Looking at Art

stlukesguild

Well-known member
Messages
2,524
tumblr_mmbmriLrf31qcnmybo1_640.jpg


tumblr_lsrgwaDOWY1qb8vpuo1_500.jpg


bacon_682_415369a.jpg


Veronese-Cana-Aug07-DP1859sAR800.jpg
 
The big Venetian masterwork by Veronese is actually in Paris... as are a good number of the photos above. The only picture that I could have taken, but didn't, is the last one with the two paintings by Rembrandt. That's from the National Gallery in Washington. I've spent a good deal of time in that and the adjoining rooms looking at Rembrandt as well as Hals, Rubens, Van Dyck, and Vermeer.
 
Sorry John, but you are incorrect. In the US, at least, it was determined in court that photographs of works of art could not be deemed "original" works of art and thus afforded copyright protection because the goal is to simply reproduce that work of art (painting, sculpture, etc... as accurately as possible and not produce a new work of art. If the work photographed is fairly recent (post 1920s/30s... I forget the exact date) the artwork itself... in a museum or gallery... may still be under copyright protection. Under that situation, photographing the work may be seen as copyright infringement. This is why we often see exhibitions of newer works in museums accompanied with signs reading "No Photography Allowed." An artwork photographed within a setting... such as a Matisse seen installed within a museum with several museum visitors or the photographer's wife or girlfriend posing before the painting is a new work of art and not an attempt to merely reproduce the Matisse... and this would be legal for the photographer to use. Of course, copyright law is cloudy and parties with "deep pockets" may always sue... but are rarely motivated to do so unless they think there will be a sizable payoff.
 
Sorry John, but you are incorrect. In the US, at least, it was determined in court that photographs of works of art could not be deemed "original" works of art and thus afforded copyright protection because the goal is to simply reproduce that work of art (painting, sculpture, etc... as accurately as possible and not produce a new work of art. If the work photographed is fairly recent (post 1920s/30s... I forget the exact date) the artwork itself... in a museum or gallery... may still be under copyright protection. Under that situation, photographing the work may be seen as copyright infringement. This is why we often see exhibitions of newer works in museums accompanied with signs reading "No Photography Allowed." An artwork photographed within a setting... such as a Matisse seen installed within a museum with several museum visitors or the photographer's wife or girlfriend posing before the painting is a new work of art and not an attempt to merely reproduce the Matisse... and this would be legal for the photographer to use. Of course, copyright law is cloudy and parties with "deep pockets" may always sue... but are rarely motivated to do so unless they think there will be a sizable payoff.
Thank you for this. I added the image... Input?
 

Attachments

  • Ortiz_Ignacio_Photo07.jpg
    Ortiz_Ignacio_Photo07.jpg
    834.9 KB · Views: 203
libyan2small.JPG


This is a photograph of an old painting. The painting is old enough that it falls outside of copyright protection. The photograph, however, is rather recent. The goal of the photographer was to reproduce the painting as accurately as possible... not to create an original work of art. In this instance, the photograph also falls outside of the realm of copyright protection. Anyone may freely use this image.

Katz.med.jpg


In this instance, the work of art is rather recent. The artist and/or the owner likely still own the copyright to this image. A book publisher wishing to use an image of this painting would need to gain permission from the copyright owner. The photograph itself, again, is not a creative work and not afforded copyright protection. I can use the image here under "free use" laws that allow for the use of copyright images for certain purposes including critical commentary (a review in a magazine or online or a satire or parody ala MAD Magazine), educational purposes, and a few other uses.

P1010900.jpg


In this instance, we are seeing a work of art within a gallery. The goal is not to reproduce the original painting as accurately as possible. The painting is part of a public space. Unless there were a sign or an agreement signed by visitors stipulating "No photographs" the photographer may freely photograph and display this image. Among the crowd there may be a wife, girlfriend, or family member. The image is an interpreted original work of art belonging to the photographer.

Again... wealthy copyright owners may sue regardless of how strong a case they have. Damien Hirst famously sued a teenager who was creating parodies of his work which he was selling for the equivalent of a couple of hundred dollars. Hirst sued and the teen, rather than try to fight Hirst's lawyers shelled over the couple of hundred. Of course, the publicity was worth far more than a couple of hundred to the teen and conversely, the negative publicity cost Hirst far more than the couple of hundred. Ironically, Hirst has been repeatedly accused of plagiarism and copyright infringement... and sued on these grounds repeatedly.
 
Back
Top