Complete the form below to post a message

Original Message "Copyright of a Public Art - Who owns it?" Posted by Ilia on 14-Aug-02 at 10:45 AM > Dear all, > > I have a problem. When someone takes a photograph of a public > monument new or old, then creates a brochure or publication. Has the > photographer or the person who commissioned the photogragher the > right to reproduce this picture or do they have to seek permission > from the local state council or artist to reproduce the photograph of > the public monument. > Once a Public monument is created and in public view who owns the > copyright? > Or can anyone make gain or profit what is essentially public? Copyright in general is a civil , not a criminal issue. So, regardless of your rights to the ownership of the intellectual property contained in your sculpture, you must prosecute your rights establish them] in the civil court system. Calling 911 does not connect to the Copyright Police. <"There's a dead copyright on the landing."> Hire a lawyer. Furthermore, if you feel that your intellectual property rights have been stolen, you must prove your damages - that the entity that photographed your work stole something of value from you by reproducing your work in a photo. The counter argument can be made that by publicizing your work, you received a benefit in exposure - free advertising. You might have damages if a photograph appeared on a poster for sale that featured your name prominently and representation of your work]. That is why lawyers make the big bucks- to construct convincing arguments to get money. My opinion is that once a work is in the public domain, the only protection you have is against people actually replicating your sculpture and calling it their own work. Then, you could only expect to receive their profit from their action. In British Columbia, a new, architecturally exciting waterfront convention centre was built. Their lawyers asserted copyright over every photograph of the waterfront of Vancouver featuring this structure. It didn't get very far. I sympathize with your anger and pain. But the fight to retain control over intellectual property is a fight best undertaken by rich guys against guys with lots of dough. For instance, if you are rich, you would do better suing George Harrison over some lyrics. Dwight "licensed to be cynical" Atkinson, MAIBC Canada's Funniest Architect Architect Atkinson Iconography Studio Incorporated 2243 West 47 Avenue, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6M 2M8 fax: 604-266-7342 voice: 604-266-7322 _____________________________ I have received this article from the PubArt mail list that I subscribe to and decided to share it with you.

Go back     FAQ       Conferences Post form Your Message Name*: Subject*: Message*:   HTML Ok Use [] in place of <> HTML Reference   Images Ok   Click on a smilie to add it to your message.   >> Dear all, >> >> I have a problem. When someone takes a photograph of a public >> monument new or old, then creates a brochure or publication. Has the >> photographer or the person who commissioned the photogragher the >> right to reproduce this picture or do they have to seek permission >> from the local state council or artist to reproduce the photograph of >> the public monument. >> Once a Public monument is created and in public view who owns the >> copyright? >> Or can anyone make gain or profit what is essentially public? > >Copyright in general is a civil , not a criminal >issue. So, regardless of >your rights to the ownership of the intellectual >property contained in your >sculpture, you must prosecute your rights [and >claim damages, if you can >establish them] in the civil court system. > >Calling 911 does not connect to the Copyright >Police. >["There's a dead copyright on the landing."] >Hire a lawyer. > >Furthermore, if you feel that your intellectual >property rights have been >stolen, you must prove your damages - that the >entity that photographed your >work stole something of value from you by >reproducing your work in a photo. > >The counter argument can be made that by >publicizing your work, you received >a benefit in exposure - free advertising. > >You might have damages if a photograph appeared >on a poster for sale that >featured your name prominently [falsely implying >that you endorse this image >and representation of your work]. That is why >lawyers make the big bucks- to >construct convincing arguments to get money. > >My opinion is that once a work is in the public >domain, the only protection >you have is against people actually replicating >your sculpture and calling >it their own work. Then, you could only expect >to receive their profit from >their action. > >In British Columbia, a new, architecturally >exciting waterfront convention >centre was built. Their lawyers asserted >copyright over every photograph of >the waterfront of Vancouver featuring this >structure. It didn't get very >far. > >I sympathize with your anger and pain. But the >fight to retain control over >intellectual property is a fight best undertaken >by rich guys against guys >with lots of dough. For instance, if you are >rich, you would do better suing >George Harrison over some lyrics. > >Dwight "licensed to be cynical" Atkinson, MAIBC > >Canada's Funniest Architect > >Architect Atkinson Iconography Studio >Incorporated >2243 West 47 Avenue, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6M >2M8 >fax: 604-266-7342 voice: 604-266-7322 > >_____________________________ > >I have received this article from the PubArt >mail list that I subscribe to and decided to >share it with you. Check if you DO NOT wish to use emotion icons in your message

Powered by DCForum Version 6.22
© 1997-2002 DCScripts. All rights reserved.

Take Advantage of the Free Shipping!