Author Topic: Artwork Releases? (Read 15836 times)

cardmaverick · « **on:** October 28, 2009, 18:02 »

I recently found a great home location which contains some simple modern style artwork made by the homeowner. What would I need to do to show I have permission to include their artwork in my photos as props which are not the main subject?

elvinstar · « **Reply #1 on:** October 28, 2009, 18:07 »

I'm very interested in the answer to this question too, as this has come up for me before...

Karimala · « **Reply #2 on:** October 28, 2009, 18:19 »

A regular property release has always worked for me. You can always add extra language to the document that includes the artwork.

bittersweet · « **Reply #3 on:** October 28, 2009, 21:58 »

Quote from: Karimala on October 28, 2009, 18:19

A regular property release has always worked for me. You can always add extra language to the document that includes the artwork.

Yep, same here. I put a thumbnail of the artwork on the release.

elvinstar · « **Reply #4 on:** October 28, 2009, 23:03 »

Thanks for the answer! I have quite a few original acrylics by a local artist that I would like to be able to put on walls when on location shoots and want to be sure that the photos can be accepted.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #5 on:** October 29, 2009, 09:43 »

Quote from: elvinstar on October 28, 2009, 23:03

Thanks for the answer! I have quite a few original acrylics by a local artist that I would like to be able to put on walls when on location shoots and want to be sure that the photos can be accepted.

Vague, general, pulled this one out of thin air, answer.

If the artwork is the main subject or more than 30% of the photo, then you will probably need an artists release. Just like your photos, the artwork is covered and copyrighted, can't be reproduced without permission. Not saying that multiple works from the same artist can't be over 30% but as a general guide, if one work of art is more than 30% of the photo, it could be considered the subject of the photo.

I view it the same as incidental cars in a street scene.

Just what we need. QC inspecting for what's hanging on the wall, trademark lamp designs, or every shoe on every persons foot, in a photo. In other words, if it's not the subject, and in the case of a painting, not a straight on, full shot, that copies the work, you should be fine.

(opinion: I'm not a copyright attorney!)

bittersweet · « **Reply #6 on:** October 29, 2009, 09:46 »

Um no, if someone's art is 1% identifiable in your photo, you'll need a property release. Think of it more as a model release, where if a person is 1% identifiable, you'll need a release.

If you're even considering proceeding without securing property releases, you might want to check with the site(s) where you plan to upload these images to see what their requirements might be.

Good luck!

RacePhoto · « **Reply #7 on:** October 29, 2009, 10:05 »

Quote from: whatalife on October 29, 2009, 09:46

Um no, if someone's art is 1% identifiable in your photo, you'll need a property release. Think of it more as a model release, where if a person is 1% identifiable, you'll need a release.

If you're even considering proceeding without securing property releases, you might want to check with the site(s) where you plan to upload these images to see what their requirements might be.

Good luck!

Are the shoes someone is wearing, 100% identifiable brand, (not the Nike swoosh logo) in need of a release? Is the Ford Taurus, in need of a release? Is Mom's photo hanging on the wall, in need of a release? As I pointed out, that lamp on the table has a protected design. If the pictures hanging on the wall need a release, then every photo on every agency that has any picture hanging on the wall, would also need a release? I think not.

According to your standards, we can't take a picture of anything without a release. Hey those hybrid sliced tomatoes may be grown from a patented seed, the plastic cutting board is a brand design and the knife has manufactures design rights.?

Since we are getting to the season. If you take a picture of someones pumpkin that they carved, and you don't have an artist release, are you infringing? Don't be so fast. It's a work of art, isn't it? And that person is the artist. Beware. Everything is protected at the moment it's created, including Halloween Pumpkins!

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #8 on:** October 29, 2009, 10:12 »

@racephoto
I've had pictures of my bedroom rejected for my daughter's picture hanging on the wall. Had a picture of a lobster boat rejected for the number (517) on a mooring buoy.
I think some of this is unique to the agency. And ... it is much more complex than I care to get involved in.
Good luck reaching a sastisfactory conclusion. $:-\$

RacePhoto · « **Reply #9 on:** October 29, 2009, 10:19 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on October 29, 2009, 10:12

@racephoto
I've had pictures of my bedroom rejected for my daughter's picture hanging on the wall. Had a picture of a lobster boat rejected for the number (517) on a mooring buoy.
I think some of this is unique to the agency. And ... it is much more complex than I care to get involved in.
Good luck reaching a sastisfactory conclusion. $:-\$

I agree. Call in an attorney, because it's a complicated question. My answer (opinion) is that incidental elements do not need a release.

Funny about a picture on the wall of your Daughter. Some inspector is up on their game. Probably correctly, since it's an identifiable person. Minor as well?

Small but it makes the point. Release needed for every photo in this picture and the stuffed animal?

Don't know if this one is released or not, but should it be? Does it need to be?

Flower Artwork on left, released or not?

cardmaverick · « **Reply #10 on:** October 29, 2009, 11:06 »

LOL, thanks for the replies. I think I just highlighted, yet again, more problems with the very idea of having IP laws in the first place. I'll probably just make a separate release form for all the artworks complete with thumbnail shots and call it a day.

Karimala · « **Reply #11 on:** October 29, 2009, 11:24 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on October 29, 2009, 11:06

LOL, thanks for the replies. I think I just highlighted, yet again, more problems with the very idea of having IP laws in the first place. I'll probably just make a separate release form for all the artworks complete with thumbnail shots and call it a day.

Good idea.

bittersweet · « **Reply #12 on:** October 29, 2009, 11:34 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 29, 2009, 10:05

According to your standards,

These are not "my" standards. I was answering the question based on my actual real life experience. I am very sorry that it doesn't match up to your

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 29, 2009, 09:43

Vague, general, pulled this one out of thin air, answer.

geesh!

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #13 on:** October 29, 2009, 11:35 »

Hi Cardmaverick,

Yes you will need a property release from the artist not the home owners. here are some possibilities to work around it, unless you are going to sell the images in Editorial collections only.

1. Make some art work on an inkjet printer that matches the size of the frame and place it over the original glass. We keep our modern art pretty simple, an orange circle on a white background or something of the sort. If you choose this route make your prints support the surrounding color pallet of that room.

2. Remove the art from the wall and shoot at angles that don't show that wall a great deal.

3. Post produce some art in PS and drop it in in post production over the original, this is the easiest and quickest way as apposed to bringing your art work. Keep the image of the print you will cover clear of any foreground obstructions like a lamp so you don't have to much work with your selection path.

4. remember if you are shooting models the subject will be most of the focus so you can always use a long focal lens at a wide aperture to let the art work go out of focus in the background.

5. Good luck, I am happy to hear you found a great location and try your hardest to find angles that don't bring the art into play.

Best,
Jonathan

bittersweet · « **Reply #14 on:** October 29, 2009, 11:38 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 29, 2009, 10:19

Small but it makes the point. Release needed for every photo in this picture and the stuffed animal?

Don't know if this one is released or not, but should it be? Does it need to be?

Flower Artwork on left, released or not?

I have no specific knowledge about your examples, but I do know that it is very common practice for a photographer to superimpose their own work over another person's artwork which has been completely erased or covered up, in order to avoid having to either get a release from the artist, or have a blank wall.

bittersweet · « **Reply #15 on:** October 29, 2009, 11:39 »

Jonathan and I posted at the same time.

I believe the homeowner is the artist.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #16 on:** October 29, 2009, 11:44 »

Hi CM,

If the home owner is the artist then you are in a great position. Nothing agencies like more than releases of real art work on the wall. You just need them to sign a release for every shot that is in a frame. Only one release per art piece. That is great news and will make your images very strong and easy for you to shoot to your hearts content from any angle. Remember to shoot the home and rooms without people as well, still images of really beautiful interiors sell very well for me. Congrats you are free and clear.

Best,
Jonathan

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #17 on:** October 29, 2009, 11:51 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 29, 2009, 10:19

Quote from: WarrenPrice on October 29, 2009, 10:12
@racephoto
I've had pictures of my bedroom rejected for my daughter's picture hanging on the wall. Had a picture of a lobster boat rejected for the number (517) on a mooring buoy.
I think some of this is unique to the agency. And ... it is much more complex than I care to get involved in.
Good luck reaching a sastisfactory conclusion. $:-\$

Funny about a picture on the wall of your Daughter. Some inspector is up on their game. Probably correctly, since it's an identifiable person. Minor as well?

@racephoto,
LOL... race, you underestimate my experience. My daughter is over 40. LOL

ap · « **Reply #18 on:** October 29, 2009, 12:33 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on October 29, 2009, 11:35

1. Make some art work on an inkjet printer that matches the size of the frame and place it over the original glass. We keep our modern art pretty simple, an orange circle on a white background or something of the sort. If you choose this route make your prints support the surrounding color pallet of that room.

3. Post produce some art in PS and drop it in in post production over the original, this is the easiest and quickest way as apposed to bringing your art work. Keep the image of the print you will cover clear of any foreground obstructions like a lamp so you don't have to much work with your selection path.

some really great ideas, jonathan. not to split hairs, but in the new artwork you create in ps, do you provide an art release for that? or can the agency tell it's pretend art (since it's so simple)?

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #19 on:** October 29, 2009, 12:50 »

Hi AP,

That's a good question and I should have added it. Yes, we are the artists and we sign the property release. Thanks for pointing that out.

Cheers,
Jonathan

RacePhoto · « **Reply #20 on:** October 29, 2009, 13:47 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on October 29, 2009, 11:06

LOL, thanks for the replies. I think I just highlighted, yet again, more problems with the very idea of having IP laws in the first place. I'll probably just make a separate release form for all the artworks complete with thumbnail shots and call it a day.

That was my point. There is nothing in the legal sense that is obvious and self evident.

I don't disagree with you, that you should get the release from the artist. It's just the question if it's necessary. That's why the examples that I popped up from an RF site in a few seconds. If the laws were consistent we would have no furniture, no calendars on the wall, no cars, nothing like the computers (even with the logos removed) because they all have protected design features.

Consider this twist, did the architect of that home draw plans and when was it built. That can be a factor as well.

Sorry AI if you are an attorney, then you would know for sure. I don't and I clearly stated that in order to not misrepresent my opinion as fact. Some other people here have opinions that are different than mine, which is fine, but none of us are authorities on the matter. I'm just willing to admit it.

The question was about artwork as an incidental element in a photograph, and whether it needs to have a release. If it does, then the agencies need to start a house cleaning for every photo that has anything copyrighted hanging on a wall, sitting on a table or anywhere in any photo. Simple enough? They don't.

Legally you should have a release for every work of art appearing in any photo you sell. In practice, you don't need it. Take it from there.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #21 on:** October 29, 2009, 16:47 »

Hi All,

I am using Getty's legal terms not my opinion but there's, which are followed by most everyone in the industry. I believe at last count Getty had 20 lawyers covering their company that's enough proof for me even if some images may have slipped through. You can not use a photo of art work or designer furniture created by an artist without that persons signature releasing that image for creative use, editorial yes, creative no.
You can shoot anything that the owner cannot prove is their creation. Everyone makes sofas so they are not a problem but if you shot an expensive designer chair that was clearly identifiable to the designer Getty looks at that as a need for a property release.
Please find an agency agreement that does not require that in their contributor agreements and I'll show you an agency that has set itself up in a dangerous position and left themselves unprotected against law suits. I don't think you will find one successful agency that doesn't include this in it's contributor agreement. Maybe Micro is different and they are willing to fight the legal battles I am not sure, but not Getty, Corbis, Amana....etc.

Best,
Jonathan

cardmaverick · « **Reply #22 on:** October 29, 2009, 20:00 »

Thanks for the info Jonathan! I figured most agencies would request some kind of release form per art piece, but honestly, its SUPER simple art. I'm talking orange circle on green background... which is one reason why I was wondering if would really even be necessary.

Karimala · « **Reply #23 on:** October 29, 2009, 21:01 »

Out of curiosity, what can you do about paintings where the artist is dead or unable to be found? Is there a point where the owner can sign a release?

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #24 on:** October 30, 2009, 01:26 »

Good question Karimila,

I don't know off hand but I can look into it and see if I can find out what the time line is. Quite often even though an artist dies their work is passed onto someone else. Like Yoko has the hold on Johns art since his death. I'll take a better look.

Best,
Jonathan

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Artwork Releases? (Read 15836 times)

cardmaverick

elvinstar

Karimala

bittersweet

elvinstar

RacePhoto

bittersweet

RacePhoto

WarrenPrice

RacePhoto

cardmaverick

Karimala

bittersweet

Jonathan Ross

bittersweet

bittersweet

Jonathan Ross

WarrenPrice

ap

Jonathan Ross

RacePhoto

Jonathan Ross

cardmaverick

Karimala

Jonathan Ross

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors