Photographing murals and copyright ? (lots of pics)

[BamaGirl]

The city I live in has commissioned 12 murals around the downtown area. Some of them are very cool, and they are all massive. Since they are public commissions and all outside where anyone can photograph them are they protected by any kind of copyright? Can I sell photographs of them? Also, any advice on photographing these would be greatly appreciated. Since they are downtown, they're obviously hard to get clear shots of. I'm reshooting these anyway because I hate the film I used, but I'd like better composition if I can manage it. 1 and 2 are part of the same mural and 6 and 7 are part of the same mural.

1


2


3


4


5


6



7


8

[RagingInMiami]

1. These are murals on public display

You own the copyright to your photos. In fact, you own the copyright to any photo you take.

[Deja Q]

2. Except

If you take close-up pictures of a book or other peoples' works without permission.

Anything outside is public and as long as you're standing on public areas (e.g. the road shoulder) you're okay.

If doing photoshoots of people and you want to display them for others to see, you MUST have them sign disclaimers so they know what's going to happen

[BamaGirl]

4. I'm going to have to get a book I think lol

My understanding was you don't need a release if no one can be identified in a photo, or its newsworthy. Is that right?

[RagingInMiami]

6. If you take shots of people for "editorial" use, such as in newspaper

and magazine articles, you need no disclaimer. If you intend to use the photos for "commercial" use, such as stock photography or advertising, then you must have them sign the release.

[BamaGirl]

3. Thx Ragin, that's what I thought. nt

[Ms. Toad]

5. Correct - but (unfortunately for photographers) incomplete...

your copyright to your photo doesn't give you a license to reproduce the mural in your photograph (which is also protected by copyright owned by someone else).

It's sort of like compiling a book of short stories - the fact that you reproduce a short story in book form and have copyright to the artistic elements of the compilation and to the surrounding narrative doesn't give you a license to include the individual short stories - even if they are freely available online or in a library. You still need a license from the owner of the copyright to reproduce the short stories.

Would you get in trouble for including a mural in a photo display - not generally, unless you are worth suing (see the "Fair Use" vs. Licensed Uses section in the article below for examples of who is sued).

Here's a reasonable summary of the US law - it is (at least) accurate on the big picture scale:

http://www.ibslaw.com/melon/archive/401_mural.html

edited to clarify title

[lakemonster11]

7. One of my former photography teachers

uses a lot of murals as elements in his photographs (the photographs that he shows and sells).

I think it's probably fine as long as it's more than just a shot of the mural, meaning that, if it's just a straight-on, full shot of the mural, all you're doing is copying it. But if there are other elements to the picture, or if it's from an odd angle or something, then it's okay.



This is one of his best-selling photos. It doesn't include a mural (sorry, couldn't find one), but it does include a poster of a wolf (which is clearly some other photographer's work).

[noamnety]

8. Similar case in Chicago

"The Reader recounts the experience of photojournalist Warren Wimmer's attempts to photograph Anish Kapoor's sculpture, Cloud Gate (more commonly known as "the Bean"). When Wimmer set up his tripod and camera to shoot the sculpture, security guards stopped him, demanding that they show him a permit. Wimmer protested, replying that it's absurd that one needs to pay for a permit to photograph public art in a city-owned park.

Ben Joravsky, the author of the Reader article, attempted to contact park officials for an explanation and received a response from Karen Ryan, press director for the park's project director:

"The copyrights for the enhancements in Millennium Park are owned by the artist who created them. As such, anyone reproducing the works, especially for commercial purposes, needs the permission of that artist."

http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html


An artist doesn't lose control of their copyright just because they've made a decision to publicly display their work. Unless you've been given permission to make reproductions and distribute them, you are on shaky ground.

To put this in other terms that might make more sense, imagine if a band performed at a public free event. The musicians would still own the exclusive rights to sell recordings of that concert.

[F.Gordon]

9. I researched this "case"

This blogger you are quoting is completely full of shit. Distorted the facts and didn't include the followup to it.

There was no "copyright" issue in this "case" and your own comments are completely off target. Do your homework my friend before you post bogus blogs and commentary.
:hi:

[noamnety]

10. As far as I know

the city has stopped requiring permits and has stopped harassing photographers, but the artist still owns the copyright for the work of art. If you have a source that says the artist has given up the copyright, I'd be interested in reading it - I certainly wasn't aware of that and would have to plead ignorance if I'm not up to date on that aspect.

Reproduction of a work of art for commercial purposes is generally considered a copyright offense, however, regardless of whether the artist who designed the Bean in Chicago has formally given up his copyright to the public domain or not. The specific exceptions are spelled out in the Fair Use clauses of the copyright law - you'd want to read that before selling any photos of the murals.

[F.Gordon]

11. Give me an hour

And I can find 100+ photos of the "Bean" for sale on the web. You're confusing the specific issue here. The City of Chicago has said that there was no copyright violation in this "case". None. Google is your friend. :crazy:

BamaGirl said that the City commissioned these murals. I've commissioned art work in the past back during the horrible Clinton economy :eyes: when I actually made money and I own the rights to it... the artist does not.

Let's find out what town/city BamaGirl is talking about and I'll call them and find out. Bet ya' a nickel that they'd be thrilled to have anyone shoot/sell photos of these murals if it means promoting their city/town.
:hi:

[noamnety]

12. Calling the city is the best solution

They can look up what the contract said about the copyright on the commissioned work. Just the fact that it is commissioned doesn't mean the copyright falls automatically to one party or the other.

"In addition, works that are not created by employees, but which are commissioned, can qualify as a work for hire. In such a case the commissioner receives the ownership interest in the work rather than the artist. The Copyright Act defines a commissioned work as a work for hire in situations when the work is "specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional test, as a test, as an answer material for a test, or as an atlas." There must also be a written agreement signed by the parties that the work shall be a work for hire. Thus, only the foregoing types of commissioned works, when a written agreement exists, can be deemed works for hire. Other types of commissioned works cannot. (This type of situation frequently comes into play in the motion picture industry with writers, directors, etc. The producer becomes the owner of the copyright)."

(my bolding)


http://www.lawgirl.com/copyright.shtml

It basically comes down to the contract and whether the artist gave away his copyright as part of the written agreement. If he hasn't given it away, then he by default still owns it.

[BamaGirl]

13. Good idea F.Gordon

I'm going to make some calls this week. The murals are supposed to record local history and bring people downtown, so yes you would think they'd be thrilled lol.

[F.Gordon]

14. Kewl

:thumbsup:

I apologize for my "legal pissing match" above. This whole new "ownership society" thing here in Amerika is a real hot poker up my ass.

Recently I did two snapashoots of a private locale here in Colorado. The owner, management, and employees were thrilled because I was giving them free advertising.

Back to your original OP. I've submitted photos to two denver area towns. I had to sign an "ownership" release in both cases. Apparently they weren't "chamber of commerce" enough... and weren't picked..... but I still can't sell (legally ;-) ) these photos. I don't know of any city that would just say.... "here's a whole shit load of money... paint some murals for us". The artists can get credit for the work but I seriously doubt that the artists "own" these murals. The city does.

Back to Chicago as an example. The photog wasn't run off because of "copyright" violations... this jerk with the parks was pissed off because they didn't want people making money. That was why they requested permits. To offset lost income.

There is a shop in Chicago that sells postcards of "the Bean" and they went after them as well. The owner basically told them to blow it out their ass.

When you ask.... tell them that you'd like to help them (the city). You might even offer to "release" a decent shot for their website (if they have one). Give it (release it) to them for free.... letting them know that you might sell some others privately. It's a win win. You might get some free publicity and the city gets some free advertising.

Good luck......

Edit? I don't remember. :crazy: