Group Since Aug 28, 2005
Drag to set position!
Share
jmblackie
Posted 18 years ago
Below is the text of a topic originally posted in the "Beware of Thief" group. ( www.flickr.com/groups/beware/discuss/72157602159483854/ ) Are we breaking a law in photographing art for display on the internet?
Is this an anomaly or a frightening new trend?
I received a message from Flickr Customer Care accusing me of copyright infringement. I pasted the original message below. They promptly removed my photo and told me I risked having my account closed if it happened again!
Let me be clear; the photo was mine, taken with my Canon S3 at a museum I frequent, of a sculpture I photographed many times. The photo has all my info in the exif info box, it is one of a series I took of not just the museum, but of that particular work of art, The Avenger. I have the original (bad) photo and the Photoshopped image I posted.
Even in a court of law there is the presumption of innocence - but I was branded a thief, and had a wrist slapped along with the insult to my integrity. I am waiting for instruction on how to rectify this insult, but the damage to me is done. Why are we not contacted for further information BEFORE the insult and removal? What if ALL my photos were challenged? What's going on here? Even if this Anja
Maslankowski did suspect my theft, and chose NOT to inform me (which seems the correct way to address this.. jut ASK me about it) - why does Flickr jump the gun without any prior contact? I'm tempted to close my damn account and demand a refund!
----------- paste ------------------------
Hello, januaryman!
This is an automatically generated copy of a warning we sent to your primary email address:
-------------------------
Dear januaryman,
We have received a Notice of Infringement from Anja
Maslankowski via the Yahoo! Copyright Team and have removed
the photo "Don't Turn Your Back on the Avenger 2" from your
photostream.
Subsequent NOIs filed against your account will result in
further action that may include termination without
warning.
If you believe that you were designated by mistake or
misidentification, or if you believe that you have not
infringed the copyright, you may submit a sworn
counter-notification as to the mistake or
misidentification. Please contact the Yahoo! Copyright Team
for more information on this process:
docs.yahoo.com/info/copyright/copyright.html
- Flickr Team
-------------------------
If you'd like to respond to this warning, please send the email to case358699@support.flickr.com to ensure a timely response.
Posted at 8:46AM, 26 September 2007 EDT ( permalink | edit )
view photos
januaryman Pro User says:
UPDATE--
I decided to do some sleuthing on the internet - apparently my copyright infringement accusation is based on the premise that I took a photo of a sculpture, and my photo was the infringement. In other words, I cannot take a photo of Ernst Barlach's work and display it on the internet (even though I gained nothing and merely expressed my admiration of the work). A similar situation happened here:
translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http...
So the question is this - is my photo of a sculpture an infringement of copyright and theft of intellectual property? Are we are prohibited from sharing our admiration for art work by representing it in a photo? Is this absurd? Is no one allowed to see a statue or sculpture unless they visit the locale where it is being exhibited? Apparently Anja Maslankowski is on a hunt for displays of his work and either stop it from being represented, or receiving remuneration for its appearance in a photo.
Is this what the art world had to look forward to? What's the impact on all art? I do not understand this. But all my photos that include this artist will be removed from my stream. Will I eventually have to remove ANY photo of ANY artwork?
What do you think?
Opinions?
Is this an anomaly or a frightening new trend?
I received a message from Flickr Customer Care accusing me of copyright infringement. I pasted the original message below. They promptly removed my photo and told me I risked having my account closed if it happened again!
Let me be clear; the photo was mine, taken with my Canon S3 at a museum I frequent, of a sculpture I photographed many times. The photo has all my info in the exif info box, it is one of a series I took of not just the museum, but of that particular work of art, The Avenger. I have the original (bad) photo and the Photoshopped image I posted.
Even in a court of law there is the presumption of innocence - but I was branded a thief, and had a wrist slapped along with the insult to my integrity. I am waiting for instruction on how to rectify this insult, but the damage to me is done. Why are we not contacted for further information BEFORE the insult and removal? What if ALL my photos were challenged? What's going on here? Even if this Anja
Maslankowski did suspect my theft, and chose NOT to inform me (which seems the correct way to address this.. jut ASK me about it) - why does Flickr jump the gun without any prior contact? I'm tempted to close my damn account and demand a refund!
----------- paste ------------------------
Hello, januaryman!
This is an automatically generated copy of a warning we sent to your primary email address:
-------------------------
Dear januaryman,
We have received a Notice of Infringement from Anja
Maslankowski via the Yahoo! Copyright Team and have removed
the photo "Don't Turn Your Back on the Avenger 2" from your
photostream.
Subsequent NOIs filed against your account will result in
further action that may include termination without
warning.
If you believe that you were designated by mistake or
misidentification, or if you believe that you have not
infringed the copyright, you may submit a sworn
counter-notification as to the mistake or
misidentification. Please contact the Yahoo! Copyright Team
for more information on this process:
docs.yahoo.com/info/copyright/copyright.html
- Flickr Team
-------------------------
If you'd like to respond to this warning, please send the email to case358699@support.flickr.com to ensure a timely response.
Posted at 8:46AM, 26 September 2007 EDT ( permalink | edit )
view photos
januaryman Pro User says:
UPDATE--
I decided to do some sleuthing on the internet - apparently my copyright infringement accusation is based on the premise that I took a photo of a sculpture, and my photo was the infringement. In other words, I cannot take a photo of Ernst Barlach's work and display it on the internet (even though I gained nothing and merely expressed my admiration of the work). A similar situation happened here:
translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http...
So the question is this - is my photo of a sculpture an infringement of copyright and theft of intellectual property? Are we are prohibited from sharing our admiration for art work by representing it in a photo? Is this absurd? Is no one allowed to see a statue or sculpture unless they visit the locale where it is being exhibited? Apparently Anja Maslankowski is on a hunt for displays of his work and either stop it from being represented, or receiving remuneration for its appearance in a photo.
Is this what the art world had to look forward to? What's the impact on all art? I do not understand this. But all my photos that include this artist will be removed from my stream. Will I eventually have to remove ANY photo of ANY artwork?
What do you think?
Opinions?
When you photograph in a museum or art gallery, you need to sign a form that gives you the right to take photographs for personal use.
However, whether Flickr is 'personal use' or 'publishing' I am not sure. So if the original artist or gallery objects, I don't think you can do much about it. I wouldn't want my photos published elsewhere without my permission.
I always try to give details of the artist and the place of exhibition - so that interested parties can make their way there. I regard my giving them free advertising as quid pro quo.
Lastly, I also try to change the nature of the art work, so that my work is an artwork in itself. I call this, "Art from Art".
Mike
However, whether Flickr is 'personal use' or 'publishing' I am not sure. So if the original artist or gallery objects, I don't think you can do much about it. I wouldn't want my photos published elsewhere without my permission.
I always try to give details of the artist and the place of exhibition - so that interested parties can make their way there. I regard my giving them free advertising as quid pro quo.
Lastly, I also try to change the nature of the art work, so that my work is an artwork in itself. I call this, "Art from Art".
Mike
keene creative
Posted 18 years ago
I agree Mike, I'm not sure if it's publishing or personal use. Personally, for me it's personal. I put low-res versions on flickr that would be of absolutely no use anywhere else. I consider it personal use as I use flickr as a learning tool and so is my photography at this point.
I think this is where the Terms of Agreement come in with flickr, in that you cannot sell anything via flickr - this is something of a back-up for photography and confirms that any photos on here are non-commercial.
I think this is where the Terms of Agreement come in with flickr, in that you cannot sell anything via flickr - this is something of a back-up for photography and confirms that any photos on here are non-commercial.
lao_ren100
Posted 18 years ago
As an artist wo has made and exhibited large-scale sculpture all over the place for almost 40 years I have--maybe--some insights here.
Even tho it's actions seem abrupt, Flickr's motivation is clear: it wants to prevent itself from being sued for copyright infringement, something that happens with great regularity. In many cases museums and artists will preserve rights to reproduction so as to make money from the photos, prints, postcards, whatever, of the work.
Personally I've always felt that when I put a piece into a public space it belongs to the public and they are welcome to take and publish (as on Flickr) all the photos they want. Galleries and museums are different: both have an interest in limiting images of the works so as to preserve it's rarity value (in part) and to guarantee to the artist an accurate (and flattering) presentation of his/her work.
My own ethic: if it's in a park or in front of a building , shoot it!
Even tho it's actions seem abrupt, Flickr's motivation is clear: it wants to prevent itself from being sued for copyright infringement, something that happens with great regularity. In many cases museums and artists will preserve rights to reproduction so as to make money from the photos, prints, postcards, whatever, of the work.
Personally I've always felt that when I put a piece into a public space it belongs to the public and they are welcome to take and publish (as on Flickr) all the photos they want. Galleries and museums are different: both have an interest in limiting images of the works so as to preserve it's rarity value (in part) and to guarantee to the artist an accurate (and flattering) presentation of his/her work.
My own ethic: if it's in a park or in front of a building , shoot it!
R/DV/RS
Posted 18 years ago
As a general rule (and I'm not a lawyer), in Common Law countries (former British ones), you have every right to publish two-dimensional photographs of publicly-displayed three-dimensional artworks. That's buildings, sculptures, plantings and so forth. You are creating a derivative work, but one that you control the copyright on: the works are not under licence.
You don't have the right to publish photographs of two-dimensional works for reproduction in two dimensions, as paintings and photographs are almost always specifically licensed or copyright-controlled.
There is an argument (or test case!) to be made about who has the copyright on vandalism and graffiti. And standardised signwork, of which I take many pictures, is generally very hard to copyright in the first place, having no intrinsic creative value.
You don't have the right to publish two-dimensional photographs of three-dimensional works where you have paid for entry to see them or have been granted access (in other words entered for free, but entered all the same). This is because the works in question will already be under a licence of some sort and you have to abide by that licence.
You are granted certain rights for 2D works, "fair use" in the US, "fair dealing" in the UK, which allow you to make copies for the purposes of critical commentary or educational-exclusive use. But these don't apply to flickr hosting, which can claim neither.
In Civil Law countries (most of the EU and places not once ruled by the British), your rights are much more circumspect. France and Belgium both have very clear laws on the copyright of derivative works (photographs) of public 3D objects - buildings and sculpture - remaining with the original designer, plus (I think) 75 years after their death. The Belgian laws are officiously enforced, with people publishing photographs of the Atomium in Brussels often getting cease-and-desist letters.
But if you're not in a country where these laws apply, personally I'd ignore them - no Common Law court will even consider an application from a Civil Law court on these matters. But Yahoo!/Flickr and similar multinationals *do* have to consider them, deciding whether to act or not based on their local business models. Even Google has been fined by the Belgian courts for including short excerpts of articles "without permission". Ludicrous! But the choice is: comply and continue operating there, or don't comply and make no further money there. The multinationals will go for the money. It's the American way.
You don't have the right to publish photographs of two-dimensional works for reproduction in two dimensions, as paintings and photographs are almost always specifically licensed or copyright-controlled.
There is an argument (or test case!) to be made about who has the copyright on vandalism and graffiti. And standardised signwork, of which I take many pictures, is generally very hard to copyright in the first place, having no intrinsic creative value.
You don't have the right to publish two-dimensional photographs of three-dimensional works where you have paid for entry to see them or have been granted access (in other words entered for free, but entered all the same). This is because the works in question will already be under a licence of some sort and you have to abide by that licence.
You are granted certain rights for 2D works, "fair use" in the US, "fair dealing" in the UK, which allow you to make copies for the purposes of critical commentary or educational-exclusive use. But these don't apply to flickr hosting, which can claim neither.
In Civil Law countries (most of the EU and places not once ruled by the British), your rights are much more circumspect. France and Belgium both have very clear laws on the copyright of derivative works (photographs) of public 3D objects - buildings and sculpture - remaining with the original designer, plus (I think) 75 years after their death. The Belgian laws are officiously enforced, with people publishing photographs of the Atomium in Brussels often getting cease-and-desist letters.
But if you're not in a country where these laws apply, personally I'd ignore them - no Common Law court will even consider an application from a Civil Law court on these matters. But Yahoo!/Flickr and similar multinationals *do* have to consider them, deciding whether to act or not based on their local business models. Even Google has been fined by the Belgian courts for including short excerpts of articles "without permission". Ludicrous! But the choice is: comply and continue operating there, or don't comply and make no further money there. The multinationals will go for the money. It's the American way.
possible boat [deleted]
Posted 17 years ago
I also got a rude letter from Yahoo team about enfringement of copyrights - and also about Barlach - in my case Cenotaph in Magdeburg Cathedral. Found this discussion and decided to write to her - it took few clicks to find her on internet.
" Dear Madame!
I have received the note of copyright infringement from Flickr Customer care concerning pictures of Ernst Barlach’s Magdeburg Cenotaph which I believed to be a public piece of art in public domain.
At the time of my visit to Magdeburg earlier this year, there was no any warning forbidding photography of the sculpture and I was one of many, taking pictures of the Memorial in question. There was no any information about limitation of use of the pictures taken, or about your organisation, holding copyrights of the sculpture, which would alert me against posting of these pictures on internet on Flickr.
Being a Director of an organisation, which produce and exhibit kinetic sculptures, I cannot imagine situation, when photography of a sculpture on public display is allowed and then NOI filled against person posting the picture on internet.
Even if posting of this pictures on Flickr was an infringement of your copyrights it was not intentional. Instead of filling NOI you could easy send me Flickr-mail or e-mail, alerting me of legal situation. Judging by discussion on Flickr sculpture group, I am not the first whom you hurt without any necessity..
In my view, by this kind of actions, you actually prevent promoting works of the great sculptor
Personally, I posted these pictures on internet with the aim to let more of our fans and supporters learn about Barlach, whose exhibition at the Hermitage in 1970s was an inspiration for our artistic director sculptor-mechanic Eduard Bersudsky.
It was especially unpleasant for me to receive this rude NOI at the time I am working on our new catalogue where this influence has been mentioned. Even a small image next to the name in this catalogue would mean that 5000 more people in different countries would learn about Barlach who is not yet as popular as he deserved, but do you think I would like to ask you about anything after you was so rude to me?
I think you owe me an apology"
"
Next morning got a nice answer from her:
Dear Tatyana Jakovskaya
Thank you for your e-mail of May 21 2008. We are sorry that Yahoo! has sent you so harsh a message. We would have preferred to contact you directly - however, in view of so many pictures published on flickr.com we simply cannot do it.
Maybe it will help you to know that works here do not enter the public domain until 70 years after the artist's death. Due to international copyright agreements this applies to any copyrighted material. If you wish to publish works by Ernst Barlach free of charge, you will be able to do so from January 1 2009.
I am afraid that we are not in a position to advise the church administration or Yahoo!, whose terms you must have agreed to before being able to post images on their platform. Yahoo! obviously feel forced to react the way they do, for whatever reasons, probably in order to protect themselves with regard to legal effect. Perhaps you might notify them of your feelings and suggest that they should strike a kinder note. Please be assured that their unfriendliness was not provoked by us - their 'notification of infringement' is a default form which is only accepted by Yahoo! if filled in without making any alterations whatsoever.
Sincerely yours
Anja Maslankowski
Ernst Barlach Lizenzverwaltung
GmbH & Co. KG
Königsdamm 2
23909 Ratzeburg
GERMANY
tel: Ø 45 41 - 75 31
fax no: Ø 45 41 - 8 33 03
www.ernst-barlach.com
I hope it makes situation clear.
I will post my pics of Barlach back to the Flickr (and this group) in January.
" Dear Madame!
I have received the note of copyright infringement from Flickr Customer care concerning pictures of Ernst Barlach’s Magdeburg Cenotaph which I believed to be a public piece of art in public domain.
At the time of my visit to Magdeburg earlier this year, there was no any warning forbidding photography of the sculpture and I was one of many, taking pictures of the Memorial in question. There was no any information about limitation of use of the pictures taken, or about your organisation, holding copyrights of the sculpture, which would alert me against posting of these pictures on internet on Flickr.
Being a Director of an organisation, which produce and exhibit kinetic sculptures, I cannot imagine situation, when photography of a sculpture on public display is allowed and then NOI filled against person posting the picture on internet.
Even if posting of this pictures on Flickr was an infringement of your copyrights it was not intentional. Instead of filling NOI you could easy send me Flickr-mail or e-mail, alerting me of legal situation. Judging by discussion on Flickr sculpture group, I am not the first whom you hurt without any necessity..
In my view, by this kind of actions, you actually prevent promoting works of the great sculptor
Personally, I posted these pictures on internet with the aim to let more of our fans and supporters learn about Barlach, whose exhibition at the Hermitage in 1970s was an inspiration for our artistic director sculptor-mechanic Eduard Bersudsky.
It was especially unpleasant for me to receive this rude NOI at the time I am working on our new catalogue where this influence has been mentioned. Even a small image next to the name in this catalogue would mean that 5000 more people in different countries would learn about Barlach who is not yet as popular as he deserved, but do you think I would like to ask you about anything after you was so rude to me?
I think you owe me an apology"
"
Next morning got a nice answer from her:
Dear Tatyana Jakovskaya
Thank you for your e-mail of May 21 2008. We are sorry that Yahoo! has sent you so harsh a message. We would have preferred to contact you directly - however, in view of so many pictures published on flickr.com we simply cannot do it.
Maybe it will help you to know that works here do not enter the public domain until 70 years after the artist's death. Due to international copyright agreements this applies to any copyrighted material. If you wish to publish works by Ernst Barlach free of charge, you will be able to do so from January 1 2009.
I am afraid that we are not in a position to advise the church administration or Yahoo!, whose terms you must have agreed to before being able to post images on their platform. Yahoo! obviously feel forced to react the way they do, for whatever reasons, probably in order to protect themselves with regard to legal effect. Perhaps you might notify them of your feelings and suggest that they should strike a kinder note. Please be assured that their unfriendliness was not provoked by us - their 'notification of infringement' is a default form which is only accepted by Yahoo! if filled in without making any alterations whatsoever.
Sincerely yours
Anja Maslankowski
Ernst Barlach Lizenzverwaltung
GmbH & Co. KG
Königsdamm 2
23909 Ratzeburg
GERMANY
tel: Ø 45 41 - 75 31
fax no: Ø 45 41 - 8 33 03
www.ernst-barlach.com
I hope it makes situation clear.
I will post my pics of Barlach back to the Flickr (and this group) in January.
adorable grip [deleted]
Posted 17 years ago
I have just posted a link to this discussion in two other groups. I think some of their members may find this discussion of interest.
Photographer's Rights
Licensing Awareness Working (LAW) Group
Photographer's Rights
Licensing Awareness Working (LAW) Group
adorable grip [deleted]
Posted 17 years ago
Edited by adorable grip (member) 17 years ago
Some relevant information from a LAW Group discussion;
flickr.com/groups/lawgroup/discuss/72157602311333165
And also the Help Forum;
flickr.com/groups/lawgroup/discuss/72157602311333165
flickr.com/groups/lawgroup/discuss/72157602311333165
And also the Help Forum;
flickr.com/groups/lawgroup/discuss/72157602311333165
tracX
Posted 17 years ago
Quite interesting discussion, but i'll like to say not all "public open-air monuments" are free of copyright:
- Atomium in Brussels: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomium#Worldwide_copyright_claimed
- Tour Eiffel at nitgh (the lights have copyright): www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/pratique/faq/index.html Question "Is the publishing of a photo of the Eiffel Tower permitted?"
:(
- Atomium in Brussels: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomium#Worldwide_copyright_claimed
- Tour Eiffel at nitgh (the lights have copyright): www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/pratique/faq/index.html Question "Is the publishing of a photo of the Eiffel Tower permitted?"
:(
Stephen Maudsley
Posted 17 years ago
just read this thread with interest as I have a professional interest in other forms of intellectual property... one poster mentioned getting verbal permission - in the UK you cannot be granted a copyright licence orally - it is one of the few (maybe only) contracts that can only be formed in writing
It's helpful to know all these copyright info about publicly displayed arts that I had slightest ideas about it. Well, thank God, there were no copyright issues in ancient Greece, otherwise their masterpieces would have had all lost by Roman time let alone up to now. Well, in the end, peoples' admiration of arts makes these masterpieces immortal while in the process many indeed benefit financially.
jrdnjstn
Posted 15 years ago
I always ask because I'm always afraid to take photos of art or sculptures. I also check the website to see what it says and most of them say that if your a professional photographer then you need to sign some forms. If your photo is not for professional purposes then you can take the picture. If I do happen to see signs that say no photos then I take no photos but sometimes I will still ask because some places don't want you to take flash photos because they say it damages whatever is there.
This is a fascinating subject as are all issues of copyright. I enjoy taking photos of interesting exhibits or statues and then try to give them a different artistic slant on the original piece. It does not replace the feeling of actually being there and in my belief does not take away from the original artist. And I would never think to sell any of that type of photo. It is more of a creative exercise. It would be akin to taking a macro of a flower in an organized garden such as the Butchart Gardens near Victoria, BC. The flowers were arranged by an expert yet captured in a photo to create a secondary piece of art. It is a very complex and intriguing subject.
I post for further thought and discussion an example a statue in the middle of Enumclaw, Washington. Although impressive to look at in person, it has a very different feel in my photographic interpretation of it. It becomes the inspiration for something else.
I post for further thought and discussion an example a statue in the middle of Enumclaw, Washington. Although impressive to look at in person, it has a very different feel in my photographic interpretation of it. It becomes the inspiration for something else.