property releases

[tracy_wilson1]

<p>I have an opportunity to photograph a collection of statues made by a local artist from the early 20th century. My question is: Do I need some form of release to sell the resulting catalog?</p>

<p>If there is any other information you need, please feel free to ask.</p>

<p>Thanks - Tracy</p>

[danmarchant]

<p>Short answer is probably.<br>

Longer answer is that you need a lawyer. Copyright law is complex and this answer really depends on multiple different issues. Who owns them, how are they being displayed, how will they be photographed, what exactly do you mean by "an opportunity" etc.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>No. From the early 20th century the items could be in the public domain. Even if not, you can use a photograph of an item to sell the item. Collectables and the like which may or may not still be under copyright or trademarked are advertised and sold all the time. In any event, consider who you would "get a release" from? The owner who is hiring you to photograph the items for them to use in selling the items, right? </p>

[harveysteeves]

<p>Craig, think carefully. Can I take photographs of a set of Ansel Adams images from the early 20th Cenyury and then turn around and sell my images? Now, can I take photographs of a set of statues from the early 20th Century and turn around and sell the photographs? To Tracy, in my opinion, you need to find out who owns the copyright to these statues if you intend to sell photos of them even if it is in a catalog. They are unique, recognizable objects. Are they publicly or privately owned? The owners may have issues with you selling images of their property (property rights?) I think you are going to need some permissions from someone somewhere.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> Can I take photographs of a set of Ansel Adams images from the early 20th Cenyury and then turn around and sell my images?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. </p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>I'd be interested in knowing what possible copyright or property ownership issues might be involved here. Nothing the OP wrote suggests anything adverse in either direction. Specifics would be nice, not just the concept that there might be infringements of some sort.</p>

<p>How would the catalog differ from this thread:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/no-words-forum/00Zu0C</p>

<p> </p>

[tracy_wilson1]

<p>The sculptor whose work I am to photograph is E.M. Viquesney. I am not commissioned to do this shoot, it is a personal project. One statue is "The Spirit of the Doughboy". This piece is displayed in front of the courthouse in my town. The other works are in a small museum in town. There are other pieces stored in a building that was build by Viquesney. Some of these images will be on display in the chamber of commerce and others in the local art guild. They are mainly for display, but I will have a price for purchase of my work.</p>

[tracy_wilson1]

<p>Here is a link to the image of "The Spirit of the Doughboy" statue that is in front of the courthouse. <a href="../photo/1502995">http://www.photo.net/photo/1502995</a></p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>The Doughboy statues are an interesting bit of American and art history. From one of the things I saw, there was a copyright dispute over one of the works and because of the related mass marketed items, I'd think they were at some point copyrighted. I've been to several of the cities where they are located but don't really remember seeing them.</p>

[danmarchant]

<blockquote>

<p>One statue is "The Spirit of the Doughboy". This piece is displayed in front of the courthouse in my town. The other works are in a small museum in town. There are other pieces stored in a building that was build by Viquesney.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Location is important. If you are on public property such as a sidewalk or park you are free to take (and sell) a photograph of something that is normally visible from that position. This includes people and buildings and also artwork that is normally on display. So a statue that is fixed in place is OK but a temporary art exhibit staged by the local council or an artist wouldn't.<br>

The same does not apply to something that is inside a building and thus can't normally be viewed from public property. The owner of the building has the right to stop you taking photographs but they must do so by actually informing you. That means they must post a notice (displayed on the wall or printed on a ticket) or the owner/a member of staff must inform you. <br>

So the Doughboy statue may be fine but the ones currently displayed in local buildings may be more problematic. You would need to check to see if the buildings in question have any form of notice regarding their photography policy.<br>

Note: The interior of a local government building is not "public property". The American people may own the government but the government owns the building and they can control who may take pictures inside.<br>

Note: The use of the image may also be a factor where an artwork is protected by copyright. For example,<br>

1. Taking a picture of a room which happens to have a picture on the wall. Your capture of the art is incidental and not the focus of your picture so would not normally constitute infringement.<br>

2. Taking a picture for the sole purpose of including it in a catalogue in order to sell the original painting wouldn't be infringement.<br>

3. Walking right up to the image and photographing just the picture, with a view to making money by selling your photograph would be considered infringement.</p>