Question for Archangel

[Stephen]

I was browsing some of the photo galleries the other day and came across an interesting one of Georges (Archangel)

He has one called Artistic

Now I'm not sure what you have done here George, perhaps you could explain, what is your thinking here. Are these photos of paintings, or are they photos that have been given a painterly effect.

Whats the story?

[Archangel]

Re: Question for Archangel

I was browsing some of the photo galleries the other day and came across an interesting one of Georges (Archangel)

He has one called Artistic

Now I'm not sure what you have done here George, perhaps you could explain, what is your thinking here. Are these photos of paintings, or are they photos that have been given a painterly effect.

Whats the story?

Hi Stephen,

Those photos so far in that album are paintings. Soon I'm planning to put real photos made look artistic like those I did in another website for me and foe the website owner and just put under by who the original shot was taken:

http://www.coolpix7900.com/Gallery/thumbnails.php?album=28

Click on images for full size.


Regards

George

[Stephen]

Re: Question for Archangel

Hi Stephen,

Those photos so far in that album are paintings. Soon I'm planning to put real photos made look artistic like those I did in another website for me and foe the website owner and just put under by who the original shot was taken:

http://www.coolpix7900.com/Gallery/thumbnails.php?album=28

Click on images for full size.


Regards

George

So just to clarify the situation here
Are these paintings you have produced, if so I'm impressed.

If not, who is the artist and is it OK for you to post photos of their work.

Just asking you understand, there may be a copyright issue here.

[Archangel]

Re: Question for Archangel

So just to clarify the situation here
Are these paintings you have produced, if so I'm impressed.

If not, who is the artist and is it OK for you to post photos of their work.

Just asking you understand, there may be a copyright issue here.

No, I don't have the ability to paint.
My wife does have great ability in painting but lately (the last 3 years and after she got married with me), she lost her interest in painting or got terribly lazy. Too bad because she was painting great. Hope she starts soon again.

Anyway, these are not her paintings. These are paintings that I find on the street, usually in touristic places and some of them are from normal gallery stores in the streets of Athens. For example, the "sad ballerine" which I'm thinking of buying because the girl looks so real, is from a gallery store and I took this photo at night, behind the glass, applied a lambency filter to make it slightly foggy with mystery and for not to be able to distinguish from a real girl.

There are no copyright issues since all the paintings are exposed to everybody in all places.


Regards

George

[Pol]

Re: Question for Archangel

No, I don't have the ability to paint.
My wife does have great ability in painting but lately (the last 3 years and after she got married with me), she lost her interest in painting or got terribly lazy. Too bad because she was painting great. Hope she starts soon again.

Anyway, these are not her paintings. These are paintings that I find on the street, usually in touristic places and some of them are from normal gallery stores in the streets of Athens. For example, the "sad ballerine" which I'm thinking of buying because the girl looks so real, is from a gallery store and I took this photo at night, behind the glass, applied a lambency filter to make it slightly foggy with mystery and for not to be able to distinguish from a real girl.

There are no copyright issues since all the paintings are exposed to everybody in all places.


Regards

George

In fact - I think there may well be a copyright issue here. The original artist/author has a right to be identified, he also has the right to object to distortions or any alteration of his work.

The fact that someone's work is "exposed to everybody in all places" does not grant the right 'to everybody in all places' to copy, alter, distort or re-publish that work without first seeking the permission of the original artist/author.

For example - the photos and images on DPNow are exposed to everybody in all places - but they may NOT be copied, altered and reposted elsewhere without the permission of the photographer - who owns the copyright.


Pol

[Archangel]

Re: Question for Archangel

In fact - I think there may well be a copyright issue here. The original artist/author has a right to be identified, he also has the right to object to distortions or any alteration of his work.

The fact that someone's work is "exposed to everybody in all places" does not grant the right 'to everybody in all places' to copy, alter, distort or re-publish that work without first seeking the permission of the original artist/author.

For example - the photos and images on DPNow are exposed to everybody in all places - but they may NOT be copied, altered and reposted elsewhere without the permission of the photographer - who owns the copyright.


Pol

Hi Pol,

These are street painting being sold in souvenir and gift stores. Not even the store knows the owner. Everybody takes photos of them, it is not me only.

I think you have slightly misinterpeted the meaning of the word "copyright"
Let me put it this way:

Whenever you post for example a picture of a house is this copyright issue?
Do you need to get permission to post a picture of someone's else house?
It is different to post a picture of a house and it is different to go to sell that house as being the leagl owner of it.
If you come in Greece and take pictures of Parthenon a 5000 year monument and posted on DPNow, will this be consided as of violation of copyright issues? If you go to the touristic places and take pictures of the streets including the stores that have these paintings exposed out in the street will that be copyright issue?

Anyway, the term copyright is different.
If I was claiming that these paintings are mine and if I was trying to sell these paintings like being mine, then you could consider that as a copyright issue. But I don't claiming them being mine, I don't sell them either, I don't have them in my possesion either and I didn't steal them either and these photos are not exactly as the original painting. They are cropped, altered and cannot be originals since it is a partial photo of the entire painting.

So, the meaning of the word "copyright" is not so easy term and applies under specific circumstances.


Regards

George

[Pol]

Re: Question for Archangel

Hi Pol,

These are street painting being sold in souvenir and gift stores. Not even the store knows the owner. Everybody takes photos of them, it is not me only.

I think you have slightly misinterpeted the meaning of the word "copyright"
Let me put it this way:

Whenever you post for example a picture of a house is this copyright issue?
Do you need to get permission to post a picture of someone's else house?
It is different to post a picture of a house and it is different to go to sell that house as being the leagl owner of it.
If you come in Greece and take pictures of Parthenon a 5000 year monument and posted on DPNow, will this be consided as of violation of copyright issues? If you go to the touristic places and take pictures of the streets including the stores that have these paintings exposed out in the street will that be copyright issue?

Anyway, the term copyright is different.
If I was claiming that these paintings are mine and if I was trying to sell these paintings like being mine, then you could consider that as a copyright issue. But I don't claiming them being mine, I don't sell them either, I don't have them in my possesion either and I didn't steal them either and these photos are not exactly as the original painting. They are cropped, altered and cannot be originals since it is a partial photo of the entire painting.

So, the meaning of the word "copyright" is not so easy term and applies under specific circumstances.


Regards

George

George,

I'm now wearing my moderator's hat and suggesting there is doubt as to your right to alter and post some of these images as you don't own the copyright of the original artwork.

I would suggest it might be better if you were to remove anything from the galleries that you do not own outright as leaving them on there may compromise the integrity of the owners and admin staff of the board.

Unless you can produce absolute proof of ownership it's better to be safe than sorry, eh.

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-art.htm

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-photo.htm

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-write.htm

Thank you for your co-operation.

Pol

[Archangel]

Re: Question for Archangel

In fact - I think there may well be a copyright issue here. The original artist/author has a right to be identified, he also has the right to object to distortions or any alteration of his work.

The fact that someone's work is "exposed to everybody in all places" does not grant the right 'to everybody in all places' to copy, alter, distort or re-publish that work without first seeking the permission of the original artist/author.

For example - the photos and images on DPNow are exposed to everybody in all places - but they may NOT be copied, altered and reposted elsewhere without the permission of the photographer - who owns the copyright.


Pol

Anyway,

Copyrighting involes "claiming originality or profit from selling someone's esle original work without having the right/permission to do so".

I'm not selling anything and I don't claim the paintings as mine.
I just took a photos of them that are exposed to the public at all times for observation, admiration and of course of nice themes for being nice photographic memories.

See it as it is, plain photography sport/hobby like the rest of my photographs and like the rest of all other peoples photographs too that include, buildings, humans and all kinds of different themes.


Regards

George

[Archangel]

Re: Question for Archangel

George,

I'm now wearing my moderator's hat and suggesting there is doubt as to your right to alter and post some of these images as you don't own the copyright of the original artwork.

I would suggest it might be better if you were to remove anything from the galleries that you do not own outright as leaving them on there may compromise the integrity of the owners and admin staff of the board.

Unless you can produce absolute proof of ownership it's better to be safe than sorry, eh.

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-art.htm

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-photo.htm

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-write.htm

Thank you for your co-operation.

Pol

Hi Pol,

Let me explain something:

In order to violate copyrights these works must be first copyrighted. But those are paintings made by some street people and sold to the touristic stores by the painter for a few Euros. These are displayed or hanged outside touristic stores available to the public at all times.
It is allowed to take photos of them.

Now as far as the UK Patent Office links you supplied, here it states the following:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/c-manage/c-useenforce/c-useenforce-use/c-useenforce-use-exception/c-useenforce-use-exception-research.htm

Non-commercial research and private study

It is allowed to make single copies or take short extracts of works when used for research that you do not make any money from or from private studying, educational course or even as a hobby.

Limited use or fair dealing is only permitted for non-commercial research and private study when using literary (written work), dramatic (theatre), music, artistic work (art, photographs, and so on) or the layout of a publication (the font size, font style, and so on).

The purpose of this exception is to provide students and non-commercial researchers more access to copyright works. In assessing whether your use of the work is permitted or not you must assess if there is any financial impact on the copyright owner because of your use; where impact is not significant, the use may be acceptable. Therefore, it is fair dealing.


If you still think that my photos are copyright violations just inform me please.



Regards


George

[Pol]

Re: Question for Archangel

If you still think that my photos are copyright violations just inform me please.


Regards


George

I'm not fully satisfied - therefore I've referred the matter to the board administrative staff.

In the meantime, I'm asking you once more to consider removing those particular images from the gallery until the matter is resolved to the full satisfaction of the board owners.

Pol

[Archangel]

Re: Question for Archangel

I'm not fully satisfied - therefore I've referred the matter to the board administrative staff.

In the meantime, I'm asking you once more to consider removing those particular images from the gallery until the matter is resolved to the full satisfaction of the board owners.

Pol

OK Pol,

I will remove the the specific images.
Though, the UK Patent Office states clear what is copyright violation and what are the exceptions and I will also wait for an answer on that from the board of the administrative staff.


Regards

George

[Ian]

Re: Question for Archangel

In fact - I think there may well be a copyright issue here. The original artist/author has a right to be identified, he also has the right to object to distortions or any alteration of his work.

The fact that someone's work is "exposed to everybody in all places" does not grant the right 'to everybody in all places' to copy, alter, distort or re-publish that work without first seeking the permission of the original artist/author.

For example - the photos and images on DPNow are exposed to everybody in all places - but they may NOT be copied, altered and reposted elsewhere without the permission of the photographer - who owns the copyright.


Pol

Morning everyone - sorry I wasn't online last night when this debate unfolded.

I'll study everything as soon as possible.

Ian

[Ian]

Re: Gallery images and copyright

First and foremost, copyright is extremely important. I don't think anyone here feels otherwise. It's a personal and commercial consideration. A situation where one person profits directly from other's work, commercially, without permission is, needless to say, intolerable. But even for someone to use one's work for non-commercial reasons without permission or your knowledge, can be frustrating and hurtful. There are laws to protect the copyright of various things, including art work and photographs, though these laws vary from country to country.

I have no reason to believe that George knowingly or deliberately did anything wrong by posting his interpretation of the drawings and paintings on the gallery, so let's just make that clear. On the other hand, Pol was right to question their use and to clarify (British) law on the matter.

The problem is that in real life the rules are often disregarded, both innocently and carelessly. Much of this is down to the interpretation of the rules, which can be difficult. Rigid application of rules is important in specific cases, especially where someone is being ripped off by someone else. But it can also be argued that if we never 'broke' the rules, then news of great new talent might never be heard, for example.

I'm not a lawyer or an expert on copyright. My primary aim is for sense and harmony to prevail on DPNow

Clearly, it's impossible to eliminate works of art from all of one's photographs. It can be argued that photographing a piece of art and reinterpreting it results in a new work of art. I think there is some logic to that, but it has to be significantly different to the original and the original must be ackowledged as fully as possible, if required and I would think that some effort to obtain permission should be demonstrated.

I say 'if required' because there are often time limits on the copyright of works of art.

In the case being debated in this thread, the pictures were of drawing and paintings produced by unnamed street artists. I don't believe the artists would be offended to find their work in George's gallery - IF - he had shown that all efforts to credit and acknowledge the original artist had been made. So if George's primary mistake is not to provide that information. Stephen's curiosity led him to ask George for more details on the pictures.

After all, George is not profiting commercially from these pictures and in featuring them he is expressing his enjoyment of the pictures and wants to share that enjoyment with us. It may well be that it's impossible, in a practical sense, to trace the original artists, but as much information as possible should be provided in case someone else wanted to try extra hard to do just that.

On a more practical point pertinent to the DPNow gallery, although George's pictures are photos of drawings and paintings, they don't appear to be any more than that, so they probably shouldn't be featured in a 'photo' gallery like this. Photographic reproduction of fine art is now an increasingly important industry thanks to digital photography, but that's probably differet to this again.

So here are a few guidelines that might avoid problems in future:

1. The primary purpose of the gallery is to post photos that are your own work.

2. If your pictures include a major portion of content that, artistically, belongs to someone else, you must either have permission where required or show that you have tried to find the owner to seek permission and provided as much acknowledgment about the owner and the work featured as possible. The only exception could be if the content has been very widely covered in the press and elsewhere online and is considered to be free of copyright and royalties.

3. If you are seeking to sell your photographs, please make sure this is stated clearly.

Fundamentally, I think common sense will prevail here.

If it's felt necessary, I'm happy to open a debate on photo copyright in a new thread. What do you think?

Ian

[Archangel]

Re: Gallery images and copyright

First and foremost, copyright is extremely important. I don't think anyone here feels otherwise. It's a personal and commercial consideration. A situation where one person profits directly from other's work, commercially, without permission is, needless to say, intolerable. But even for someone to use one's work for non-commercial reasons without permission or your knowledge, can be frustrating and hurtful. There are laws to protect the copyright of various things, including art work and photographs, though these laws vary from country to country.

I have no reason to believe that George knowingly or deliberately did anything wrong by posting his interpretation of the drawings and paintings on the gallery, so let's just make that clear. On the other hand, Pol was right to question their use and to clarify (British) law on the matter.

The problem is that in real life the rules are often disregarded, both innocently and carelessly. Much of this is down to the interpretation of the rules, which can be difficult. Rigid application of rules is important in specific cases, especially where someone is being ripped off by someone else. But it can also be argued that if we never 'broke' the rules, then news of great new talent might never be heard, for example.

I'm not a lawyer or an expert on copyright. My primary aim is for sense and harmony to prevail on DPNow

Clearly, it's impossible to eliminate works of art from all of one's photographs. It can be argued that photographing a piece of art and reinterpreting it results in a new work of art. I think there is some logic to that, but it has to be significantly different to the original and the original must be ackowledged as fully as possible, if required and I would think that some effort to obtain permission should be demonstrated.

I say 'if required' because there are often time limits on the copyright of works of art.

In the case being debated in this thread, the pictures were of drawing and paintings produced by unnamed street artists. I don't believe the artists would be offended to find their work in George's gallery - IF - he had shown that all efforts to credit and acknowledge the original artist had been made. So if George's primary mistake is not to provide that information. Stephen's curiosity led him to ask George for more details on the pictures.

After all, George is not profiting commercially from these pictures and in featuring them he is expressing his enjoyment of the pictures and wants to share that enjoyment with us. It may well be that it's impossible, in a practical sense, to trace the original artists, but as much information as possible should be provided in case someone else wanted to try extra hard to do just that.

On a more practical point pertinent to the DPNow gallery, although George's pictures are photos of drawings and paintings, they don't appear to be any more than that, so they probably shouldn't be featured in a 'photo' gallery like this. Photographic reproduction of fine art is now an increasingly important industry thanks to digital photography, but that's probably differet to this again.

So here are a few guidelines that might avoid problems in future:

1. The primary purpose of the gallery is to post photos that are your own work.

2. If your pictures include a major portion of content that, artistically, belongs to someone else, you must either have permission where required or show that you have tried to find the owner to seek permission and provided as much acknowledgment about the owner and the work featured as possible. The only exception could be if the content has been very widely covered in the press and elsewhere online and is considered to be free of copyright and royalties.

3. If you are seeking to sell your photographs, please make sure this is stated clearly.

Fundamentally, I think common sense will prevail here.

If it's felt necessary, I'm happy to open a debate on photo copyright in a new thread. What do you think?

Ian

Hi Ian,

Thanks for clarifying and clearing this.
A few last words from me for the copyright matter:

I have no intention nor accidentally one to steal someone's work and presented as mine. Never did it in my life and never will do in the future.
But even if I had, the copyright matter would exist if I was uploading an exact copy of the paintining (something that is impossible to be done physicaly) or if I was trying to sell an exact copy of the painting or the original one by claimining it is mine. I only uploaded a partial and altered photo of a street painting.
These paintings exist by hundrends in the touristic places exposed on the public on the streets in places like Monastiraki and Plaka in Athens that you probably have visited, when you were in Athens and you probably know exactly what I mean.
These are made by individuals and sol to touristic stores for a few Euros as I wrote before. They are not copyrighted by the creator and also the creator, even if you ask in these stores is uknown. So even if I wanted to provide information of the artist, I can't because I don't know him.

There have been times in the past that some of these artists are selling their work on the street by bypassing the store exchange. It happen many times in the past to take photos of these street paintings and having the creator telling me to put up something to Internet if I can or to make copies of the photos to give to my friends in order for him to become more known probably.

Also there are millions of tourists every year passing from these stores taking photos of these paintings hanging outside the stores and they aren;t being bother by any owner no to do so. Besides that there is also another thing called "freedom". The same way someone exposes his pictures on the street to the public, the same way someone else has the freedom to photograph anything he wishes in the street.

If for some reason there is a serious well know artist, then he doesn't expose his paintings on the street, but only in a gallery where taking photos of specific works is prohibited and not even that most of the times.

I've been to art galleries, I've been on the streets, I take photos occasionally for the Greek Ministry of Tourism, featured as postcards or in touristic guides and I know very well from long time ago what is a copyright, when and under which circumstances is applicable.

The links of the UK Patent Office that Pol posted yesterday, I have read them around 4-5 years ago , when I came to UK for studying in order to know what I can photograph since UK was not my country and I needed to know exactly how the rules are there.

I would never put myself in trouble and of course any site that kindly was featuring my photos for any reason and for a few artistic type photos. I've got thousands other photos to post or turn normal photos to artistic and of course I wouldn't risk or play with such a delicate matter as the copyright is.

Also, from the beginning when Stephen asked me from where these photos come, I said exactly from where they come from, I didn't claim any painting as mine and as you and everybody else read, I was as truthfull as I could be. From that and only, it is easy to understand that except that I had no sneaky intention and I knew well what photos I was posting and with what reason.

Also as I said, the photos are mine, not the paintings and of course I don't have any intention to sell any painting nor photos either. It is there for people to see and also for another reason which is: I was asked in a different website sometime ago how photos of paintings turn out when taking with a camera and what is the best way to take photos of paintings. I gave an explanation of how to such photography and photos of paintings exist in many different sites from known artists where their name is mentioned till uknown artists that no detail exists on them.

Finally one thing should be clear:

These are partial photos of street paintings of uknown artists. They have been cropped, altered, post-processed and they have no relation with the original painting because 1) they are photos and not paintings, 2) they don't represent the exact painting and even if they did, it is a photo and not the painting itself, 3) the photos are not for sale and I'm not profiting economically from them they are only for display and photo-technique study 4) their owners are of uknown identity and 5) they are not originally copyrighted by their owners/creators.

Copyright rights, if personal economical profitings exist, apply only to those cases where the original object has been copyrighted after made by the leagal creator/owner.

Anyway, enough of this...I'm tired myself too with that.

One question though: Should I upload those images taken down last night back again to my gallery?


Thanks again for claryfing the case Ian.


Regards


George