Re: Re: Filming of sculptures

I don't think we disagree. Like I said, "In reality, this will almost always come down to whether you are making money on the photos."

I don't think a photo of a sculpture should be considered a derivative, any more than Steve's words, "the Picasso sculpture in downtown Chicago," which, at least for me, having seen it 100 times, employs the original as much as a photograph might. But as I said, that's if I were King, and Steve will certainly agree that I'm not.

At 6:20 PM -0400 8/28/06, Steven Jamar wrote:
>I disagree strongly with John about this. Photographs and videos of
>sculptures can most certainly be derivative works. Take the Picasso
>scupture in downtown Chicago. I could take 30 pictures of it from
>various angles, distances, under various lighting conditions and so
>on and then make a collage from them. I will have taken more than
>the idea -- I will have used the lines, the very expression of the
>thing itself to create my work -- and my work will have added
>something beyond changing medium. Hence a derivative work. And,
>probably, infringing.
>
>If I only take one photo, and try to capture the essence of that
>sculpture in that photo, all I have done is changed medium -- 3D to
>2D -- and the differences are solely due to the change of medium --
>and thus I would probably have made a copy of the work, i.e.,
>reproduced it.
>
>Now, if I'm a tourist taking a snapshop -- almost certainly fair
>use. If I'm a professor of law taking a picture to show with the
>case about that sculpture -- probably fair use. If I'm an art
>teacher showing the pictures to show Picasso's peerless sense of
>line, probably again fair use. But if I capture the image and print
>it and sell it, I am reproducing and distributing those
>reproductions.
>
>All that said, sculptures on a campus are made to be looked at and
>are expected to be part of the campus life in some sense and one
>would think filming them in part to show the campus and the
>sensibility of the college would be fair use. It certainly would
>not be impinging on the market for those works or depriving anyone
>of some exploitable right of reproduction and display and
>distribution, it would seem to me.
>
>But it is not a crystal clear situation by any means.
>
>Steve
>
>On Aug 28, 2006, at 3:55 PM, J. Noble wrote:
>
>>My own view is that two-dimensional photos are never
>>"reproductions," or substantially similar copies of protected
>>works. They are only arguably derivatives, but not much more so
>>than an evocative written description. In essence, the photo
>>appropriates the idea, but not the expression. It "portrays" the
>>expression -- it doesn't copy the expression. But that's if I was
>>King. In reality, this will almost always come down to whether you
>>are making money on the photos. Applying the fair use analysis, you
>>have a creative work, entitled to the fullest protection of
>>copyright, which argues against fair use. On the other hand,
>>however, the purpose of the "copying" is wholly transformative; it
>>copies only one composition of one aspect out of an infinite
>>variety of compositions and aspects; and it has no affect on the
>>market for the protected work. If the photos are offered for sale,
>>it gets to be a close case because it has an arguable effect on the
>>market for derivatives licensed by the sculptor, but even then
>>there's an important difference between a book about sculptures in
>>public spaces, and a framed photo of a single sculpture that is not
>>available for anybody to see for free.
>>
>>John Noble
>>
>>At 6:25 PM -0400 8/24/06, Bob Panzer wrote:
>>
>>>This is a difficult question with no right or wrong answer. IMO,
>>>if the sculptures just happen to be in the background of a given
>>>scene, then it is likely to be fair use. If the camera comes in
>>>close to any of the sculptures implying that the point of the
>>>shot is for the viewer to be able to note the sculpture
>>>specifically, or perhaps if any people are shot standing next to
>>>or on the sculptures for specific effect, then I believe it would
>>>be prudent to clear rights with the copyright owners.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Sincerely,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Robert Panzer
>>>
>>>Executive Director
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>VAGA (Visual Artists and Galleries Association, Inc.)
>>>
>>>350 Fifth Avenue
>>>
>>>Suite 2820
>>>
>>>New York, NY 10118
>>>
>>>Tel: 212 736 6666
>>>
>>>Fax: 212 736 6767
>>>
>>><mailto:rpanzer[_at_]vagarights.com>rpanzer[_at_]vagarights.com
>>>
>>>
>>>From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
>>>[<mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On
>>>Behalf Of Kathy Tadlock
>>>Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:46 PM
>>>To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
>>>Subject: [CNI-(C)] Filming of sculptures
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On the WWU campus, there is an extensive collection of outdoor
>>>sculptures. A film crew is coming to campus to film a short piece
>>>(four minutes) about some WWU athletes. They will be taking a
>>>walking tour of campus. The producer is interested in including
>>>some of the sculptures in the film.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Does permission need to be requested to include the sculptures in
>>>the filming? For some sculptures, there are existing limited
>>>copyright agreements for web use and print reproductions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Kathy Tadlock
>>>Support Services, Publishing Services
>>>Wilson Library 564
>>>Western Washington University
>>>Bellingham, WA 98225-9127
>>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
>Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
>2900 Van Ness Street NW
><mailto:stevenjamar[_at_]gmail.com>mailto:stevenjamar[_at_]gmail.com
>Washington, DC 20008
> <http://iipsj.com/SDJ/>http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
>
>
>"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin
>of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content
>according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used."
>
>
>Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425 (1918)
Received on Tue Aug 29 2006 - 19:45:31 GMT