Copyright Something That Doesn't Exist.

that's hard to say being that someone else made them then its their own copyright. kind of like that chalk art that looks 3-d. its a style of art even if it does wash away. how they totally prove its theirs is a different story.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

It's the person who designed it's copyright, just like a particular way a make up artist does body paint. If a work of art is impermanent, the artist will usually photograph the work at its peak of beauty, before it starts to deteriorate. So my feeling is, no, you wouldn't have the right to sell a photograph of this sand artwork...and most likely the original artist has documented his/her work for their portfolio.

(I'm not an attorney )

I've seen some sand sculptures that were treated to last a while. I'm not sure how old the display was I was looking at (in Philly back in 2007), but grass started growing out of it.

As far as copyright something that doesn't/won't exist... I converted a 2D image I found in an online search into a 3D stereo anaglyph (which had never existed in that format before). It was of Bruce Lee. After having it on FAA for a while I got an email from someone to remove it because of infringement of the Bruce Lee "likeness" I suppose.

I see work on FAA all the time of the classic Frankenstein Monster image, yet that particular "look" was copyrighted so that it could not be used without permission. I believe the copyright is due to run out next year.

IMHO, this kind of question is probably best handled by qualified attorneys or law experts. Perhaps talking to the original sand sculpture artists would shed some light or alleviate copyright concerns.

The artists of ephemeral art still own copyright of their art. Many of them make videos of their art, or take still photos, or otherwise use these images, and you should get permission before you photograph these images and sell them for your own profit. It doesn't make any difference if it is sand or granite, it is still an image that belongs to the original artist.

Actually, I was thinking of going back and asking them. Maybe a release like for a statue or building. I imagine some won't care as long as I give them credit and some will simply say no. I'll find out tomorrow and let everyone know what happens. I think I'll take small prints of what I want to use. Won't kill me either way.

Bob
bobsphotography.com

It can't be copyrighted unless it is published, the only way to publish something like this would be to photograph it, I'd imagine they did. The only way you can know for sure is to ask them.

it doesn't have to be published. you can shoot a photo and as soon as you do that - its your copyright.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

The actual work is in sand.

What you have done is photograph it. ... You have photographed a sculpture in sand, and the photograph of the sculpture is NOT the sculpture.

Is the sculpture on a public beach? ... Is a photograph of graffiti on a private building really up for any copyright claims by the graffiti artist? ... Seems like the sand thing is just a three-d version of graffiti. ... The artist does NOT own the substrate of his creation. ... He did NOT buy the beach. ... He does NOT own the sand.

Each breath that I take enters my lungs from an air reservoir that everybody else breathes, and yet this air that I exhale carries my signature via molecules of my spit that has my DNA signature. ... I now claim that exhaled air as MY artwork, and you cannot breath in any of it without infringing.

Bob,

You can sell your images, of the sand sculptures, as art, no different than other "copyrighted" items sold here. A Ford hood ornament, a City statue, famous buildings, etc. It's your art, but you can't use that image to be used in a commercial situation, to sell sand, for an instance. This was a public event and photos were taken, by many and no signs "Photos of Art Not Allowed". Just like the famous Campbell Soup can of Mr. Warhol.

Very confusing indeed. If you sell a print, then that's fine, if you use that sand image in a calendar, (a product) than the lawyers can get involved!

There would be a lot fewer images here, if this wasn't the case. Where it becomes "gray" is if you use those images to sell a "product", then the courts have different opinions and really not worth the effort or expense.

The artist, the sand artist owns that copyright of that sculpture and can do with it as they like, but you are limited, since you are not the artist that created it, just copied it.

Permanence of the art, has nothing to do with the validity of ownership of the copyright. Sand or concrete, doesn't matter.

On the other hand, anybody can be sued for anything!

Rich

None of these answers are from lawyers so are only in the members own opinion.

My opinion, from what have learned over the years, agrees with Rich and others of the same ilk

I'm going to check it out just to see what they say, but, if my neighbor makes a cherry pie, I photograph it to sell on Pixels, then eat the whole thing, which will give me more pain, A) my neighbor for selling a picture of her pie, or B) the pie?

Bob
bobsphotography.com

it doesn't work that way unless some real creative input went into it. and only if you took their recipe that they made and then sold it as your own.

mostly the original artist would have to prove:

1. its theirs and they made it. and i guess there was proof like a picture with a date, an award or something.
2. they would have to prove damages in court. best they can say is to take it down and even then it would be hard to prove if they didn't have the evidence.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

The sand artist does NOT own the sand or the land. ... It's like me coming onto your property at night and building a big ant hill in your garden. ... How could I possibly claim copyrights in any way whatsoever? ... Even if I photographed the big ant hill, I did not own the materials of the subject photographed. ... I had no property claims to them to begin with, so how can I possibly just assert some sort of property claim for anything associated with it now?

Did the artist get a license to create art in a public place? ... Is the art legal? ... Is HE violating some law by even creating the sand sculpture without proper clearance, because it creates a public spectacle? ... Even without the God-like overseeing of lawyers, common sense tells me that there are no claims to property here.

Bob, the first pie is not the one you have to worry about. If she gets ticked off over you selling the pictures without her permission, the next pie may put in on the throne for a week. Or an early grave if she was really ticked off.

it has nothing to do with owning the sand. i can take paper from your house, and use your pen and make a picture - the picture i made is my copyright. you own nothing of that.

one does not need a license to sculpt in the sand, that's a silly argument and moot since it has nothing to do with copyright status.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

and of course on the other hand - how many sales do you really think you'll make on this?

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Floyd, pie today, cupcakes tomorrow, hospital by Sunday.

Mike, you never know, I've seen some of the stuff that comes up on the "sold" page and ask the same question,(did their family buy that) and I can always discount it to the sculptor.

Bob
bobsphotography.com

just remember the only reason your trying to sell it is because it looks nice. if it was just sand you wouldn't be selling it. someone's creativity went into it. it would be no different than taking a picture of your picture and selling it. you can try selling it, but if its a famous artist that happened to be there that day, they could ask for more than just a discount.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

I'll let you know what happens tomorrow. Also consider, this is a very small island and heavily into the arts and tourism. I don't think people down here would buy it because it looks nice, (of course there has to be some kind of quality) the tourist buys it for a remembrance of what they saw to show others, and the local collectors (and there are a lot) here like to buy things about what goes on here. I doubt if it will sell in Greenland.

Bob
bobsphotography.com

it has nothing to do with owning the sand. i can take paper from your house, and use your pen and make a picture - the picture i made is my copyright. you own nothing of that.

(^_^) ... I assure you with utmost confidence that you most certainly could NOT, because a 100lb German shepherd would have you well in check before you even got into the door. ... But, in case you made it past him, I would sue you for getting blood on my private property (paper, pen, carpet, etc), for causing the dog emotional distress, and for the cost of repairing a window that you probably Jimmied to break in. .. I own the paper and pen and premises that enabled these to be stored for you to infringe upon. ... I own the substrate of your devious break-in art. ... But hey, ... revolutionary artists MUST take such chances, ... right?

i would sue you for inviting me to your house just so your dog can attack me. all i wanted was a piece of paper and a pen so i can draw a picture.

in any case even if you took the paper back. you don't own the drawing. just the paper. you can use it to clean your shoe off with, but you can't sell the picture just because the paper was yours. its the with the thing above, the only reason he took it and wants to sell it is because of someone else's work and creativity. otherwise its just sand.

what would you say if told you that he bought the sand and used his own sand? (its a special sand btw, beach sand doesn't hold up, its a special rough cut).

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

and just an fyi - if i get hurt in your house, it doesn't matter if i cut myself on your sharp window that i broke - i can sue you.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

But seriously now,

17 U.S. Code § 102 - Subject matter of copyright: In general
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device ...

The two fundamental criteria of copyright protection—originality and ... fixation in tangible form ... are restated in the first sentence of this cornerstone provision.

Fixation in Tangible Form.
As a basic condition of copyright protection, the bill perpetuates the existing requirement that a work be fixed in a “tangible medium of expression,” and adds that this medium may be one “now known or later developed,” and that the fixation is sufficient if the work “can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.”

Under the first sentence of the definition of “fixed” in section 101, a work would be considered “fixed in a tangible medium of expression” if there has been an authorized embodiment in a copy or phonorecord and if that embodiment ... “is sufficiently permanent or stable” ... to permit the work “to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of ... more than transitory duration.”

"Under the first sentence of the definition of “fixed” in section 101, a work would be considered “fixed in a tangible medium of expression” if there has been an authorized embodiment in a copy or phonorecord and if that embodiment ... “is sufficiently permanent or stable” ... to permit the work “to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of ... more than transitory duration.”


This is why I said it had to be photographed to be copyrighted, otherwise it just didn't exist.

Mike S.,

No, no, no, ... about suing me for injury that YOU caused by invading MY premises to fulfill the manifesto of your break-in art. ... "Dang artists, ... think they can own the air I breathe!". ... I did NOT invite you over. ... You broke in. ... You were in the midst of criminal activity, and injuries sustained while breaking and entering are NOT legitimate causes for legal remedies. .. In this case, YOUR negligence in obeying MY property rights is the more proximate cause of your injuries, and I hope they throw the book at you for it. (^_^)

And, yes, Rich S., it is STILL being discussed, because it is NOT totally resolved. ... That's what OPEN discussions do - they carry on past any one person's preference for an end to them.

A feigned reaction of surprise to this fact adds little to the actual substance of of the discussion. ... Again, I have dealt with transient art forms for the majority of my arteesty existence, ... first as a dancer who used to be quite biased (I admit it) towards visual artists (because of their needy, self-aggrandized, drunken attachments to their delusions of fixed entities). ... Obviously, I grew past that bias in later years, ... but I encountered the transient art realization again during my photoFLUIDISM phase, where I spent hours thinking about and coming to terms with certain profound realizations.

Mike S., artists walk fine lines. ... That's what they do. .... Laws are not always in agreement.

Making pudding is an art form. (^_^)

Korndoodle,

Rich 10, Kernoodle, 3, Rich wins! Quantity of posts, does not beat the quality of posts, my friend! Dance all you like, but please refrain from posting about "transient",

"evermore",

Your Pal,

Richie the Winner!

Oh, are we keeping score, Rich F? ... I was not playing a scoring game, but you are quite welcome to keep playing with yourself.

... and maybe deluding yourself as to the quality of your own posts.

Finally, I would like to say:

Transient. ... Transient. ... Transient. ... Transient. ... Transient.

Transient ... DEFINITION: 1. lasting only for a short time; impermanent.

Thanks for the winning reply that inspired this rich rebuttal.

And thanks for all those occasions where you try to make my last name appear clown-like, ... a juvenile sort of fun jostling that I tolerate, just to play along, ... oh, I guess I WAS sort of playing, after all, but NOT keeping score.

Real winners don't have to keep score.

It's probably time for this thread to transition to an end, thus fulfilling that definition.

Moderators, are you there? Can we put this one into the annals of "transient"?

Robert, does this look familiar, posted only 1 day ago?

"...That's what OPEN discussions do - they carry on past any one person's preference for an end to them."



Just sayin'. ;)

keep on repeating it. we got the law from the govt mouth. the sculpture belongs to the one that created it. they can prove it with drawings and probably pictures. it doesn't matter if it lasts for a few seconds. it was created, and in this case it was captured. he who shot it owns the image. he who made the sculpture made the sculpture. doesn't matter if it vanished. the original idea is in the hands of the sculptor.

artists don't walk fine lines. they draw them.

but more so, they create the pattern and that's part A, of the copyright.

everything is temporary. if he erased his photo of the sculpture - does he have the rights to copyright that image? sure he does, but he should do that before erasing it.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Mr. Corndoodle,

If you take a minute, seems your were also involved in that "clown-like" game, IN FACT you were the institagator, with the incorrect spelling of my name, if you look up at the top. And I have to agree with you, the quality of MY POSTS, in no way resemble what you have posted!

But hey, who's keeping score,right? WAIT! I AM!!! Rich 783, Corndog 7.5, I WIN!!! YAY!!!

Rich

And I won't even bring up the fact that I was right, much righter than you, absolutely won't bring that up! Call your buddies at Maryland Law Review and have them review their law!

Hey Rich F.,

I would appreciate it if you would show me EXACTLY where ... I ... started the name deformation game. ... This is news to me.

What I AM now keeping score of is the number of times that you self aggrandize your own importance. ... Rich half a dozen or so, Comdog 0. ... Sometimes zero is the winning score.

Yours truly,

A REAL winner.

P.S., Merely asserting that you are right does NOT make it so. Right about what? I quoted law from law sources, while you quoted opinions self inoculated with credibility. (Still laughing about those).

Yours truly,

"Comdog"

And now to Mike S.'s latest:

keep on repeating it. we got the law from the govt mouth. the sculpture belongs to the one that created it. they can prove it with drawings and probably pictures. it doesn't matter if it lasts for a few seconds. it was created, and in this case it was captured. he who shot it owns the image. he who made the sculpture made the sculpture. doesn't matter if it vanished. the original idea is in the hands of the sculptor.

I am repeating no more than you. ... Notice, you keep repeating the word, "pictures", as a prerequisite for establishing tangibility for proof. ... With most other art forms, you can visit them or bring their physical embodiment before a judging body. ... When a fragile sand sculpture is gone, you cannot do this, because it no longer exists, which puts the the artwork THEN in the photograph. ... Otherwise, any idea or ability to envision what can be reproduced again in a nearly exact copy of a previous sculpture is merely an idea, and ideas are NOT copyrightable.

The words from the government's mouth include the word, "picture". .. Without a picture of a fugitive work, there is no copyright protection. ... Phrase your inquiries to the copyright office more precisely, and I dare say that the response you get from them will verify my statement.

Ask them ... If the artist or representative does NOT photograph the sand sculpture, then can the artist still receive copyright protection on the sand sculpture?

Coloneloodle,

Gladly! "By the way, Mr. Franko, those "folks" might not be the Federal government," DAYS AGO!

self aggrandize your own importance", get a lot of note book paper! Unlike you, my friend, I've actually have been a commercial photographer for 30+ years, so I know whereof I speak! Your interpretation of what I say and how I say it, has no importance here to me. From the "get-go" I posted what I did and I was right and you've been wrong and still being wronger!

Take the dead horse you've been beating out to the curb................. Rich, 1,248 to Doodle of Ker, -7, for continual posting of mis-information.

Winner and still Champ, Richard of Franco!!! YAY!

Rich

Rich F.

You call an innocent typo in an already escalating comical name game a deformity of your name. ... That was a typo, my friend, and you are using it like dynamite to blow your own horn.

Unlike you, I have been intimately involved with fugitive art forms for the same amount of time that you have been a commercial photographer, so I know whereof I speak too.

You are just boasting, ... while I am trying to boost understanding.

You are talking about PHOTOGRAPHS .... still !

A fugitive sand sculpture is NOT a photograph.

A fugitive sand sculpture has NO existence, once the tide washes it away.

A photograph of a fugitive sand sculpture EMBODIES the expression in a tangible form. ... The photograph transcends the actual medium ... AS the expression of it, AFTER the actual physical material of the sand sculpture is gone. ... The photograph of the fugitive sand sculpture ... IS ... the fixed form of the expression, when the sand sculpture physically no longer exists. ... The sand sculpture itself (the sand in the shape of a face) is NOT copyright protected. ... The EXPRESSION in the FIXED form IS copyright protected. ... That's why, especially for ephemeral art forms, the photographing of them is so important, because ONLY the photographs of their expression exist after the physical material embodiment of their expression are no longer in existence.

I am talking specifically about the most ephemeral sand sculptures. ... Those big things (with additional measures to insure stability and longevity) that Mike S. showed are another level of the argument -- NOT quite the same as the sand sculpture that opened this discussion.

You can wallow in your false sense of victory all you want, but it does not change reality.

Have fun in your wallowing,

Robert K.

Doodler of Kern,

I accept your apology. Takes a big man to admit he's wrong! Wait!!! ARE YOU STILL TALKING ABOUT THE "Transient" nature of that sand sculpture????

What the hell is "Fugitive Art"??? Unless you earned your income from it, then it;s apples and oranges to me!

Not boasting of course, just stating facts.

And of course it's about photography, since that was the original question, a few months ago! Could someone own the copyright of an image of a "non-transient" sand sculpture.

Rich 7,384 The Doodler -387, penalty for still beating the same dead horse.

Weiner and STILL Champion, Richie!!!!!! YAY!!!!

Rich

so... um.. bob did this answer your question?


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

If the horse is dead, then this is why ...




Next ... a pic of a brain in a stone prison (not mine).

What's the difference between a winner and a champion?

ANSWER: ... A champion knows that a winner is a transitory state, ... that there is always somebody who will eventually take his place, ... and so true champions seldom brag.

can you copyright a dead horse?


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

... no more so than a dead brain (^_^)




Live brain. Dead brain. Zombies would feast on it anyway. Oh wait, that's another thread.

Dead horse, copyrighted



Although I guess this was never s real horse. I read most of this thread tonight and found the debate interesting, if not the back and forth snark

It reminded me of a sand sculpture I saw being constructed in a building at the State Fair in Columbia, SC s few years ago. They seemed to be working of drawings of past sculptures as well as from memory. I didn't see any photos, but maybe they were some. I never thought about it being copyrighted, but when j read the OP, my first thought was "Of course you can copyright a sand sculpture."

The second thing I thought was "just because you can't see something doesn't mean it's not there."

Mike, this hasn't been my post for a long time. This is like WAR, what is it good for... absolutely nothing... if I may quote.
Going back to my original post, I have changed my outlook, copyright, shmopyright I don't give a crap in this case. I believe it's a case of ethics. I don't want to sell a print of these guys or girls art simply because they spent their time designing something unique, I don't care how long it lasted. I'm sure there are a few of my shots that show items that were created by other artists but I'll look at them one at a time. Like I said way back when... I think my real intent was to show the unbelievable talent of these sand artist for everybody to enjoy. And it's funny, that nobody mentioned the great art I showed in my initial post.

Bob
bobsphotography.com

All I can say at this point is that, because a certain person in management here has a great affinity for the magnificent steeds, killing a horse on THIS website can get one in Deepak Chopra.

There is no fixed physical reality, no single perception of the world, just numerous ways of interpreting world views as dictated by one's nervous system and the specific environment of our planetary existence. -- Deepak Chopra

Bob S.,

War is good for population control.

Flame wars are good for generating heat that bloats egos.

I just hope that the ego of a certain person is equipped with four plies, because too much of that hot air can blow a good discussion and render personal integrity a mere flapping vestige of its former self.

Robert K.,

You just don't stop, do you... shouldn't you be busy creating art or something?

Bob
bobsphotography.com

he can't, he's trying to copyright parts of this thread.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Mike,

I guess you're right, the thread won't be "transient".

Bob
bobsphotography.com

Bob S.,

Writing IS art.

Dialogue IS art.

The discussion forum IS a form of art, where we all are collaborators.

Maybe expand your definition. (^_^) ... or not. ... It's your decision, of course.

I used to think visual art was NOT REAL art, as I said a few times before. ... I expanded MY definition, and now look at all the fun I have.

Oh, this thread IS quite transient, my friends, ... as are we all.

Thanks for your fleeting replies.

Robert K.,

This forum is NOT art except to you. Your "art" is trying to see how many people you can annoy. That in my opinion is not what this forum is about.
Again, in my opinion, the forum is for people to ask and answer questions or make announcements good or bad and to have civil discussions. You seem to take pride in getting people riled up. I personally don't think this belongs here, that's why there is no politics or religion threads. I also don't really have a problem with your type of discussion on the right forum or blog.
I am using my right to end this because enough is enough.
May everyone have a wonderful, joyous and prosperous yule season.

Bob
bobsphotography.com