Photographing Art/Sculpture/Murals

[The Blinking Eye]

Hi All,

 

I have done a search here in the forum and cannot find any answers though it has probably been discussed before.  Can we sell photos of objects/artworks in museums?  Sculptures in museums and in public squares?  Diego Rivera or Orozco mural details?  Ancient temple artifacts and details?

 

How does that work?  I see a lot of people selling this kind of stuff but reluctant to upload myself until I understand the rules.

 

I have tons of it.

 

Kristin

[Phil Preston]

I believe Alamy has issued guidelines about submitting such imagery (don't have the link though), saying it is OK,  providing there is additional context within the image. So a photo of an artwork just by itself is not wanted by Alamy  (copyright violation etc), but a photo of such artwork with, for example, people viewing it (perhaps a tour group) is acceptable. Suggest you do a search on the Alamy blog or Twitter pages for further clarification. Also, I think Alamy suggest any such submissions from photographers should be marked as for editorial use only, ie, no marketing, commercial use.

Edited June 14, 2019 by Phil Preston
Extra info added.

[The Blinking Eye]

2 minutes ago, Phil Preston said:

I believe Alamy has issued guidelines about submitting such imagery (don't have the link though), saying it is OK,  providing there is additional context within the image. So a photo of an artwork just by itself is not wanted by Alamy  (copyright violation etc), but a photo of such artwork with, for example, people viewing it (perhaps a tour group) is acceptable. Suggest you do a search on the Alamy blog or Twitter pages for further clarification. 

 

Thanks!  I was just thinking I could maybe find this information elsewhere on this site.  I have heard about including context when photographing street art, that makes sense.  But I see all kinds of shots and details (without context) of artworks and artifacts on here, so a bit confused.

[Phil Preston]

I have noticed within Alamys Image Manager that there is now a checkbox for imagery within the 'public domain', so that might (???) explain some imagery on Alamy that does not appear to conform to the guidelines. Still suggest you look for the Alamy guidelines on their Blog or Twitter pages rather than asking in the forum, and if you still have any doubts, go direct to Alamy and ask them for clarification. It does seem to be a slightly grey area.

[wiskerke]

The Alamy Blog had this to say about it in 2017:

https://www.alamy.com/blog/tips-for-photographing-private-property-and-museums

 

wim

[Matt Ashmore]

6 hours ago, Phil Preston said:

I have noticed within Alamys Image Manager that there is now a checkbox for imagery within the 'public domain', so that might (???) explain some imagery on Alamy that does not appear to conform to the guidelines. Still suggest you look for the Alamy guidelines on their Blog or Twitter pages rather than asking in the forum, and if you still have any doubts, go direct to Alamy and ask them for clarification. It does seem to be a slightly grey area.

 

Images that do not conform to Alamy guidelines are probably there because Alamy aren't aware of them given as Alamy QC do not check every single image. 'Public domain' is referring to images that are already freely available on the Internet, like Creative Commons images, which can be used by anyone without paying a license fee. You would usually need to credit the artist however.

[Bryan]

Seem to recall being de-muraled in the past, or is that a figment of my imagination?

 

 

 

 

 

[wiskerke]

12 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

Images that do not conform to Alamy guidelines are probably there because Alamy aren't aware of them given as Alamy QC do not check every single image. 'Public domain' is referring to images that are already freely available on the Internet, like Creative Commons images, which can be used by anyone without paying a license fee. You would usually need to credit the artist however.

 

Many of those images have this line: This image could have imperfections as it’s either historical or reportage. All archival images bypass QC altogether.

We have discussed funny images like this one here before.

 

wim

[riccarbi]

 

 

 

10 hours ago, The Blinking Eye said:

 Can we sell photos of objects/artworks in museums?  Sculptures in museums and in public squares?  Diego Rivera or Orozco mural details?  Ancient temple artifacts and details?

How does that work?  I see a lot of people selling this kind of stuff but reluctant to upload myself until I understand the rules.

 

As described in the article linked by wiskerke, it all depends on the property rules as well as on national copyright laws which differ substantially from country to country.
I can tell you how it works in Italy.

1) If the museum (in its website, in signage, on the ticket) forbids taking photos or allows taking photos for personal use only, you can't take pictures to be sold on Alamy there.
2) If the museum says nothing about the matter, better you ask. Many museums allow taking pictures for editorial use only and have a precompiled form for that. 
3) If the museum allows taking photos for any use, you are OK, but only in respect of the property copyright. You are possibly still violating the artist's copyright, which is a different matter and mainly depends on national copyright regulations.
4) In Italy, you are not violating any artist's copyright as long as the artist died more than 70 years ago. You are either not violating the artist's copyright if your picture has artistic value in itself (to judge whether a photo depicting an artwork has also an additional "artistic value" or not is a tricky question, honestly).
5) Certain exhibition events (the Venice Biennale, for example) usually allow taking editorial photos of any artwork on show, as long as you are registered as a press photographer and you'll sell such images for editorial use only (I guess that they have an agreement with the featured artists about that point); yet,  at the Biennale, this is true for the two main official exhibitions (at the Arsenale and in the Giardini's Central Pavilion) only, while each national pavilion may have its own, different rules.

[The Blinking Eye]

On 14/06/2019 at 07:27, wiskerke said:

The Alamy Blog had this to say about it in 2017:

https://www.alamy.com/blog/tips-for-photographing-private-property-and-museums

 

wim

 

Finally getting back to this. 😅 This is helpful for museums. Now wondering about public art, sculpture gardens, and murals...

[The Blinking Eye]

On 14/06/2019 at 09:11, riccarbi said:

 

As described in the article linked by wiskerke, it all depends on the property rules as well as on national copyright laws which differ substantially from country to country.
I can tell you how it works in Italy.

1) If the museum (in its website, in signage, on the ticket) forbids taking photos or allows taking photos for personal use only, you can't take pictures to be sold on Alamy there.
2) If the museum says nothing about the matter, better you ask. Many museums allow taking pictures for editorial use only and have a precompiled form for that. 
3) If the museum allows taking photos for any use, you are OK, but only in respect of the property copyright. You are possibly still violating the artist's copyright, which is a different matter and mainly depends on national copyright regulations.
4) In Italy, you are not violating any artist's copyright as long as the artist died more than 70 years ago. You are either not violating the artist's copyright if your picture has artistic value in itself (to judge whether a photo depicting an artwork has also an additional "artistic value" or not is a tricky question, honestly).
5) Certain exhibition events (the Venice Biennale, for example) usually allow taking editorial photos of any artwork on show, as long as you are registered as a press photographer and you'll sell such images for editorial use only (I guess that they have an agreement with the featured artists about that point); yet,  at the Biennale, this is true for the two main official exhibitions (at the Arsenale and in the Giardini's Central Pavilion) only, while each national pavilion may have its own, different rules.

 

I don't know if I'll ever get to Italy again, but this gives me an idea of what to look for in other countries. Thanks for the detail!

[JaniMarkus Hasa]

I think the guidelines (images of artwork should only be submitted if shot in a wider context) are somewhat understandable when it comes to museums, but public art is another issue.

 

Statues on Charles Bridge in Prague; if I upload images of those without wider context (which I've done), am I violating someone's rights? Even if the statues themselves are replicas?

Statue of Liberty; do you have to include Ellis Island on the image to get the wider context?

Mural on electrical cabinet; is the cabinet itself a wider context? Or the slice of pavement in front and wall in background? 

 

 

[sb photos]

This area is a potential minefield, so I personally would avoid photographing stock in museums. Even personal photography in museums has issues, it may be allowed if the subject belongs to the museum, but banned if on loan.

 

As JaniMarkus Hasa asks above re public art, that is an interesting subject.

 

[meanderingemu]

12 hours ago, JaniMarkus Hasa said:

I think the guidelines (images of artwork should only be submitted if shot in a wider context) are somewhat understandable when it comes to museums, but public art is another issue.

 

Statues on Charles Bridge in Prague; if I upload images of those without wider context (which I've done), am I violating someone's rights? Even if the statues themselves are replicas?

Statue of Liberty; do you have to include Ellis Island on the image to get the wider context?

Mural on electrical cabinet; is the cabinet itself a wider context? Or the slice of pavement in front and wall in background? 

 

 

agree about the difficulty even on public place.  The following has been one of my most mentally debated set:

 

 

The art itself is the wider context.. This is in Mostar, Bosnia, and the artist used bullet holes from war  as the insects' body

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by meanderingemu

[John Mitchell]

I really enjoy photographing in history and archaeology museums, and I don't sweat it unless there are signs prohibiting photography in the museum or notices on its website (as per the Alamy blog advice posted above). I often set my museum images to 'editorial use only' just to make sure.

 

Here is something amusing that I just found on the website of a history museum that I'm planning on visiting:

 

"Visitors are not allowed to photograph any museum exhibits or architecture with a flash bulb."

 

A little out-of-date perhaps? 😁

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by John Mitchell

[The Blinking Eye]

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

agree about the difficulty even on public place.  The following has been one of my most mentally debated set:

 

 

The art itself is the wider context.. This is in Mostar, Bosnia, and the artist used bullet holes from war  as the insects' body

 

Very compelling shot, in any case.

[The Blinking Eye]

3 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

I really enjoy photographing in history and archaeology museums, and I don't sweat it unless there are signs prohibiting photography in the museum or notices on its website (as per the Alamy blog advice posted above). I often set my museum images to 'editorial use only' just to make sure.

 

Here is something amusing that I just found on the website of a history museum that I'm planning on visiting:

 

"Visitors are not allowed to photograph any museum exhibits or architecture with a flash bulb."

 

A little out-of-date perhaps? 😁

 

 

 

 

It does seem that something from pre-columbian Mesoamerica would by now be considered public domain. 😁 That's a good tip about adding "editorial use only". Thanks!

[meanderingemu]

7 hours ago, The Blinking Eye said:

 

It does seem that something from pre-columbian Mesoamerica would by now be considered public domain. 😁 That's a good tip about adding "editorial use only". Thanks!

 

 

pretty sure "editorial use only" is an Alamy requirement. They actually changed a few of my image they felt focussed on "art work" to such a few month back. 

[The Blinking Eye]

Well, I uploaded this and nobody yelled at me. It's a local public art work that has become controversial because the city can't afford to maintain it. The city arts council recently declared they will decommission and remove it, so it's been in the local news lately.

[meanderingemu]

5 hours ago, The Blinking Eye said:

Well, I uploaded this and nobody yelled at me. It's a local public art work that has become controversial because the city can't afford to maintain it. The city arts council recently declared they will decommission and remove it, so it's been in the local news lately.

 

 

interesting. 

 

note that i don't think Alamy will ever "yell at you" for content.   You are responsible for what you upload and how you present it.  

[The Blinking Eye]

11 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

interesting. 

 

note that i don't think Alamy will ever "yell at you" for content.   You are responsible for what you upload and how you present it.  

 

I was sort of kidding, but they really just let anything pass? I marked it as “editorial only”. Taxpayers spent something like $120,000 for that piece, so the question of ownership is interesting.

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, The Blinking Eye said:

 

I was sort of kidding, but they really just let anything pass? I marked it as “editorial only”. Taxpayers spent something like $120,000 for that piece, so the question of ownership is interesting.

 

 

from a content basis they expect contributors to respect the law, or more the take responsibility for their work.  From what i have seen they only intervene based on specific requests from right owners.

 

it's actually one thing i highly respect from Alamy, because it removes the game of just trying to get things pass a reviewer. 

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by meanderingemu

[Harry Harrison]

9 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

From what i have seen they only intervene based on specific requests from right owners

Actually they did do a recent sweep for murals so it's not always on request from rights owners.

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

Actually they did do a recent sweep for murals so it's not always on request from rights owners.

 

did they remove any? i know they changed a couple of mine to editorial,  but I've yet to have content issues other than one i wasn't aware was NT. 

[Harry Harrison]

 

duplicate

Edited September 12, 2019 by Harry Harrison
duplicate