Author Topic: RF Photos of Statues- General Rules (Read 6915 times)

tab62 · « **on:** April 24, 2012, 13:22 »

Howdy MSG Folks-

I've been informed that Statues cannot be sold as RF for the general rule of thumb- basically something about commissioned work 1976 rule. I really don't want to get sued so can anyone enlighten me on the general rules?

Thank you.

Tom

RacePhoto · « **Reply #1 on:** April 24, 2012, 14:59 »

Quote from: tab62 on April 24, 2012, 13:22

Howdy MSG Folks-

I've been informed that Statues cannot be sold as RF for the general rule of thumb- basically something about commissioned work 1976 rule. I really don't want to get sued so can anyone enlighten me on the general rules?

Thank you.

Tom

Agency rules or actual laws?

When was the statue made. If you are being specific and it's after 1976 - the artist owns all rights. The hook was that people used to buy a painting and then owned all the rights to future reproduction. Since the change, the artist is only selling the work of art, not the reproduction, prints, models, whatever, unless they also sell the rights to that as well.

Further Reading - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html

Here's what you are looking for?

"The mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other work does not give the possessor of that work its copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey the copyright or any interest in the copyright. This remains in the possession of the creator and is often referred to as the underlying artist’s copyright, distinct from the physical object which embodies it."

"In the case of works “made for hire”, where an artist has created the work while in his/her capacity of employee, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author and copyright holder."

Did that help? Without knowing how the statue was created, if it was sold, but the rights are still held by the artist, or if he was an employee. Commissioned work the artist retains rights, unless otherwise stated. In other words, your simple question is fairly complex. You need to know who actually owns the rights, not just who owns the art object. The agencies can't spend time investigating each individual work of art, so chances are, it's easier to just say no.

steheap · « **Reply #2 on:** April 24, 2012, 15:08 »

On a practical matter, you can continue to submit images to the stock sites - as long as you don't claim that you have a property release. Different agencies handle it differently. Sometimes I get asked to resubmit as Editorial, 123RF automatically makes it editorial, iStock takes quite a range of things as editorial, others take it as is, and leave the responsibility with the user of the image, so all is not lost if you have an interesting statue.

I believe that the responsibility for using an image always rests with the person that publishes it, not the photographer. That isn't to say that you won't get "Take down" emails, but the use of the image is the key determinant as to whether it breaches the copyright of the original sculptor. Use in an article discussing the statue is fair use, use of the statue to sell a piece of clothing is not.

Steve

tab62 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 24, 2012, 18:22 »

I just did a check up on the history of the statue that I submitted yesterday- Guess I better take it down?

This bronze statue was commissioned by the Victoria Environmental Enhancement Foundation
and was unveiled on July 12, 1976 by the Honourable Bill Bennett, the Premier of the Province of British Columbia.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** April 24, 2012, 18:30 »

Quote from: tab62 on April 24, 2012, 18:22

I just did a check up on the history of the statue that I submitted yesterday- Guess I better take it down?

This bronze statue was commissioned by the Victoria Environmental Enhancement Foundation
and was unveiled on July 12, 1976 by the Honourable Bill Bennett, the Premier of the Province of British Columbia.

Definitely take it down if you haven't designated it as editorial.

tab62 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 24, 2012, 20:57 »

Just made it!

The effective date of this provision was October 19, 1976

RacePhoto · « **Reply #6 on:** April 25, 2012, 14:06 »

Quote from: tab62 on April 24, 2012, 20:57

Just made it!

The effective date of this provision was October 19, 1976

That still doesn't make it public domain or available as Rights Free, it just means the protection went into effect then. There still could be a contract that says the artist owns the rights, or BC owns the rights, or possibly it is public domain if taxpayer dollars bought it and it's owned by the public.

Editorial is the safe answer, unless you want to go research who really owns all rights to the statue.

The only free pass in copyright is Before 1923 in the US, because they expired. Everything else, you need to look at on an individual basis. A 1976 statue especially, someone owns the copyright! (if there is one)

tab62 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 25, 2012, 14:10 »

Better safe than sorry for sure.

bunhill · « **Reply #8 on:** April 25, 2012, 14:23 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on April 25, 2012, 14:06

The only free pass in copyright is Before 1923 in the US, because they expired.

With the potential exception of anything first published or seen outside of the US. And, anyhow, still no good for RF stock which is by its nature international since copyright may still exist or have been renewed in other jurisdictions.

cascoly · « **Reply #9 on:** April 25, 2012, 14:29 »

from today's NY Times

Art Is Long; Copyrights Can Even Be Longer

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/arts/design/artists-rights-society-vaga-and-intellectual-property.html?_r=1&ref=arts

RacePhoto · « **Reply #10 on:** April 25, 2012, 14:33 »

Quote from: bhr on April 25, 2012, 14:23

Quote from: RacePhoto on April 25, 2012, 14:06
The only free pass in copyright is Before 1923 in the US, because they expired.

With the potential exception of anything first published or seen outside of the US. And, anyhow, still no good for RF stock which is by its nature international since copyright may still exist or have been renewed in other jurisdictions.

And not forgetting that property rights may also apply.

True, so maybe I'd be safe saying, there is no Free Lunch? LOL

You are so correct but even those like France with 70 years after the death of the artist, would fall into the general 1923 is free Generalization, as long as people died before 1942. (and then there's some 100 years rule if they died during wartime!) I'm not sure I know someplace else that is over 90 years copyright otherwise. Do you? We're at 89 right now for 1923. Point well taken, first published elsewhere, there could still be copyright protection.

Let me go back to the specific question about statues. Make them Editorial, unless you have proof otherwise. That means the only safe assumption is, that the statue is protected, unless it's created in the US and from before 1923.

Here's more from French Law:

For phonographic works, the proprietary rights last for 50 years after the date of recording.
In addition, posthumous works are copyrighted 25 years from the year of publication.

This is always why people practice law as a specialty only working on copyright and trademark protection.

Anyka · « **Reply #11 on:** April 25, 2012, 14:54 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on April 25, 2012, 14:33

You are so correct but even those like France with 70 years, would fall into the general 1923 is free Generalization. I'm not sure I know someplace that is over 90 years copyright. Do you? We're at 89 right now for 1923. Point well taken, first published elsewhere, there could still be copyright protection.

I thought European laws say 70 or 75 years after the death of the artist, not after the creation of the piece of art. At least that's how it is in Belgium : 75 years after the death of the artist. So if the statue was created by a very young European artist in 1910, and he died in 1960 or so, copyright would only expire in 2035 ...

heywoody · « **Reply #12 on:** April 25, 2012, 15:04 »

So the statue of david is probably safe??

RacePhoto · « **Reply #13 on:** April 25, 2012, 15:46 »

Quote from: Anyka on April 25, 2012, 14:54

Quote from: RacePhoto on April 25, 2012, 14:33
You are so correct but even those like France with 70 years, would fall into the general 1923 is free Generalization. I'm not sure I know someplace that is over 90 years copyright. Do you? We're at 89 right now for 1923. Point well taken, first published elsewhere, there could still be copyright protection.

I thought European laws say 70 or 75 years after the death of the artist, not after the creation of the piece of art. At least that's how it is in Belgium : 75 years after the death of the artist. So if the statue was created by a very young European artist in 1910, and he died in 1960 or so, copyright would only expire in 2035 ...

Yes, I was correcting at the same time you were writing. Oops!

You can see I made the change two minutes before your correction, but since we were both doing it at the same time. Hey, that's computers?

Yes, ## years after the death of the artist, and the new US laws have come in line with that. Just that they couldn't go retroactive on things which had already become PD. There's also some time space continuum warp thing

, where images from 1924 and on, that were supposed to go into PD, are now on hold, for the laws to catch up with the new laws. What a mess.

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** April 25, 2012, 17:22 »

Quote from: heywoody on April 25, 2012, 15:04

So the statue of david is probably safe??

It's in a museum, so probably not; but there are at least two copies in Florence and no doubt many others around the place.
That said, there are several purporting to be (and, indeed, seeming to be) the real David in the Accademia in the main iStock collection. Ironically, if submitted to the editorial collection, they'd require a location permission in writing.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #15 on:** April 26, 2012, 13:56 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 25, 2012, 17:22

Quote from: heywoody on April 25, 2012, 15:04
So the statue of david is probably safe??

It's in a museum, so probably not; but there are at least two copies in Florence and no doubt many others around the place.
That said, there are several purporting to be (and, indeed, seeming to be) the real David in the Accademia in the main iStock collection. Ironically, if submitted to the editorial collection, they'd require a location permission in writing.

Yes I believe it's safe...

You know what I keep forgetting? So what if it gets accepted. Almost no one is going to buy some new one on page 10 anyway? Might as well be shooting sliced vegetables on a cutting board. Have fun, but statues are pretty much covered and a waste of time. (it will bring your RPI down?

)

IS search, "Statue of David" 475 results. The first one has four downloads. Just the head 30 and a really nice isolated on black version does best, while the ISO on white sells less.

jpg upload