Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mojobadshah]

lets say I take a jpg of an artifact that is associated with mt heritage anf use it for commervial purpises.  can I get sued for infringment?  the british museum says I can't use it for commercialpurpises.  is it because they have the right to the artifact or the pic of the artifact.  if u midift the pic am I good?

[Zonath]

"Cultural artifacts" are typically too old to be eligible for any kind of copyright.  If you go to the British Museum, and take photographs of said artifacts, you would own the copyrights in the photographs.

If the British Museum's .jpeg photographs of whatever cultural artifacts are contain sufficient original expression to qualify for a copyright (and this is a pretty low bar to meet), then you could be sued for using those .jpegs against their express terms of use.

So take your own photographs for commercial purposes, or else use photographs from people who have released them to the public domain or are willing to license them to you.

[MYK]

I kinda hate to stick my nose into this one, but I have a very vague memory of reading about licensing issues for such photos.  There may be a difference between Euro law and US law on it.  Or maybe I just came down with a bad case of vuja de.

[JSonnabend]

MYK, what licensing could there be for one's own photos of non-copyrighted subject matter?  It is possible that the license to enter the museum (i.e., the ticket) may prohibit photos, etc., but that's not a copyright issue per se.

- Jeff

[Smokin]

This is an interesting area of IP shenanigans.

Museums have become hip to the real and potential revenues that controlling rights to their collection can bring. Museums would photograph their collection, copyright that work, and license out those images while strictly prohibiting the public from taking their own pictures and possibly creating a competing image to the same work.

In the US, the supreme courts ruled that slavish copies of works in the public domain do not recieve copyright protection, so even the photos museums are licensing out is actually in the public domain. In the UK however, while there is a strong argument that courts would also take the same position, it has not been tested in the courts and museums are still acting on an assumption that images that belong to the museum are copyrighted and that competing images should be discouraged by the public. But whoever told you that they own the rights to your image just because you were in the museum is full of shit.

That all being said, I dont know jacvk about copyright laws in UK, I dont even know if they have public domain.

[mojobadshah]

But what if the Museum doesn't let you take pictures? 

[Zonath]

But what if the Museum doesn't let you take pictures? 

Then you may be out of luck, assuming there isn't a public domain photo out there.

At the same time, as Smokin indicates, a 'slavish copy' of public domain work does not get its own copyright (in the US at least), so even if there is a copyright notice on the jpegs, you may be safe using them (from a copyright standpoint).  You should certainly consult legal counsel prior to using them.

[Smokin]

If a museum does not permit photos, then that has nothing to do with copyright. Its a stretch to say there is any invasion of privacy or contracted agreement, but that doesnt stop them from saying it anyway. General rule of thumb is if you take the photo, you own it and nobody can demand to take it from you based on "permission".

[artchain]

If a museum does not permit photos, then that has nothing to do with copyright. Its a stretch to say there is any invasion of privacy or contracted agreement, but that doesnt stop them from saying it anyway. General rule of thumb is if you take the photo, you own it and nobody can demand to take it from you based on "permission".

Any thoughts on those back of the ticket "contracts" that claim any photos you take become the property of the venue?  I see them used in a lot of places. 

[Smokin]

My understanding is that they are bogus and its there more to pretend they have that right rather than to have one to flex. What every photographer should understand is if some security guard comes and tries to take their camera or film and say they are not allowed, the photographer has every right to refuse. At best, a venue can kick you out, they cannot usurp a copyright. The exception to this rule would be at some secret military base or national security emergency, blah blah.

On private property, you have no right to photograph. The owner is entitled to ask photographers to stop taking pictures and ask them to leave their property. However, the owner does not have the right to attack you or your property to destroy the equipment or any images you may have taken. It is legal to take pictures of private property from a public viewing point.

Read more at Suite101: Taking Photographs And The Law: Basic Legal Freedoms And Restrictions for Photographers | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/taking-photographs-and-the-law-a50379#ixzz1T2R8vDsi

My understanding is that if anyone ignores a private property's request to not photograph, they are at best violating a privacy right which is a hard case to sell if its open to the public, but easier to sell if you were taping someone's private residence. Its still not a copyright transfer though and claiming dibs on photos is BS though that's not stopping companies from trying to snatch IP anyway with absurd loopholes they are trying to push.

[Kaitlin]

Any thoughts on those back of the ticket "contracts" that claim any photos you take become the property of the venue?  I see them used in a lot of places. 

Important to note that he "contract", at least as Artchain has characterized it and I presume as these things actually read, doesn't purport to convey copyright, only the physical "photo."  Presumably this would be an attempt to get the right to hang onto the film, SD card, etc. to expunge the offending snapshot.