Hypothetical: Art, Architecture and Copyright - Who has it?

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow

• Jan 14, 2019

• #1

SO I understand that the issue of copyright is complicated especially when it relates to photographs so here is a scenario

So I own a building, architecturally designed with hills in the background. A friend of mine who is a known artist creates an installation which is fixed to the wall of my building.
One day a landscape photographer comes by and decides she likes the scene and so takes a picture which shows the juxtaposition of the art installation, my building and the landscape in the background.

It so happens that the photograph is used in an exhibition, gets noticed and an offer of $50,000 is made to purchase it

Who has the copyright in this case and who has the right to profit of the work?

1The Photographer - they took the actual photo being purchased
2 The Artist - they created the installation which gave the picture 'interest'
3 Me as the owner of the building
4 The Architect who designed and placed the building in that position

 

log in or register to remove this ad

delericho

Legend

• Jan 14, 2019

• #2

I'm not a lawyer, but I think the answer to that is "1 The Photographer".

 

ccs

41st lv DM

• Jan 14, 2019

• #3

Probably the photographer, but go check with a lawyer.

 

Ryujin

Legend

• Jan 14, 2019

• #4

The photographer, because the picture is "transformative."

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-what-transformative.html

At least this would be the case in most places, but...

https://mymodernmet.com/eiffel-tower-copyright-law/

 

Umbran

Mod Squad

Staff member

Supporter

• Jan 14, 2019

• #5

I'm going to guess that a simple photographs of what already exists, a scene that could be seen by someone walking by, is *not* going to be considered transformative. After all, the architect and the artist probably were considering the setting, so the "juxtaposition" is their thought before it is the photographer's.

For it to be transformative, you need to take a *small* segment of it, and then change the meaning/use of the piece (thus the name "transformative"). Just taking a picture isn't enough - especially if it shows most of the work. If the photographer takes that picture, and then applies a lot of Photoshop to make it *different*, then it may be transformative, and fair use. Recording what a passerby can see is not changing anything, is not transformataive, and thus not fair use.

So, whether the architect or the building owner holds rights to the building's image is probably somewhere in the contracts for use of that architecture. The rights for images of the art installation, if not explicitly set at the time of installation, probably stay with the artist. So, the photographer probably owes both the building and the artist some $$.

 

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com

• Jan 14, 2019

• #6

delericho said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I think the answer to that is "1 The Photographer".

Click to expand...

Same, the photo is the work of the photographer.

 

Umbran

Mod Squad

Staff member

Supporter

• Jan 14, 2019

• #7

dragoner said:

Same, the photo is the work of the photographer.

Click to expand...

If it were that simple, you could take readable photos of pages of a book, collect them, and sell them as your own. That clearly fails.

 

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com

• Jan 14, 2019

• #8

Umbran said:

If it were that simple, you could take readable photos of pages of a book, collect them, and sell them as your own. That clearly fails.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

 

D

Dave Goff

Explorer

• Jan 14, 2019

• #9

Is it “permanently situated in a public place or building”,?
I believe the laws are different according to where you are, but in some places if a photographer takes a picture in a public space it's their image.

Primarily though, I would talk to the photographer in a reasonable manner and just work it out. If that doesn't work, follow up with legal as necessary and able.

 

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com

• Jan 14, 2019

• #10

Dave Goff said:

I believe the laws are different according to where you are, but in some places if a photographer takes a picture in a public space it's their image.

Click to expand...

The photo is theirs, except that is not to say someone else could take the exact same photo themselves, and sell it also.