7 ms·

I wonder how the photographer would feel if the company that manufactured the trumpet played by Miles Davis had claimed that his photograph violated the copyrig

I wonder how the photographer would feel if the company that manufactured the trumpet played by Miles Davis had claimed that his photograph violated the copyright of their "sculpture" and the tailor Miles got his suit from also protested. Of all art forms, photography has some of the least claim on being an entirely original creation of the artist.

kenjackson 15y ago
You'd be surprised how often stuff like that happens. It's not uncommon for "artists" to sue for their works being caught on film. And in many cases this art is on public display, for example, in a park.
- Lagged2Death 15y ago
  And in general, those artists are laughed right out of court, as they should be. A photo of a sculpture is in no way a substitute for the sculpture. The pixel art is in no way a substitute for the original photo, either.
  - jellicle 15y ago
    > those artists are laughed right out of court Not at all. ALL architectural works constructed after 1990 are now copyrighted in the U.S., so any photography of any vaguely new buildings/structures is an infringement. (Sculptures have long been protected.) Give it another 50 years and it won't be possible to legally take a photograph outdoors in any location where humans have built anything. Since I'm certain people will downvote or post snarky "CITATION???" comments without googling, here's your preemptive cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_th...
    - slapshot 15y ago
      > so any photography of any vaguely new buildings/structures is an infringement. (Sculptures have long been protected.) Give it another 50 years and it won't be possible to legally take a photograph outdoors in any location where humans have built anything. Total misunderstanding of how copyright in architecture works. If you build a new building, I can't copy your design and build an identical building across the street. But I can take all the photos I want of it. From _your own link_: "First, when a building is ordinarily visible from a public place, its protection as an 'architectural work' does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work. The architect will not be able to prevent people from taking photographs or otherwise producing pictorial representations of the building."
      - mikey_p 15y ago
        It's actually incredibly common to extend -copyright- CORRECTION: trademark, status to include pictures of architectural works. For example, just google around to find examples such as the Sydney Opera House, Seattle Space Needle, or Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. All of these have been upheld even, and I have personally seen security at the Rock and Roll hall of fame threaten a photographer with a SLR and tripod that was standing on public property near the building. And yes, it's utterly disgusting.
        Lagged2Death 15y ago
        It's actually incredibly common to extend trademark status to include pictures of architectural works. For example, just google around to find examples such as ... Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I don't know about the other examples, but the Rock Hall lost that battle: http://www.gentilephoto.com/html/bio_frame.htm http://www.gentilephoto.com/html/bio_frame.htm As it happens, I live nearby, and I've used my big black camera and tripod on the premises many times without incident. The security guards have always been friendly to me. I think the overall trend of wealthy organizations and individuals attempting to broaden their intellectual property holdings this way is a symptom of the way high litigation costs result in asymmetric access to the legal system. The Rock Hall (or Jay Maisel) can afford to litigate forever. I'd be utterly ruined by even a single lawsuit.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- HoyaSaxa 15y ago
  KenJackson is very right. The tattoo artist that inked Mike Tyson's face, is suing "The Hangover 2" for Stan's facial tattoo. I know a post-production house employee that is tasked with changing Stan's facial tattoo frame by frame so that the artist cannot claim infringement on the DVD sales. Very sad how easy it is to make a fortune off the legal system.
  - white_devil 15y ago
    That's disgusting. Only in America.
teach 15y ago
I have no way of knowing if you've ever dabbed in photography, but I have; taking a good photo is alarmingly difficult.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  Difficulty is not originality.
  - varjag 15y ago
    Originality though is difficult.

kenjackson 15y ago

You'd be surprised how often stuff like that happens. It's not uncommon for "artists" to sue for their works being caught on film. And in many cases this art is on public display, for example, in a park.

Lagged2Death 15y ago
And in general, those artists are laughed right out of court, as they should be. A photo of a sculpture is in no way a substitute for the sculpture. The pixel art is in no way a substitute for the original photo, either.
- jellicle 15y ago
  > those artists are laughed right out of court Not at all. ALL architectural works constructed after 1990 are now copyrighted in the U.S., so any photography of any vaguely new buildings/structures is an infringement. (Sculptures have long been protected.) Give it another 50 years and it won't be possible to legally take a photograph outdoors in any location where humans have built anything. Since I'm certain people will downvote or post snarky "CITATION???" comments without googling, here's your preemptive cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_th...
  - slapshot 15y ago
    > so any photography of any vaguely new buildings/structures is an infringement. (Sculptures have long been protected.) Give it another 50 years and it won't be possible to legally take a photograph outdoors in any location where humans have built anything. Total misunderstanding of how copyright in architecture works. If you build a new building, I can't copy your design and build an identical building across the street. But I can take all the photos I want of it. From _your own link_: "First, when a building is ordinarily visible from a public place, its protection as an 'architectural work' does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work. The architect will not be able to prevent people from taking photographs or otherwise producing pictorial representations of the building."
    - mikey_p 15y ago
      It's actually incredibly common to extend -copyright- CORRECTION: trademark, status to include pictures of architectural works. For example, just google around to find examples such as the Sydney Opera House, Seattle Space Needle, or Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. All of these have been upheld even, and I have personally seen security at the Rock and Roll hall of fame threaten a photographer with a SLR and tripod that was standing on public property near the building. And yes, it's utterly disgusting.
      - Lagged2Death 15y ago
        It's actually incredibly common to extend trademark status to include pictures of architectural works. For example, just google around to find examples such as ... Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I don't know about the other examples, but the Rock Hall lost that battle: http://www.gentilephoto.com/html/bio_frame.htm http://www.gentilephoto.com/html/bio_frame.htm As it happens, I live nearby, and I've used my big black camera and tripod on the premises many times without incident. The security guards have always been friendly to me. I think the overall trend of wealthy organizations and individuals attempting to broaden their intellectual property holdings this way is a symptom of the way high litigation costs result in asymmetric access to the legal system. The Rock Hall (or Jay Maisel) can afford to litigate forever. I'd be utterly ruined by even a single lawsuit.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
HoyaSaxa 15y ago
KenJackson is very right. The tattoo artist that inked Mike Tyson's face, is suing "The Hangover 2" for Stan's facial tattoo. I know a post-production house employee that is tasked with changing Stan's facial tattoo frame by frame so that the artist cannot claim infringement on the DVD sales. Very sad how easy it is to make a fortune off the legal system.
- white_devil 15y ago
  That's disgusting. Only in America.

teach 15y ago

I have no way of knowing if you've ever dabbed in photography, but I have; taking a good photo is alarmingly difficult.

pavel_lishin 15y ago
Difficulty is not originality.
- varjag 15y ago
  Originality though is difficult.