Looking for design inspiration?   Browse our curated collections!

Return to Main Discussion Page
Discussion Quote Icon

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions
 
 

Ronald Walker

8 Years Ago

Photography Is Not Art.

Ha, made you look! I don't think it is a reasonable debate as to whether photography is an art or not. My question is, If a painter or a sculpture hires a professional photographer to photograph their work, is the photograph taken art in it's own right? If so who's art? The photographer's? If you then send the photographs to a gallery or museum as examples of your work should you at least give the photographer credit of some type for having taken the professional level photographs?

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

TL Mair

8 Years Ago

That's a good question.
All I can say is if that were the case I could have made a ton of money on the photographs of art work I did for artists over the years...I might not have done any more work for them, but...

TL Mair
http://tlmair.com

 

Edward Fielding

8 Years Ago

"should you at least give the photographer credit of some type for having taken the professional level photographs"

Not necessarily if its work for hire. Might be a nice courtesy. The photographer is providing a service not creating art.

 

Ronald Walker

8 Years Ago

Edward, I agree but that can be a very fine line.

 

David Smith

8 Years Ago

Not a fine line at all.

Photographs of artwork intended for reproduction aren't even granted copyright protection.

There may be an argument made in regards to images of sculpture, depending on what the photographer brings to the table in the way of lighting or composition, but not flat art.

 

Mark Blauhoefer

8 Years Ago

Photography has its strengths and weaknesses. It tends to be usesd very literally, but it needn't be.

Like say you want to take a photo of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon - one you'd have to go there, two you'd have to go back in time a few millienia, three you'd have to probably get permission from Nebuchadnezzar II...

Do you start to see the problem?

Or you could just create them from imagination with photomontage

Or you could paint them photorealisticly, or surrealisticly, or draw them, or recreate them for real, or whatever turns you on really

 

Art By Ela

8 Years Ago

I must say, I saw your Avatar few times already and I finally will go and have a look at your art. In between trying to upload more of my art, and thinking 'what the heck for' I do visit other artists, and read discussion board. nice to meet you.

 

Art By Ela

8 Years Ago



yeah... didn't mean to post my response twice.

 

CHERYL EMERSON ADAMS

8 Years Ago

My understanding is:

You hold the copyright to the art in the first place, when you hire the photographer you give permission (a limited license) to make the derivative work. The photographer owns the copyright to the derivative work.

You would probably want to limit what the photographer can do with a picture of your art.

Also, the photographer may want to limit what *you* can do with the photograph.

All of this is relatively easily sorted out by having a contract in place that spells out who can do what with the photograph(s), preferably drafted by someone who has a solid working knowledge of how copyright law works.

Disclaimer: Not legal advice.

 

David Smith

8 Years Ago

Cheryl

No, your understanding is off.

Look up "slavish reproduction".

This wiki cover the points rather well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality

 

Xueling Zou

8 Years Ago

How do we respect an artist and the copyrights, different people have their own oppions from their perspective. I work hard for paintings and photography, certainly I don't think I would like someone else take a photo of my artwork to sell it without my permission. Maybe that is why I have to learn how to take photos as the professional level :).

 

Xueling Zou

8 Years Ago

duplicated

 

CHERYL EMERSON ADAMS

8 Years Ago

Ok, I stand corrected... it looks as if an exact reproduction of someone else's artwork would not be copyrightable (by the photographer).

The photographer would be wise to get payment up front, or to negotiate for some rights to the photograph (such as using it in his promotional materials) through the contract.

Disclaimer: Again, not legal advice

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

I think it is going to be a case of what ever the two parties agree to and put done in writing and sign. Even than there could be trouble.

In other words, there is no right answer. The merits of any dispute would be argued case by case, in humble non legal opinion.

 

Tony Murray

8 Years Ago

"My question is, If a painter or a sculpture hires a professional photographer to photograph their work, is the photograph taken art in it's own right? If so who's art? The photographer's?"

No, the photograph taken as a commission (by a professional or amateur) is not art but simply an image of art. They have no rights to republish that image or use it outside of what they were commissioned for. The photographer doesn't get credit, they get money. It bugs the hell out of me that photographers submit photos of sculptures they did not create. I saw a first prize given to an image that was taken of a famous sculptors work and I know there was no permission given.

 

Xueling Zou

8 Years Ago

Artist creates the original artwork owns the copyrights, photographer in this case is part of the marketer or helper, I think...

 

CHERYL EMERSON ADAMS

8 Years Ago

Floyd:
True. But usually when a reasonably professional artist hires a reasonably professional photographer to do portfolio shots of the artwork it works out just fine.

Most photographers who want repeat portfolio business wouldn't be so stupid as to go selling the photos of the art out the back door of the studio. As things go, it's not a big deal to just agree on the price, sign the contract, get the shoot done, and move on.

Something to think about for photographers who are looking for a way to breath some life into their bank accounts:

Top-notch portfolio photographers are not that easy to find (mainly because most very good photographers don't love taking pics of other people's art -- ), but I'm told there is decent money in portfolio photography,for the ones who know what they're doing.

 

Vincent Von Frese

8 Years Ago

Even commercial photographic images like those we can see in magazine ads could be assigned the art ID at some time in the future because what is art is determined by an art promoter or curator.

Old movie posters for example or better yet prison mug shots.

The art is in the presentation maybe more than itself.

Guess Ansel Adams never worked weddings.

 

This discussion is closed.