Photographing Sculptures,statures On Public And Private Property?

You may have to ask a lawyer to get a definitive answer, which may not be a helpful answer -- legal advice may cost you more than it's worth to you to photograph the statue. A good place to start would be asking the artist, but bear in mind the artist may not know enough about copyright to give you a correct answer. The copyright, if any, may not be held by the artist, artists can sell or otherwise transfer their copyrights to other people/entities. It may be ok to photograph the statue, often as a condition of displaying the art in a public place, artists are required by the municipality (or whoever is providing the space to display the statue) to sign waivers or contracts which might include waiver of certain copyrights.

Just out of curiosity, what is your source of information for saying that its not enough to be on public property? Nothing in law is ever completely cut and dried, but my understanding was that if you are on public property, for most purposes you're ok taking photographs.

Disclaimer: just my opinion, not legal advice.

Monuments situated in public spaces could also be seen as easy targets for commercial exploitation, because their placement can be interpreted as suggesting (sometimes incorrectly) that copyright in the works is in the public domain.

Copyright laws generally provide some protection for monuments that are situated in public spaces. However, the level of protection varies across territories. In particular, some territories have specific exceptions to infringement of copyright in works of architecture and other artistic works that are permanently placed in public spaces. These exceptions are sometimes referred to as protecting the ‘freedom of panorama’.

http://jiplp.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/blowing-whistle-on-copyright-in-public.html

Penny, if you enjoy taking photos of statues by all means take all you wanted for your own enjoyment and if you don't sell it you will have nothing to worry about.

You can photograph any statue in public places for your own use. But if you want to sell that images you have first to search if your work infringe the copyright of an artist or an organisation.
Usually ancient or very old statues in public space (not inside museums) consider as public domain and you will have no problem.

for example statue of Apollo below is part of exterior sculptural decoration of Athens Academy - Greece that constructed between 1880 - 1890.

i would assume there is a plaque near by. you can also count the droppings. if there are few, its new. if there are lots, its old. otherwise there should be a name on there you can look up. when in doubt, don't shoot it. on private property you have to follow their rules. and unless your doing something very special with it. like using it as a part of your art - like using it as a silloute or shadow or something, its probably not worth shooting them. after all the reason why your shooting is - you want to make money from the thing your pointing at, and it's already in the perfect position, as they designed it to be.

still you can contact the artist and ask them.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

i wonder where replica's fall under.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

This can be a bit like a genealogy search. It it's in a public place then there is usually a record somewhere of who the artist is/was and how old the sculpture is. From there you can track down the artist if they are still around, if not then find out of an estate controls the copyright. Once you find out who owns that, write an email or letter and ask if you can use it.

@Cheryl, but my understanding was that if you are on public property, for most purposes you're ok taking photographs.

Not so. Copyrighted and trademarked things, even publicly accessible ones may still have restrictions on how images of them are used. Some owners of TMs and CRs are very strict, no commercial or artistic use at all. Others allow artistic use (paintings, drawings, photos, etc) that will not be used to endorse a product or business (commercial use). Still others allow commercial use for a licensing and/or commercial photography fee. The Milwaukee Art Museum is a good example of a combination the later 2 statements. The Eiffel Tower at night is a good example of the fist example of really strict rules. In most cases it's not all that hard to find out what the TM/CR owners will allow.

i find the easiest way is to say:

statue in this location - because someone will always know what it is. from there you can narrow it down. sometimes you can go to google and see images of that same spot and they named it.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

I know that some publicc aart is copyrighted, contrary to one post above, For a definitive result, consult a lawyer then wait for the jury verdict and any appeals.

Abbie, Good article.

I don't really know enough about artistic works in public places. I'll have to read more about it --

Copyright is voided after 50 yrs.
It becomes public domain.
There is a thing called intellectual property rights.

Then u have ? Of commerce.
stop being so wound up over 100 yr old statues that you feel sn artist should give credit too. That sculpture didnt shoot nor draw my rendition of said model.

Pat

Are you using a phone?

RE: Photographing Sculptures

I truly believe, that everyone should get off that. "Is it copyrighted?" kick, when photographing other people's work.

The only question one should ask (and answer)

"Who is the real artist of this image?"

Read copyright, trademark commerance law. Moral vs laws. They dont always go together. Agreed with david. 70 yrs till he leaves this earth or stays it becomes public domain.




AS for consulting an attorney. ..hope u have 15, 000.00 retained. Read the law. Its clear concise. 70 yrs safe. Public Domain overide the copyright l aw. Patents trade marks are different.

Agreed with David and Pablo. Correct 100%

If you are travelling, you should be aware, that different countries have different laws. In Germany you are allowed to photograph and sell pictures from statues, when they are permanently on public ground. Copyright expires 70 years after death. You should also be aware that selling a picture is different from commercial use.

Roger,

If copyright law had existed back in the cave days then the colors blue and red would have had copyrights on them. Some
one would own those colors. So time limits were put on copyrights.

Music from the 1960s has so overwhelmed our society that creativity might be zapped for decades to come because
many tunes are not available to OTHER creatives. Locked up as it were. Rap has problems on the melody side of things
and the beat is very repetitive for much of it, this is because the 1960s were so productive and melodies are now owned by prior artists.

Who took that photo is a matter of ownership. Copyright is ownership.

PD is for rehashing themes, ideas, subject matter etc......Some of us are just very blatant when we rehash, but
all of us are rehashing things. Your clips of roaches etc do not appear just out of thin blue air. You are basing the roach
on God's design. The underlying clip you use is another jeweler's design.

Originals??? Where???? My pictures until 70 years after I am gone....in the real sense......that is a long time....

Dave

I'm with Roger on this one.

And let's get something straight. You can photograph anything in a public place. That's the law.

The question is whether or not you can sell or publish an image of a copyrighted statue. Here's where it gets tricky. If the statue is part of a larger composition, like a street scene, you are probably not violating any copyright because your photo is an original interpretation of a scene. But if the statue is shown in isolation, you might be in violation if you sell it. But in the latter case, you're really just selling an image of someone else's art, not your own. So why bother?

Good Morning David,

RE: "Whose the Artist?"

I wholeheartedly believe that one can claim to be "Artist" of an image, based on someone else's art

As long as..

That image has provided something different and/or more than what was the intention in the original work.



Now, in regards to my doo-dads,the "Roach Clips".

If I didn't see the similarity between an Atlantic Ribbed mussel shell and a Periplaneta americana (American Cockroach), I would never have pursued that endeavor.

I guess I could have made a mold of the insect, and cast a multitude of reproductions., instead of starting with a pile of smelly shells..

To be on the safe side, I don't photograph sculpture that is less than some hundred years old. Nothing to worry there.

"I know that some publicc aart is copyrighted, contrary to one post above, For a definitive result, consult a lawyer then wait for the jury verdict and any appeals."

Best and only 100% accurate post here.

The most important thing going on concerning copyright is the move by the US Government trying to limit and charge for permits to take photos in national parks and national monuments.

Anyone know what happened to that discussion in Congress? My guess is that that "money grab" will never go away until they can get some form of "compromise", where the public gets screwed and they get the money.

I've always photographed monuments when traveling. The right thing to do is to look up who the sculptor or sculptors are to give proper recognition and credit to the actual artist. For example,photo of "David" by Michelangelo" before placing your photo online. I am tired of people showing their great photos of art but without mentioning the artists who's work is in the photo.

Recently I saw a photograph in an international travel magazine one of my own monumental sculptures. I was unable to make contact with the photographer about it. It was such a nice photo I did not feel unhappy about it. This sculpture ; "Centrosphere" is located in a cemetery along the Santa Fe Trail in Council Grove, Kansas. My sculpture has no name or title on it so I'm prompted to get that done this year. It was fabricated by a team of artists (like movie credits at the end of a film do) so a plaque will not be cheap.

@MikeSavad "you can count the droppings" ....there's no way I...or anyone...could ever predict what you're going to say on here! lol

it keeps people glued to my posts, just in case i say something absurd.

but it is an accurate measure. the more stains that run down it's back, the longer it's been there. if the statue is green, it's pretty darn old. they usually don't polish them. if the details are crisp its probably new. if there is a dedication plate on it and it says 1845 on it, its old. new statues may have people shoeing the birds aways and i assume they may power wash them. old ones are forgotten about and are often surrounded by weeds.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

@Floyd: The most important thing going on concerning copyright is the move by the US Government trying to limit and charge for permits to take photos in national parks and national monuments.

You're usually spot on with your assessments of things, but aside from the money grab part, this isn't accurate. It has nothing to do with copyright. And it's not the national parks and monuments. It's the National Forest Service, which is part of the Dept. of Agriculture and manged entirely separate from the National Park Service. Which in itself is aggravating. Different departments, different rules. Commercial photography in National Parks and Monuments already requires permits and has for many years. Individuals can shoot fine art all they want without a permit.

The proposal for the National Forest Service does not require individuals like you or I who shoot for pleasure or even for fine art. The proposal is to require permits for commercial photographers, especially those with crews. The head guy of the National Forest Service gave a clarification on this some time ago. This is pretty much the same policy that the NPS has had all along.

The purpose is two fold. Keep the crews from trampling on and destroying land, or if they do, the service will know where they've been and can fine them accordingly. And to make money. The later I'm quite sure is the priority.

As suspected no easy answer. Many time's there are no plaques with information.

And what is the definition of commercial photography? I have been told that selling my photographs is not commercial. Is that true?

Has anyone been sued or just contacted for photographing and posting a statue or any work of art?

i've read stories where one guy that made "the troll under the bridge" has sued people in the past.

to get info, look up that area and statue - and someone will know the name, then google that until you can get a background. it seems like a lot of work, i'd just ignore the statue personally. commericial is typically advertisement, however i think with artwork its trickier, since your making money off of someone else's art, which is protected by copyright law.

in the end, it would really have to be a special image to be worth going to all this trouble to find out. and even then they may want money of some kind for the use of it in your image. most just want credit though.

there was a guy who just posted that the statue owner wanted credits. otherwise it was a cease and desist letter.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Thanks Chuck for the update. I was going from my faulty memory of the issue and appreciate being corrected. I only remembered that it was some branch of "government" and I have a habit of lumping all those government agencies together when it comes to looking to get in our pockets for any reason. lol

Over the years I donated so much money to building and restoring so many monuments that it makes me see red at the idea that I am maybe going to have to pay yet again just to take a picture of them some day.

Here's a favorite self portrait. Displayed here, but Not For Sale. It credits the sculptor, and if you go to the sculptor's website you will see that it's available for sale, though the sculpture I photographed is owned by the federal government at a public parks facility. You can see the copyright notice on the author's website. If the public hires a sculptor to do work, it might, depending on terms of employment, be a work for hire, and thus the copyright would belong to the public. But if the public buys and displays a sculpture from an artist with no contract ceding the copyright, the copyright remains with the artist. I'm no lawyer, but that is my layman's understanding of the law in this regard.



A self portrait on an unusual steed. Note the cable release "snake" about to bite the lizard. This wonderful sculpture is by bronze artist Heather Johnson Beary, who can be contacted at this website:

http://www.hjohnsonbronze.com/galleryDetail.php?id=12
Note the price is not listed. Therefore, I can't afford it. But I own a tiny share of the public one at Escalante, UT at the park headquarters.

Selling anything is commercial. Hence, Commerce.

Yes Disney tried suing some of the Tattooers for images. Copyright was over 70 yrs.

They lost. Disney.

On private property is diffetent. On public property different.
copy right law is ex. I write a song my own not a copy its allready protected. Without filing anything. Intellectual property rights.

The copyright stays with the designer unless othereise noted. Only the copyright person who feels his art is comprimised can sue and ask for cease and desist.

Blurred lines verdict will go further. Example. So if i sing the song i can get sued? No. Judgment was on estate side but it was jaded. I do legal work 30 yrs. Publish tattoo and must know these cracks.

(70 yrs. Anything sold is commerace. FIRST before a suit , they will notify you through thier legal rep to remove (Due Process). If not then suit. Big pockets win. its very easy. The above is short of it. )if not notified Consitutional law broken....... Fyi only. Just use good judgment. In doubt ask.

Penny,

Regarding your question, "Has anyone been sued or just contacted for photographing and posting a statue or any work of art?"

Well, there have been quite a number of times, that I did the contacting.

When I become aware that my work, has not only been photographed but subsequently posted on the internet , I do notify the photographer.

Usually, I thank the photographer for not only liking my work enough to photograph it, but to bother to publish it.

I insist then that in order to keep the image posted, I am fully accredited as the artist of the work photographed

They will still will be allowed to profit from the sale of their photos, and I will be allowed to use the image as I see fit.

It most always ends amicability

Penny:
Just to narrow the scope of this question a bit, is this a general info question, or did you have a particular statue in mind? It's always possible someone here would be able to point you in the right direction, if you have a specific statue in mind.

@Roger Sweezy
that is exactly what i stated yestyesterday.

I edited in legal terms.

Most artist thank thr person for liking thier art and as long as credit given it usually rnds as u stated.

I just ecplaoning the legal aspect ad it was adked about sued.

As for commerce i dpnt mean to get all in the manutia of seeling everything is commercial. Yards sales for instance. Doed anyonr really claim that profit? Dont think so. But u r suppose to. Just example.

Me ive sern plenty of my work thanked them and went about my business.

Depemds on the party ur dealing with. I delt w 95 counyries on this matter and believe me some are not nice will not givr credit and just ignore. Ty are always way to go.

My statements where on legality. ...since that how i took the ? Can i be sued? Legal ? . But your solution is thr best and most appropriate way. Tyvm 4 summing it up in laymens term.

Penny: "And what is the definition of commercial photography? I have been told that selling my photographs is not commercial. Is that true? "

There are two basic use categories, commercial and editorial.

Commercial means an image is used for advertising or mass-produced merchandise like jigsaw puzzles, mugs, posters, etc.

Editorial means an image is used to illustrate a newspaper, magazine article or informational website. Even if a publication is sold on a newsstand, it is not commercial use.

As I understand it, art generally falls under the editorial category unless it is reproduced in mass quantities for the general retail market.Selling a few prints does not automatically make it "commercial." However, I have no idea what the quantity threshold is to make art fall into the commercial category.

Find out who made the statue and when, and make an informed decision. We can't tell you. Credit the Sculptor, dead or alive. (US copyright continues 70 years AFTER the artist dies!) Crediting the sculptor is ethical in any case, even if not legally required. It will help demonstrate a good faith effort on your part, and if you make a mistake, it will help the copyright owner find you and ask for correction, usually a simple takedown request. Google is your friend.

Selling a derivative copy of a work still under copyright protection is not allowed, even if it is an artistic work, I assure you.


I'm wondering if English is not your first language. In simple terms:

It's often NOT ok unless it is very old. Don't do it! Ask the sculptor for permission.


Also, the answers here are based on US, UK law. The laws can be different in different countries.

yeah some places are so bad they try to sue the newspaper companies for showing pictures of the sculptures without first getting permission.

If there is a still living relative of the original sculpter, there can be problems.

it would be like if someone photographed your painting, and tried to sell it - to the sculpter it is the same thing - trying to profit off someone elses hard work.

---Shawn Dall
ShawnDall.com

@Pat, Selling anything is commercial. Hence, Commerce.

No, that's not true. Although that may be the interpretation of some copyright/trade mark owners.

@James, Commercial means an image is used for advertising or mass-produced merchandise like jigsaw puzzles, mugs, posters, etc.

That's correct. Advertising, using images to promote a business or even a non-profit organization.

Art prints promote nothing.

Selling individual prints is not considered commercial photography. That doesn't mean you automatically have the right to sell art prints of trade marks or copyrighted things. But it is a line in the sand that defines the difference. As I said much earlier in the thread, many copyright/TM holders are fine with art prints, many more are not. You have to ask to find out. No need to get a lawyer, but never assume either.

@Chuck De la Rose

The dicussion is about art and selling. If your making a profit by taking photos for example its commercial Private sales is still selling. Therefore its commerance. Especially if your using a site to sell it. HENCE its condsidered commerce and as per tax codes a 1099 is to be filed as selfemployed . I also stated i didnt want to get into the menutia of that. Example a yard sale is commerace. u profit . You dont need a store front to be considered commercisl but u are considered a 1099 self employed.

This discussion is about selling ur art for profit on here. It's Commercial. Just because this site u use thier name your considered a independant contractor of a commercial sale. Hence commerce.

Its for the ? On selling art . This is a commercial site. Hence commerce.

I thought sensible thoughts prevail on the subject matter. Not about yard sale. It also depends on your state for lic. Just because i dont advertise on a commercial scale as in my legal position its still conderired a service to the public which is commerace. I profit. Commerence most diffenitly focuses on Commercial. Look up def. On commerce: buying selling on large scale. So if youf doing that most likely its commercisl sales. Commercial def: planing or MAKING a profit. Hence they go hand in hand.

I dont care oneway or another. BUT i do legal work. Its a true explaination of commercial and commerance.

Copy right dies 70 yrs as i stated 5x. After death . Anything published b4 1922 in USA IS PUBLIC DOMAIN. NOT PROTECTED. Anything 1922- 1978 PUBLISHED IS protected 4 95 YRS from date of publication. Then copyright dies. That s true def: of copyright. SO IF a statue is 100 yrs old your clear. If you want to give credit to the artist thats fine. But the nuts and bolts comes diwn to the legality of the synopsis asked.



Intellectual propertyr rights, Trade Marks, Patents All have different terms And conditions.

Definitely a controversial subject. Many times there are no plaques. And I would not consult a lawyer, it would be easier not to take the photo in the first place. Taking a photo without sharing makes no sense.

Thanks all for your input.

I do not have a particular statue in mind. But if I do I will post it.

Thanks all

"I dont care oneway or another. BUT i do legal work."

Pat, then you need to bone up on the differences between commercial art and fine art, their uses, and when work is commercial and non-commercial.

For instance, an artist can make millions from his art, and that art can be classified as non-commercial (because the art is only selling itself, not something else). Just because art is sold does not necessarily mean it's commercial.



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

@Pat, yes, in the purest sense, any selling is commerce. And for tax purposes, the IRS doesn't care about definitions other than the fact that your bank account got bigger last year.

But in the art and advertising worlds, there is a distinction between commercial use and fine art/art prints. You do legal work? Then you might want to look at the details of Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia which hinged on the very distinction that I'm talking about. This is important because it has a dramatic effect on how we can and can't use images. Of course none of this is cut and dry and every case is different, and I acknowledged that above. But it does distinguish artists from advertisers (commercial use). Legally this is an entirely different thing than the idea of simply making a profit. I won't argue that I'm making money from my images, not that I make much doing it.

Also see the rules for photographers and videographers that the National Park Service has. They distinguish between commercial use and artwork, as do many places that are publicly accessible.

A really good resource for this kind of thing is http://www.photoattorney.com/

Anyway, that's all I'm going to say on this. We can agree to disagree. But I have read a lot on this subject in the past 10+ years because I want to know where I stand with my images. and my understanding seems to jive with most everything I see out there on the subject.

EDIT: Thanks Dan for chiming in and saying it far simpler than I did!

@ Dan Turner

I was giving legal definition of commercial and commerance. Copyright law.

DeGrazi a very well known artist dear friend of my family burnt 100 of his paintings due to INCOME TAX AND I INHERTIENCE LAW. Protest. Why? Irs claimed his paper worth was much more than he claimed. So he burnt his treasures.

I was giving the synopsis of legalitly and commerance commercial. Not advertising.

im not here for this. Its an open discussion that has turns and hills.

An artist can sell his work and make millions but not be commercial? TELL THAT TO TAX MAN. THEY DONT CARE AS LONG AS THIER HAND IS IN THE POT. BUT that was only a side note on how it is looked upon by irs.

thats why DeGrazi burnt all his works.

A painting sells itself true. But who is behind that art collecting the profit?

Im not debating. I gave answers that as doing legal work i would ask these ? First.

As far as " boning up" if fine art sells at an auction someone is gettin $$$. And at that point i would do my legal research2 see if 1DCA HAS ANY QUESTIONS on the query.

im not here to say go dont do etc.
I gave def for commerce as i was told i was wrong. I wasnt. Read def. SAME FOR COMMERCE. THEY WALK HAND IN HAND. As FAR AS GOING TO A WEB ATTORNEY TO AsK ? I ? THEM. Why IS HE ON THE WEB DISCUSSING THE SUBJECT WO $$$$......if he is getting paid ( which wasnt stated) then no problem but personally 30 yrs of law i wouldnt do legal zoom or have dicussion chatting online...most dont



This isnt a witch hunt. A query asked

No legal research done. Just plain answers. If hired then your help of those cites i would consider and do onpoint investigation on the topic . Before citing a case know the ALR on it too. Just citing a case doesnt make it the final decision. " BONE UP" on citing cases without ALR'S. First rule. Out of many.

I didnt think we where digging deep.

done w it. If asking i thought all input was good. Not attacks. It clear this is a close group.

Say la vie. Chio beat ur head cause i have IMPORTANT things to DO then to givE REAL def AND CITES WITHOUT ALR . AND INSULTS ON DEF OF LEGALITLY.
P.S.
PUTTING UR SELF IN "" 7 WAYS TO ....JUST SHOWS U THINK U R AWARE OF IT ALL. THERE IS A PRO AND CON TO EVERYTHING REMEMBER. U MAY NOT LIKE THE IRS LEGAL DEF . I know i dont like it.....Devils advocate will always challange a topic....that's how you come to an outcome. What a reasonable answer is. That how a court tm copy right etc takes topics. Most of us in life ask..what a reasonable out come person etc...SORRY. HOWEVER THAT IS LIFE

. BUT "BONE UP" TAKE UR OWN ADVICE. I STAY ON POINT W MINE. AND HOW A JUDGE WOULD ASK THE QUERY AND ATTORNEY MOST IMPORTANTLY HOW THE DCA takes it along w ALR.

Dicussion closed to me. imput is good from all angles. its up to the one asking to take whatever they need from answers and do the research.

do not respond. Im done. Attacks was not the intention of this topic or artist.

@Dan turner

The man:


https://claralieu.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/ask-the-art-professor-whats-the-difference-between-fine-arts-and-visual-arts/

It first states as i do. Ref the dictionary for the terms. This from a huge Art professor. In law then you have a test u complete to see if it passes the common sense law test. I did that also. I " BONED UP" TOPIC WAS NOT ABOUT FINE VS COMMERCIAL. WAS COPYRIGHT QUESTION AND CAN IT BE SOLD. U GOT DEF OF ALL. THE STATUES OF LiMITATIONS TOO.


http://www.nytimes.com/1982/09/18/arts/ettore-degrazia-73-burned-paintings-to-protest-taxes.html

Thats all i did.

COMMERCIAL ART VS FINE ART WASNT EVEN THE TOPIC. THE DIFFERENCE IS COMMERCIAL IS MADE FOR MASS PRODUCTION USually ( I MUST WATCH MY DEF OR SOMEONE WILL TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT ) FINE ART IS WHAT U THE ARTIST DESIRES IT TO PORTRAY . MICHAELANGELO SYSTINE CHAPEL FINE ART? CONSIDERED SO. YET COMMISSIONED AS MOST OF ALL HIS WORKS. BUT STILL CONSIDERED FINE ART AND COMMERANCE WAS GIVEN.

FINE ART DOES NOT GUARANTEE ANY PAYMENT. BUT IF SOLD THIER IS COMMERACE OF SOME SORT. HOW ELSE DOES THE PERSON IF FINE ART LIVE A MOST LUCRATIVE LIFE.. ( most) . I DO BELIEVE.....OR BARTER? OR IMAGINARY?



BUT THAT WAS NOT THE TOPIC.

CLEAR VALUES OF DEF OF: COMMERCIAL, Private , COMMERCE COPY RIGHTS. TAX FOR ADDITIONAL INFO.




Now ensure your cited case meetsstandards of ALR. Idk. I dont care. AND IM SURE AS HECK NOT GOING TO ENSURE IT. But DO NOT THROW OUT CITED CASES B4 U KNOW THE ALR STANDING. THAT IS FIRST W LAW. SO MAKE IT # 8 ON YOUR LIST OF 7. Before u cite one discussioni make sure its up to date. They just dont always remain. Challenge is the law of the land. Just saying. Good night. Im not dumb. Insulting my intelligence shows lack of secuirty in a man Bone.

Pat,
Can you chill, just a little? Please? We're not enemies here... just artists trying to understand copyright.
My favorite source for info on copyright is www.copyright.gov.
Have a nice glass of good wine, relax, and try to have a good evening. And the topic was "How do I know if a statue is still under copyright?" which isn't actually that simple of a question. How do you know if Mickey Mouse is still under copyright? (Hint: Congress passed a special law extending the copyright.) It's easier to send people to the copyright office's website, than to try to answer these questions.
All the best, and really, we're not so bad here. You'll see. --Cheryl

Im chilled.

Sheperdize, cite a case properly and when u cite, ensure it matches w ALR. End. I did this out of goodwill. Not for attacks on mis qoutes.

As for congress.....i stated 1977 i believe it was extended to 95 yrs. In 2003 mm would b public domain. An extension of 15 yrs. Its ref as mickey mouse law. However they lost thier cases against tattoo parlors. U cant pick and chose for profit. and it was originally steamboat willy. that time frame is almost up. But 5hey still lost its very deep not correct forum.

i dont drink but maybe i should start.lol....

Gn

This copyright merry-go-round goes around and around..

Please,Please tell me, when is it EVER OK for someone to claim to be the artist of someone else's work????

The whole issue of commercial vs non-commercial is irrelevant with regard to the original post. Copyright restrictions apply to both commercial and non-commercial use.
The issue is clear: If the sculptor holds the copyright, you are in violation to use the photo for any purpose except clearly defined "fair use" exceptions.
Exhibiting a statue in public is NOT one of those exceptions.

@Gregory Scott
correct.

I had a full blown editorial to respond to the continuation of mis quotes out of context ref me. I decided to remove and just make it short sweet and say yes congress etc yataa ya. .end it. Even said i need a drink lol to lighten it up. I do not drink. But im beginning to bang my head And call the delivery boy for a 5th. Lol.

The merry go round continues when a comment is left when is it ever ok. I dont need to chill.

It seems some just want to continue.

@Roger Sweezy I dont recall any one saying it was ok.. i may have missed spmeone saying it was but i do not recall a direct statement saying. So u continue not i. i rebut anything i did not say or was taken out of context or miss understood. Called clarification. When im asked, do i understsnd english r u on phone bone up...when all i did was give the correct defination and copy right from the copyright site on yrs. I just bout had it explaining to people who just want to be heard.


Clarification :
My comment to mr 7 rules is simple...DO NOT cite law, case law, without the proper cite. Just because u put dam v smith doesnt give the person enough to research it. and doesnt mean it is still holding without proper cite. That is 1 in law! DO sheperdize the case u qoute. 2. PROPERLY ENSURE its in ALR. NUMBER 2 IN LAW. So offense taken when im told to BONE UP. its MY PROFession and I DIDNT WIN ELECTIONS OR CASES BY ALLOWING some cocky disrespecting comment to "Bone Up" . Im not in a poker game!. Now im not chilled cause you continue with nonsense to be heard. PS I still cant hear you.

Put this dog to rest. Def given
copyright law given and i did put the law of MM. 95 yrs Clarification ( congress) which i stated the yrs.extended) ...so what ur not getting? i do not know. Only to think u do know.



This was,i say was a discussion on copy rights. Open forum. Opines welcomed not attacked. Gregory summed it up correctly. I gave copy right law First. Then definition to the words commerce commercial. Fine art wasnt topic. Copy right was.
I added Tax only for consideration of the topic in whole. Step 1 2 3 so on. .

THEN gave THE correct YES CORRECT FINE VS. COMMERCIAL OUT OF COURESTY. My comments where correct, on point and a courtesy so the Artist can take all opines and research all. so if you are going to cite a case to look knowledgeable, please do it correct so the person researching can properly do so. Not telling s lady to BONE UP. . i did not insult nor direct qoute anyone. I was mis qouted out of context. I said idk... but i will not sit back and chill when im misqouted.
For the satisfaction of someone who assumes and tries to challange my intellect.

(Now get back to painting drawing photography. U have beatin this dog lol thats a wrap. ) thats humor...

"PS I still cant hear you."

Pat, perhaps if you took a breath :-)

"Commercial use" means your images are used to promote a product or service. Images which only promote themselves are non-commercial. Income can be taxable or non-taxable, but we needn't get into taxes!


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

@ Dan

The P.S. WASNT FOR YOU. I ADDRESSED The problem that presented itself by you. Qoutes to call out will most certainly be rebutted. However, your knowledge doesnt impress me enough to rebut another word made by you.

Perhaps a dose of Emily Post may help you in addressing a lady and the continuation of beating a dead horse:)



Read U.S.C. SS 17 1-13 . THAT COVERS IT.