unless its in the public domain i would stay away from them

I do NOT agree. A two dimensional photograph of a three-dimensional artwork is NOT a copy - it is a representation of one particular angle of view of a much more spatially rich entity. The photograph of the sculpture, thus, could be claimed by the photographer as the photographer's copyrighted work, since its aim is NOT to slavishly copy the sculpture, but to capture the sculpture in a newly situated, two dimensional composition, where the photographer determines his own creative handling of the two-dimensional result. The sculptor could NOT, then, use the photographer's picture of the sculpture without violating the photographer's copyright on the PHOTOGRAPH.

Even with a two dimensional painting, ONLY if the INTENT is to slavishly copy the original would the photographer risk a serious copyright offense. On the other hand, if the photographer merely coincidentally captured a painting in say, a larger interior design scheme of a museum, then the INTENT is NOT the slavish reproduction but perhaps the news gathering or documenting of a public function or an event or a city block or something bigger than the painting coincidentally part of the scene.

then talk to those that make statues and then later sue the photographer for trying to make money off it. troll under the bridge is one where people get sued often. you don't have to make another statue of it. the fact that your trying to profit off of someone else's art - that's what the deal is.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Mike,

Would you kindly give me your insight on my work? Say you would take a picture of a classic work of art, like St. Matthew by Borromini. I have a couple like this, not more modern statues:



Also, I have a gallery on portraits/street photography. People depicted in it were always in the street and my view of it is Ursa's. My view is that, in the street, one does not have any reasonable expectation of privacy and the work of famous photographers like Francesc Catala Roca and so many others would not exist any other way. However, as we live in a crazier world every day, I would really like insight in this. This is one of my pictures, but I have several others:



Thanks in advance.

--Pablo Lopez

the fact that your trying to profit off of someone else's art - that's what the deal is.

A photograph of the statue is NOT a copy of it. It is a two-dimensional capture that does not even come close to the three-D reality of the statue. No matter how hard you tried, you could NOT make a photograph be a copy of the three-D extension on which it is based.

The "deal" is that the photograph is NOT the sculptor's art - it is a PHOTOGRAPH that INCLUDES an IMPRESSION of the sculptor's art.

If I borrow somebody else's car one day and happen to deliver a pizza for which I make a $30 tip, do I owe the owner part of my tip?

So Robert If I take a 2 dimensional photo of a 2 dimensional painting It's ok since it's only a representation? Tell that to any fine art museum. How about the 3 dimensional statues at Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site in Cornish, New Hampshire, USA (or down in Boston.)
Even though he is dead the National Park Service will want to discuss with you photographing the statues to make a profit off them. (You have to buy a permit so you image better be great and not on spec).

I just saw that a Texas congressman has a new bill called the Ansel Adams bill and one provision would remove the fees on National Park Lands so maybe that is a non issue... http://petapixel.com/2015/01/07/ansel-adams-act-goes-congress-aims-restore-first-amendment-rights-photographers/

What about the small time artist... My wife creates dolls from different materials and she might be flattered that you wanted to take a photo of them but if she saw one of her dolls on the cover of a book without her permission. Well you and the publisher would be unhappy. You would be unhappy because you didn't get a clear release from the creator of the artwork. This person holds all copyrights to this artwork and all derivative works for the next 76 years plus 7 (or something like that)

I know the Peabody Essex Museum has taken copyright on all artwork in their collection that isn't part of a visiting art show. So all the donated works ship models, statues, paintings, and furniture all have current copyright protection on them.

So while you may feel you have a right to photograph someone else's artwork and make money from it, you really can't. I suggest you follow Carolyn E. Wright the photo attorney http://www.photoattorney.com/aboutus.html She helps stock photographers stay on the right side of the law and lets them know when copyright applies or not...

I've had to take down photos of buildings because I did not have permission to photograph the building. I've never tired to make money off a current (living) artists statue and I would feel funny about trying to...

Copyright is a subject not for the timid and it gets deep if one looks at it too long. The only thing worse is math word problems... Talk about confusing... don't get me going there. :-)

Any artist that takes pictures of another artists work is infringing on that work, public or not. There was a case just brought into court concerning a graffiti artist and ASW jeans. This involved a wall mural that was duplicated in ads. The company ultimately agreed to pay him instead of lose in court.

If you want to go ahead and take pictures of someone else's art and try to interpret it as your own go ahead. It's not being creative even if it's different or you made an abstract from it. It is still not your art and ask yourself this question. "would you want someone stealing your art?"

"...was duplicated in ads."

So far all of the advice immediately defaulted to commercial use. Or the famous "If I take a picture of your picture" argument. That one is a pure straw man tactic.

If photos of copyrighted works are being used to sell something besides themselves then the appropriate releases are needed. But not by the photographer, only by the licensee.

However, if a photograph is classified as art and is only selling itself, all of those premises fall away.

For those needing an in-depth introduction to photos of trademarked and copyrighted works:
http://www.danheller.com/model-release-copyrights.html


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

if the statue is out of copyright its ok. people in the street however will vary from country to country. in the US and many places its ok. i heard that in france you can't shoot the vendors, but i don't know if that's true or not. each place, you have to look up the rules. in britain, if you shoot train terminals, you could be arrested like some people were. you would have to contact a copyright lawyer to be certain however. how much that's worth to you is unknown.

robert, making money off of someone else's art, or calling it your own art, is copyright theft. it doesn't matter if its flat. you can argue all you want, but that's how the law works. 3d or flat, it's the same thing.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960816&slug=2344463

the fremont troll, different location. in any case, they sue those that try to commercialize it.

people have been sued because they took a photo and made into a painting. and i'm betting there are people that painted a statue and were also sued, because of a copyright.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

"robert, making money off of someone else's art, or calling it your own art, is copyright theft"

That's not true Mike.

I can take a photograph of the troll and sell it for use in a newspaper 1000 times, and the artists couldn't do a thing about it.

That link you posted raises three points. Firstly, it's the publisher, not the photographer that's being sued. Secondly, a company brochure is a clear commercial use, which is main reason why the artists have a claim. Finally, that article doesn't even claim that the artists won their case, so using it as some kind of justification for your opinion, is incorrect.

There are many photos of the troll available to licence (both as RF and RM), some which were put up years ago. This tends to suggest that things aren't quite a simplistic as you believe.

Samir, your nature's photographs are awesome. Keep up the good work and avoid unnecessary hassles! If I may suggest so..

All are important and useful imformation from all participant. Thanks
thanks karunita for the advice. i did delete some photo although i see many scrupture and statues in the site.
law is elastic and from the same rule you can be happy or unhappy. I am not rich to go ahead for such challenge so i will concentrate to photograph the nature :) and also i have
to be careful :)

selling it to a newspaper is under another heading. in any case one shouldn't chance it anyway. i can't imagine how many newspapers would be interested in buying it anyway. i'm not going to get into the stock argument since the original question was about selling it on this site.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

"selling it to a newspaper is under another heading. in any case one shouldn't chance it anyway. i can't imagine how many newspapers would be interested in buying it anyway. i'm not going to get into the stock argument since the original question was about selling it on this site. "

It's still making money from someone else's art, which you falsely claimed was cut and dried copyright theft. At least now you're starting to acknowledge that it's what you sell it for which can make it copyright theft, not the act of selling it.

How likely it was to sell 1000 times is completely irrelevant. What's pivotal is the principle that I can sell it without any risk of prosecution

If the question was about selling on this site, why did you introduce misleading arguments about prosecuting clear commercial usages ?

Art isn't considered a commercial use of an image, largely because selling art isn't counted as publishing as newspapers and advertising materials are. This is why the artists went after the end user of that photo, not the photographer.
It's the responsibility of the publisher of a photograph, to ensure that any releases that are required, have been obtained. So long as the photographer hasn't mislead the publisher about the availability of releases (model or property), then the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the publisher.

It's very unlikely that a copyright holder would sign a release for a photographer, because it would open the floodgates to unlimited and uncontrolled usage. The artists of the troll have issued releases for the commercial use of photos, but on a case by case basis. There's nothing unlawful about selling those photos, so long as you don't claim that they can be used for commercial use without obtaining the agreement of the artists. However that doesn't apply to art or newspapers.

As usual, this seems to be a tangled web, where the courts or the arbitrators have to hash it out.

My research, however, proves that this is a NON-issue in both Canada and Australia, where photographs of public sculptures are SPECIFICALLY allowed without the artist's permission or approval - it is written into those countries' laws. I would say that it really depends on what country you are in.

Here are a couple of the sources that I consulted:

http://www.photoattorney.com/update-on-lawsuit-against-photographer-for-photo-of-sculpture/
Section 32.2(1) of the Canada Copyright Act states:
32.2 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright
b) for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work

(ii) a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship,
that is permanently situated in a public place or building;

In the United States, on the other hand, the law does not specifically include such an exception for sculptures -- the law is NOTreally clear, and so courts still disagree as to whether photographs of such copyrighted works are derivative works and thus infringe on their copyright if photographed without permission.


http://www.artslaw.com.au/articles/entry/problematic-public-sculptures-provisions/

In Australian copyright law, Under section 65, sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship that are on permanent public display (in a public place
or in premises open to the public) may be reproduced without the permission of the copyright owner (section 65 exception).

Consequently, to ABSOLUTELY condemn somebody as a thief, without knowing his/her PROCESS, INVOLVEMENT, COUNTRY, and INTENT is absolutely myopic, close-minded, behind the times, reactionary, unreasonable, unenlightened, and unfair.

sell it if you want to robert, but don't be shocked if the owner of it doesn't like you doing it.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Mike, not liking it, and being able to stop it, are two entirely different things.

Currently for sale on this site (which is what the question was about) are many pieces of art featuring Disney, Harley Davidson, Fender guitars and even the troll, where all the copyright holders of such, are extremely active in protecting their rights.
Please don't claim that the rights holders don't know that they're there, because they appear on the first page of a simple Google search, surely the first place to look. Either they might not like it, but don't have the right to remove them, or they have no objections.

My guess is that it's the former, but even if it is the latter and other IP rights holders aren't so generous, the first step is a take down notice to prevent a potential future infringement.
That reminds me of your actions over photos featuring Boeing copyright material. If I recall correctly, when the take down notice was issued, you removed "boeing" from the keywords and left them up for sale.
That's the opposite of the advise that you're offering here.

no because what i posted was an unmarked cockpit of a plane. its not like it read boeing on the side. i only mentioned it in the tags. further that was a trademark issue which is understandable. this is a copyright issue, which is protected by the artists that make things. boeing can only protect its name and its name from being used to sell other things they didn't approve of.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Sorry Mike, but that's untrue as well.

Boeing has copyright protection for its products, in a similar way that an artist does for their pieces. A blanket take down notice of anything tagged with Boeing isn't a trademark issue, as much as you choose to believe that it is. Maybe you don't respect commercial copyright in the same way as artistic copyright, but it does exist.
If it's identifiable as a part of a Boeing, then there are restrictions on what you can use that photo for.

Also, I recall that this take down occurred on another website which is in full production of commercial goods. Given that over 3000 pieces of art on FAA are keyworded "boeing" without any objection from the Boeing Corporation, lends even more weight to the view that wall art and commercial products are two separate categories of sales with different restrictions.

It's also another very good reason why the fine arts sites shouldn't diversify into commercial products. Let pixels fend off the commercial copyright objections and leave FAA to sell art.

You photogs all wear me out. I believe in doing it until you are told not to, then apologize, rather than ask permission and being told no. Under all your rules, real or just imagined, art would NEVER move forward. Be an artist not a lemming. Robert, Dan, rock on.

Andy rock on also.

Andy H., selling wall art IS commercial.

There is NOT a business difference between "commercial" sales and "artistic" sales. A print-on-demand wall hanging IS a commercial good, ... sold by FAA. Business is business.

... rockin' on,

Robert K.

"Andy H., selling wall art IS commercial. "

Not in copyright terms it isn't.

Broadly speaking, commercial usage is endorsement, advertising and marketing. The copyright holder has the right to not be associated with the business or product that uses the image for its own commercial purposes. Art is its own product, so isn't considered as commercial activity anymore than selling photos to newspapers is.

Just out of interest, does anyone know if Andy Warhol was ever sued by the Campbell's Soup Company? Or perhaps whether Campbell's were sued in 2004 and 2012 for issuing copies of Warhol's interpretations of their labels? :-|

- Richard Reeve
reevephotos.com

No he never was, Richard.

Some people believe that Campbells started legal action then dropped it. Others say that they were only thinking about it, but never went through with it.

I believe that Campbells bought licences for the use of Warhol's art for those labels.

Another example that shows the difference between art and commercial usage. Warhol could use the Campbells can for art, but Campbells couldn't use Warhol's art to sell soup, without permission.

On a similar note, does anyone know if Banksy ever sues for copyright? I ask as I purchased a neat canvas of a copy of Banksy wall art last year (with a Groupon) and wondered at the time how the gallery was able to sell this as it didn't seem linked to Banksy at all.

- Richard Reeve
reevephotos.com

Oh no! Am I in danger of being sued? (tongue in cheek)

"I believe in doing it until you are told not to, then apologize, rather than ask permission and being told no."

That's right, he said it. That's why Kevin Callahan is my hero. Most people (and by most people I mean all people) operate under that principle -- regardless of what they want you to believe in here :-)


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

Does this difference of view is the same when we use poetry from a famous poet.
I use some love poetry in my work from a famous poet.
http://render.fineartamerica.com/displayartwork.html?id=13726866&width=250&height=375&domainid=1

http://render.fineartamerica.com/displayartwork.html?id=13717463&width=250&height=375&domainid=1
thanks

samir

Dan I take issue and strongly disagree with the idea that "...all people operate under that principle..." . Working in an ethical way is important to many. Please be careful to speak only for yourself.

Neva Cruddas

Neva, is there a person on the planet who has never been told to Stop It! Knock it off! Don't do that again! or Cut it out!

?

Of course not. Everyone -- and I mean everyone -- pushes boundaries. Otherwise you don't know where the line is, or if it's bendable. Sometimes you DO have to stop it. Sometimes absolutely nothing happens. And sometimes people pay you lots and lots of money to keep doing it. People who break the rules are the ones who change the world.




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

Andy H. contends that selling wall art is NOT commercial in copyright terms, as he explains,

Broadly speaking, commercial usage is endorsement, advertising and marketing. The copyright holder has the right to not be associated with the business or product that uses the image for its own commercial purposes. Art is its own product, so isn't considered as commercial activity anymore than selling photos to newspapers is.

Artists endorse, advertise and market their own work. This is the very definition of commercial. As the copyright holder of the art, the artist is doing exactly what your definition of "commercial" claims. I am not sure what you are trying to do here to separate an artis'ts interest in his or her own commercial use of his or her own art and somebody else's interest. Also, how is SELLING photos to newspapers NOT a commercial purpose?

It does NOT require a stranger to the art to be commercial. Again, the artist has a commercial interest in his or her own business success selling the art.

Business is business.

Andy is correct, Robert. An image that is only selling itself (not a product or service) is not commercial use. The artist can profit from the sale.


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

"Artists endorse, advertise and market their own work. This is the very definition of commercial. As the copyright holder of the art, the artist is doing exactly what your definition of "commercial" claims. I am not sure what you are trying to do here to separate an artis'ts interest in his or her own commercial use of his or her own art and somebody else's interest. Also, how is SELLING photos to newspapers NOT a commercial purpose?

It does NOT require a stranger to the art to be commercial. Again, the artist has a commercial interest in his or her own business success selling the art. "

Robert, you miss the point (again) spectacularly.

As I've repeatedly said, there is nothing to stop anyone taking photos of a copyrighted item, and selling it. According to you, this is all commercial but in publishing copyright terms, commercial has a very specific meaning.

The rules of copyright in publication are set up to protect the reputation of the copyright holder, not to stop others profiting from their IP rights.

It means that they can protect themselves from appearing to endorse, or be associated with a product, person or organisation. Therefore it DOES take a third party to make it commercial usage IN COPYRIGHT TERMS.

Dan, thanks for the backing, but I also have to take issue with the statement that everyone does what they can until they're told to stop.

Not everyone pushes boundaries all the time, and if someone unwittingly oversteps their authority and has to be reprimanded, that doesn't justify your stance.

Most people live by their own moral code which may or may not cross the boundaries created by national law in any given situation. The proportion of people that operate in a personal moral vacuum, and continually push and push until they're told to stop, is very small.

So... We are all taking the moral high ground? And if we do not agree we are immoral? Uh... No. First off, I don't spend my time trying to violate copyrights but I don't spend a lick of time worrying about the feelings of Disney, Ford, etc, etc. they certainly are not worried about me. We spend FAR too much time on FAA worrying about whether the shot one took or the source material is violating someone's rights. Someone sees their work for sale in China and has apoplexy. It is wasted worry. BTW not sure about anyone else here but over the years I have enjoyed visits from the FBI on 2 different occasions in my capacity as creative director. I assure you it was civil and painless. Because once the cat is out of the bag (in this case magazines distributed) all they could do was take our word we would not do it again. If I had asked permission...

Andy is correct, Robert. An image that is only selling itself (not a product or service) is not commercial use. The artist can profit from the sale

"Itself" ... IS the product. The artist can profit from the sale of this product that is itself. This is COMMERCIAL art.

There is nothing magical about the sale of art as a commercial entity by the artist and the sale of a pillow with art on it as a commercial entity. One item functions as decoration on the wall. The other item functions as an accent on a sofa in an interior design scheme.

Business is business.

As I've repeatedly said, there is nothing to stop anyone taking photos of a copyrighted item, and selling it. According to you, this is all commercial but in publishing copyright terms, commercial has a very specific meaning.

This very specific meaning seems to be your own confusion. I am not missing any point. I am reading your words, and those words do not match the reality that I experience.

The artist tries to claim his or her right to use his or her art commercially, or somebody else tries to use it commercially. Commercial use is commercial use. I do not see your special differentiation of the term between when the artist does it for his own benefit and somebody else does it for their own benefit. Copyright law merely establishes the proximate art maker's first claim on the commercial use of the work and attempts to discourage others from infringing on this first claim for a given period of time.

So now where does the argument head when we are talking about products such as duvet covers?

Banksy believes his work belongs in the public domain. He doesn't claim copyright.

Thank you, Cynthia! Presumably this is why so many companies are making money from direct copies of his work :-)

- Richard Reeve
reevephotos.com

"If somebody sits their butt down on one of my duvet covers without my permission, then I will sue their butts."

THAT's where the argument goes. (^__^) My art, thus, belongs in the pubic domain. (No he di'n't!)

Problems with infringement that might not occur in wall art can crop up when one tries to put the same art on products which have registered trademarks. Take a picture of a person wearing a "Life is Good" t-shirt and then try selling it as a t-shirt and you'll probably find a cease and desist letter in your mailbox.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Copyright_vs_Trademark

"Copyrights protect all original pieces of work, such as music or literature, while a trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design that indicates the source of goods and distinguishes them from others. Creators automatically are the owners of copyrights to the work they create. On the other hand, trademarks are granted by regulatory bodies (such as the USPTO) in response to formal applications.

Another example is Life is Good T-shirts. The company owns the trademark "Life is Good" for clothing and accessories. So no other company can sell clothing and accessories with the name "Life is Good" or confusingly similar names like "Life Good". However, it may be possible for a different company to obtain the same trademark for a different set of products e.g. Life is Good laptops.

Certain designs or captions on T-shirts may be protected by copyright laws. The Life is Good trademark does not prevent other companies from selling T-shirts under their own brand name. But copyright laws may prevent other companies from duplicating Life is Good's original creative designs."

Kevin's soup can art cracked me up man! Surprises is what we need in art.

I think it would be great printed on everything from billboards to toilet paper. Are royals and royalties in order for all these money crazed mass printing cyber-sellers?

"As I've repeatedly said, there is nothing to stop anyone taking photos of a copyrighted item, and selling it. According to you, this is all commercial but in publishing copyright terms, commercial has a very specific meaning.

This very specific meaning seems to be your own confusion. I am not missing any point. I am reading your words, and those words do not match the reality that I experience. "

Robert, the confusion is all yours.

You continue to confuse the general term "commercial", with the specific meaning that it has in publishing and copyright terms. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

You may be reading, but you're not comprehending.

If you sell a photo to a newspaper it is a commercial activity, but in publishing terms it is an editorial use of that photo, not a commercial use. Copyright holders have no rights to restrict or block the use of that photo.
That's the reality which thousands of professional photographers, experience on a daily basis.
For it to be a commercial use of that photo (for which the copyright holder has control over), it must be endorsing or associating with a product or third party. You can continue to spout naive conflations to justify a false argument until you're blue in the face, but it won't make it any more true.

"I do not see your special differentiation of the term between when the artist does it for his own benefit and somebody else does it for their own benefit."

Which is why you're making the same mistake, time and time again. Despite repeatedly making it plain, you've not absorbed a single word I said. There is a very real difference between commercial business activity and commercial usage as defined by copyright legislation.

"Copyright law merely establishes the proximate art maker's first claim on the commercial use of the work and attempts to discourage others from infringing on this first claim for a given period of time. "

True but in this context, commercial use specifically means endorsing or advertising something or someone, not the mere act of receiving money for the use of that photo.

"So now where does the argument head when we are talking about products such as duvet covers"

Edward I'd say that duvet covers are certainly commercial usages, along with phone cases, cushions/ pillows, and probably even greetings cards.

Again, Andy is correct on all fronts.

A print on canvas, paper, metal or acrylic is selling the image. That is non-commercial use.

A duvet cover is a functional product. The image is part of the product and may be the reason that particular product was selected by the buyer. That is considered commercial use.


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

OK, so where would one stand on selling a photograph of an Old Master? Presumably there if the artist has been dead for a couple of centuries the n there are no copyright issue at all ;-|

- Richard Reeve
reevephotos.com

Would Greeting cards be considered paper, or product ?

It could be arguable if people purchase cards for the Art , or Art for the cards.

@Janine, I know that postcards are considered commercial usage, so I would strongly suspect that greetings cards are as well.

@Richard. Copyright aside, commercial use also requires a property release from the owner as well as the IP rights holder. Neither are a problem when selling art.

OT Thanks for the comment. I've got a very soft spot for real minis too ;)

Thank you Andy.