spacecadet Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I don't want to get into a technical argument but there are specific criminal offences in the Act and simply using a photograph without permission isn't one. More is required. It's section 107 if you're interested. i agree it's wrong, but it's a civil wrong. A criminal offence requires intent and a guilty mind. The small claims procedure is usually sufficient to deal with what we're talking about. The aboriginal painting chap might just creep over the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Small point of order Martin. The cash in our wallets belongs to BoE not us. We are only borrowing what amounts to documented credits or obligations. Allan PS Sorry not meaning to detract from OP. Agree that perpetrators should be held accountable and brought to justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I wondered who might pick up on that. Actually paper money, at least, is (was) an IOU and has no real intrinsic value. The shrapnel (coins) has little value, intrinsic or otherwise, except in aggregation of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila Smart Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 What I do not understand is why galleries knowingly exhibit "painters" work which are clearly derivatives of photographs and do not question the "painter" if he or she has the written permission from the photographer and morally they should also request an attribution for each piece. But they apparently do not. It would be an interesting exercise to research if they are also guilty of copyright infringement by hanging the derivatives. But that is for another post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Not just for hanging, but they might be if the paintings were offered for sale. However you might not be awarded damages unless they sold something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyn Llun Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Under UK copyright law it is breach of copyright to copy the features of an image so that it is substantially identifiable in any medium and in any dimension. So even a 3d sculpture or ceramic copy of a photograph if it can be clearly identified is a breach. I do know about these things as I was a member of a committee of artists in the early 1980's that advised on the change to the then existing copyright law to the one that exists now. The previous law was not too favourable towards photographers so I was able, as the photographer member of that committee, to exert some pressure on behalf of all photographers. This is why I am so diligent in protecting those hard fought for rights on behalf of not only myself but all photographers. We should all do the same, every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Under UK copyright law it is breach of copyright to copy the features of an image so that it is substantially identifiable in any medium and in any dimension. So even a 3d sculpture or ceramic copy of a photograph if it can be clearly identified is a breach. I do know about these things as I was a member of a committee of artists in the early 1980's that advised on the change to the then existing copyright law to the one that exists now. The previous law was not too favourable towards photographers so I was able, as the photographer member of that committee, to exert some pressure on behalf of all photographers. This is why I am so diligent in protecting those hard fought for rights on behalf of not only myself but all photographers. We should all do the same, every time. My husband took a famous shot connected with the Oklahoma City bombing. People came out of the woodwork with paintings, sculptures, buttons, etc. our copyright attorney handled them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Under UK copyright law it is breach of copyright to copy the features of an image so that it is substantially identifiable in any medium and in any dimension. So even a 3d sculpture or ceramic copy of a photograph if it can be clearly identified is a breach. Isn't there a parody exemption to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Ages ago I went after a well known artists that copied via projector one of my iconic photos(yes,have a couple of those at least) and sold it for $20,000 at a gallery and used it in ads,etc. I went after him via his management company and collected a really decent sum. That was decades ago and on my own;pre-internet. How did I know? I was invited to the exhibit,LOL!L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Under UK copyright law it is breach of copyright to copy the features of an image so that it is substantially identifiable in any medium and in any dimension. So even a 3d sculpture or ceramic copy of a photograph if it can be clearly identified is a breach. Isn't there a parody exemption to that? Yes there is but it has to have be significant input from the "artist" and it has to be clearly different. A parody is very different from a copy with a few details changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 In this particular case the artist asked permission. This artist is one of the good guys. It is a good news story. So why all the angst? The photographer can say yes, no, or yes with a fee and conditions. Can't get any better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila Smart Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 In this particular case the artist asked permission. This artist is one of the good guys. It is a good news story. So why all the angst? The photographer can say yes, no, or yes with a fee and conditions. Can't get any better than that. In my particular case, Bill, the artist also asked (for two images out of the six he used) but then conveniently forgot about the condition of non-commercial use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ernest Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 The painter is from Bulgaria. He paints landscapes in a realistic way. No place for imagination, creativity. It seems that these paintings are the reproduction as accurate as possible as what he has seen ( whether real scenery or photograph). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Richmond Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 http://petapixel.com/2015/01/21/renowned-belgian-painter-convicted-plagiarism-basing-portrait-photo/#more-156317 I make no comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila Smart Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I have just realised, after doing some research via Google, how easy it is to transfer a photograph on to canvas. All one has to do is arrange the copying of a photograph on to clear plastic and place it in a projector, overhead or otherwise. Voila! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.