Property release

[Phillip]

I know this gets complicated because various countries have their own laws. 

 

My question is that a Statue or tourist attraction that is owned be a council on public land, would a copyright release from the council be sufficient. I contacted the council to try and track down a released form. 

 

The tourist attraction was the idea of the ladies auxiliary and they raised money to have it created. I contacted the relevant council media department and they said that they would give me a copy right release.

 

So any help in this subject would be good.

 

The next part is do with the Silo Art in Australia, I took a few images and submitted them to other sites, but they were rejected on the grounds of intellectual property, even though these paintings are in the public domain.

 

Here on Alamy I saw some photos of the art on a water tank in the town that I live in.

 

I had planned to photograph the silo art and submit to stock libraries, but the challanges of getting an intellectual release is perhaps not worth my time and effort.

 

 

[Steve F]

34 minutes ago, Phillip said:

I contacted the relevant council media department and they said that they would give me a copy right release.

 

Wow, if you don't ask, you don't get!

 

38 minutes ago, Phillip said:

The next part is do with the Silo Art in Australia, I took a few images and submitted them to other sites, but they were rejected on the grounds of intellectual property, even though these paintings are in the public domain.

 

Here on Alamy I saw some photos of the art on a water tank in the town that I live in.

 

Just taking a step back, don't assume that just because you see an image for sale on Alamy, that it is either fully legal and/or meets Alamy's upload and submission requirements - Alamy only spot checks submissions after the initial 3 images.

 

Regarding photos of artwork, this has come up as a topic on Alamy before - Google is your friend! Specifically, Alamy recommended that you would need to show some context around artwork in order to avoid copyright infringement. 

[Phillip]

52 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

Wow, if you don't ask, you don't get!

 

 

Just taking a step back, don't assume that just because you see an image for sale on Alamy, that it is either fully legal and/or meets Alamy's upload and submission requirements - Alamy only spot checks submissions after the initial 3 images.

 

Regarding photos of artwork, this has come up as a topic on Alamy before - Google is your friend! Specifically, Alamy recommended that you would need to show some context around artwork in order to avoid copyright infringement. 

I checked and there are a very large number of images of the silo art on Alamy, most just show the artwork. My thoughts were to take pictures with the Art Work either in the background or to a side. 

 

The Silo art work trail is 8,500 kilometres long, combine that with Big things Australia and would keep any traveller occupied, without even visiting the Olgas' or Uluru. 

[Steve F]

3 minutes ago, Phillip said:

I checked and there are a very large number of images of the silo art on Alamy, most just show the artwork. My thoughts were to take pictures with the Art Work either in the background or to a side. 

 

The Silo art work trail is 8,500 kilometres long, combine that with Big things Australia and would keep any traveller occupied, without even visiting the Olgas' or Uluru. 

 

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/13759-copyright-infringement/

 

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/12312-alamy-exclusivity-policy/?do=findComment&comment=227798

 

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/12312-alamy-exclusivity-policy/?do=findComment&comment=227805

 

[gvallee]

Philip, as far as Alamy is concerned, murals are a no no. They deleted mine. Except, like Steve said, if they are incidental to the picture.

 

From an Australian point of view, 2D artwork is also a no no (intellectual copyright) but 3D artwork like statues are OK. Provided they are in a public space of course.

 

I always feel so sorry when I come across wonderful murals in small villages who badly need tourism. It's hard to walk past them but I have to suck it up.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by gvallee

[M.Chapman]

Don't forget that, although the Council own the statue, they may not own the "copyright" as well, unless the artist/scupltor has surrendered their rights to the council. If they haven't, then I think two releases might be required? One from the council (owner of the statue), the other from the sculptor (owner of the design). Given that the statue is in a public place, I'd mark as Contains property - Yes, Property release = No, and let the publisher decide how they want to use the image. 

 

Mark

[Rebecca Ore]

On 14/02/2023 at 05:41, Phillip said:

My question is that a Statue or tourist attraction that is owned be a council on public land, would a copyright release from the council be sufficient. I contacted the council to try and track down a released form. 

 

The tourist attraction was the idea of the ladies auxiliary and they raised money to have it created. I contacted the relevant council media department and they said that they would give me a copy right release.

 

 

Owning the physical copy does not mean necessarily owning the right to copy the art.   This is why buying a book doesn't grant the right to scan it and put files up on websites.  Or to reproduce a piece of art or correspondence you bought, though you can sell the original.   If the council owns the copyright, then you're covered, but a lot of people don't understand that physical ownership does not grant reproduction rights.   Thus indigenous communities have grounds to sue designers who rip off their designs (and that one is way complicated since traditional designs may be centuries old).   This is also implicit in the distinction between taking photos of people for tourist memories and taking photos of people for commercial gain. 

[Phillip]

1 hour ago, Rebecca Ore said:

 

Owning the physical copy does not mean necessarily owning the right to copy the art.   This is why buying a book doesn't grant the right to scan it and put files up on websites.  Or to reproduce a piece of art or correspondence you bought, though you can sell the original.   If the council owns the copyright, then you're covered, but a lot of people don't understand that physical ownership does not grant reproduction rights.   Thus indigenous communities have grounds to sue designers who rip off their designs (and that one is way complicated since traditional designs may be centuries old).   This is also implicit in the distinction between taking photos of people for tourist memories and taking photos of people for commercial gain. 

Dam like/dislike button, for too easy to press the wrong one.

[Phillip]

On 17/02/2023 at 04:45, Rebecca Ore said:

 

Owning the physical copy does not mean necessarily owning the right to copy the art.   This is why buying a book doesn't grant the right to scan it and put files up on websites.  Or to reproduce a piece of art or correspondence you bought, though you can sell the original.   If the council owns the copyright, then you're covered, but a lot of people don't understand that physical ownership does not grant reproduction rights.   Thus indigenous communities have grounds to sue designers who rip off their designs (and that one is way complicated since traditional designs may be centuries old).   This is also implicit in the distinction between taking photos of people for tourist memories and taking photos of people for commercial gain. 

I understand about books, works of arts in private collections or museums.

 

Works of art, if they are murals or statues created for the purpose of being a tourist attraction in the public domain created a dilemma, they are on public display to attract visitors for example Australia's Silo Art Trail. Many of the Silos are in small towns such as Picola usually not on the tourist route. So in order to attract visitors the art in a particular town needs to be promoted.

 

In order to promote the mural, paintings, and statues images need to be available for people to view and think I need to go and see for myself.  So images of these areas need to be available in order to promote and stimulate tourism for that area.

[Steve F]

Phillip,

Keep it simple, have some people walking past/looking at the work of art. Snap, no copyright problem.

[Rebecca Ore]

6 hours ago, Steve F said:

Phillip,

Keep it simple, have some people walking past/looking at the work of art. Snap, no copyright problem.

 

Copyright allows for using parts of works in other works, also quoting in reviews.   Cut-ups and collages are okay if they're doing more than just copying another work.