Copyright Sillyness: Can't Take Photos Of Artwork That Was Built On The Works Of Others
from the can-only-copy-once? dept
Clive Thompson has a blog post about how he took a photo at a Canadian art gallery of his son staring at a painting, after noticing how similar some paintings from a hundred years ago were to some modern paintings done by a friend -- and recognizing that both were actually inspired by a third school of art. He notes that he was able to appreciate the old paintings much more (despite having seen them years ago) because of his understanding of his friend's more recent paintings. And immediately after snapping the photo, he got in trouble for it, as the museum said it had to block photographs for copyright reasons. As Thompson explains:It reminded me of a point often made by folks who fight overly-aggressive copyright laws: All new art is based on art that came before, so copyright law ought not to be too rigid. If you can't remix and resample and re-use art -- after a reasonable term of exclusivity for the original creators, who in this case are long dead -- then culture dies. More subtly yet, our appreciation for earlier art dies if our contemporary artists cannot easily plunder the styles and content of their forebears.Many copyright defenders continue to insist that nothing is "lost" by stricter copyright rules, but you can't always quantify what never happens -- and Thompson does a good job showing how overly restrictive rules can, in fact, limit how we learn or appreciate art, by flat out limiting new ways that people can get exposed to works.
The irony here is that the instant after I snapped this picture, the security guards of the Art Gallery of Ontario raced over to (politely) warn me that I wasn't allowed to take pictures. Why? Well, some art galleries disallow photos because flashes can damage paintings, a prohibition that makes total sense. But my iPhone doesn't have a flash. No, the Art Gallery of Ontario prohibits photographs of artwork because of copyright restrictions.... It's even more daft when you consider that I'm basically doing free promotion here.You want people to visit galleries? Well, surely one good way is to let visitors take and post photos of their little kids spellbound by major works of art.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: artwork, copyright, inspiration, painting, understanding
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm basically doing free promotion here
That isn't his choice, that choice should be up to the artist and the people showing the work. If they don't want your free promotion, you shouldn't just foist it on them anyway.
Thompson does a good job showing how overly restrictive rules can, in fact, limit how we learn or appreciate art, by flat out limiting new ways that people can get exposed to works
No, it only shows that Thompson thinks he can tell the artist what to do and how to share his work. That is the artist's choice, and the exhibitor's choice for the time that the painting is in their gallery.
It is incredibly arrogant to assume to tell the artist and the exhibitor how to show off their work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are we allowed to talk about what we see? Shall we all strap on our blindfolds at the entrance to MoMA?
Shall we contruct boxes to wear on our heads to prevent any input that we might infringe upon in the future? Shall we all have lobotomies to wipe out potential infringement from things seen or heard in the past?
Could you make life suck any harder by expecting this crap is good for anyone, including the artist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What happened to the audience?
Look, rap our knuckles enough times when we try to do simple things like photograph our kids and we will just stop going to these exhibits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re;
The Anti-Mike vacuously claimed:
Since when did “copyright” include “promotion rights” as well? What is this, we’re not allowed to tell other people what we think of this work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re;
Anti-Mike: "I went to see a movie. Avatar."
Some dude: "Cool. What did you think of it?"
Anti-Mike: "Sorry, can't comment. Haven't got a promotion license."
Some dude: "Aw, come on! Should I go see or not?"
Anti-Mike: "Sorry. I'm not allowed. There is a poster for the movie. Look at it and decide for yourself."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re; Re: Re: Re: Re;
Technically taking a picture of an artwork is a form of copying, given the person taking the picture has not been given documented permission by the artist.
Taking a picture and giving an opinion of the artwork are two very different things.
PS I'm not trying arguing with you, I'm just pointing these out. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Society - people like Clive - are the ones granting permission to the artist to benefit from his work, as long as society's rights and privileges are not abused.
Society enables creativity, and therefore regulates its use, one of which is the continuation of culture, upon which society depends. Artists or institutions who are willing to sacrifice the group that gave them life and the tools to create, for their own momentary needs, should be discouraged and penalized.
Currently it is exactly the opposite - copyright is used to abuse society for personal gain, while destroying wide swaths of our culture.
We should be discussing the punishment that this gallery should receive for abusing copyright and shutting down our culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The future will not be kind to the control freaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you get depressed when Mike writes his last piece of the day? Are your weekends a bleak gray splotch until Monday morning rolls around and Mike bangs out some fresh commentary once again?
Just curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(1) Thompson is saying that this type of restriction makes no sense to an ordinary person.
(2) The gallery is trying to restrict Thompson's right of fair use in a situation where it is not warranted. Fair Use, or Fair Dealing in Canada, allows exactly these sorts of uses. A picture of one's son looking at a painting is not a reproduction of a famous work of art. Ceci n'est pas une pipe, indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Would seem this idiocy will persist until fair use is the established right it should be, instead of an affirmative defense you only get to use when you're sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Call CNN, that's news right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gallery photographs
That's what I found out about the Chicago Art Institutes collection (free photographs for everything) and the V&A in London (NO pix of private donations - that was in 1973). All I did was ask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: gallery photographs
Except that doesn't explain anything at all. Firstly, if the art is old enough then it's in the public domain anyway -- who owns the originals is not relevant. Secondly, the photo taken as described in the article is clearly fair use and not a copyright violation even if it was not in the public domain -- who owns the originals is not relevant. (Disclaimer -- I'm talking US law, I don't know about UK)
So, any gallery who prohibits such photos because of public donations is being particularly nasty, because they've sold your rights for some $$$.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm...
I wish this story had been posted yesterday. (Wednesday night is free night at the Gallery, and I live within walking distance.)
I would very much like to take my big DSLR and very obviously photograph the paintings, but only those from the 18th century and earlier, since they have long ago slipped out of copyright and have now entered the public domain.
What would their reaction be in that case?
Would they let it slide, or try to argue some other ridiculous reason
Off topic: I generally find the museums and galleries in Toronto to be very cold and uninviting. I don't get hassled at all in New York, even the private, commercial galleries showing contemporary work don't seem to mind some photos being taken. But if you're in Ontario: watch out. They'll break the Canadian stereotype, and actually be quite rude to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmmm...
at least Rude when they are in the states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmmm...
When will you idiots get it through yout thick skulls that the owner of something DICTATES what and how it can be used.
Maybe when you idiots start learning to respect others property and rights there will be no need for more and more restrictions.
I don't know what is worse mikees nonstop whining or the bullshit coming out of the keyboards of the commentors.
Copyright is there to protect the creator, when you screw the creator by trying to force your will on them, then the creator pushes back through the law, then you screw more and they push more. If you don't like what they want or how they want it sold then do without their creation and move the fuck on and quit whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hmmm...
Nice rant dude.
I suggest you research the meaning of the word idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hmmm...
Only half right. Copyright is a deal between the public and the creator. They get a limited-time monopoly, then the public owns it. It is not an expression of some natural ownership right the creator has over the work.
Copyright does not exist to benefit the creator, it exists to benefit society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hmmm...
Have they no respect for culture and art? Have they no decency?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hmmm...
For your own sake, shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hmmm...
The work I would be photographing would be in the public domain, the creators are all dead.
If they ask me to leave because of copyright issues, they are liars.
They could argue that I'm trespassing if I continue to take photos after being asked to stop, but that is in no way related to copyright or protecting creators.
Even in the case of this article, how does taking a photo of half a painting screw the creator of the art work? He's dead. In fact, this artist has already set records for the prices of his paintings.
If you want to talk about screwing the creators of an art work, how about people who buy a painting for a few hundred bucks, then re-sell if for a few hundred thousand. Would you argue that the artist is entitled to a chunk of that resale price?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright probably has nothing to do with it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PNG in Canada
I do
Funny, your not allowed to take pictures in there either.
PNG=persona non grata
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movie makers and photographers.
Well then the movie industry should be paying tonnes of money to a lot of people.
And photographers should never be allowed to take pictures of people they don't know or failed to secure the rights to display their images.
It does get silly pretty quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine such a world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All I am saying is that the painting is displayed in agreement between the rights holder (could be whoever owns the painting) and the gallery. They decide what the rights are for viewing within their private gallery.
Technically speaking, you are seeing it only because they are allowing you to see it. Otherwise, they could keep it private and you would never see it, and it would be well within their rights.
If the painting was hanging in a public space, the discussion would be different. It is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's a shame that you can never comprehend how that's not what most people here ever argue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So toss copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what that museum did was illegal
ya know
the blank MEDIA levy
a photo is media....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assumed exclusivity
I where the requirement of exclusivity comes from and why it is assumed to be required at all. If releasing that exclusivity promotes culture, is it a fallacy to say, that it should be released immediately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Assumed exclusivity
However, copyright as it was originally envisioned (with short terms of copyright) is far different than the copyright we have today (where terms can last over two generations of humanity before the public domain is anywhere in sight).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Assumed exclusivity
I mean, if no one cares for your copyrighted stuff hence no one buys it, don't expect copyright to bail you out of your own fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares what Canada allows
If you don't like it then go somewhere where they will allow you to take pictures of your brats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who cares what Canada allows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BULL F-SHTI
hahaha you are a FUCKING LIAR! I call you out, liar. You and everyone here knows good and GOD DAMN well that you would NOT take such a position, ever.
You only see copyright issues one-way: absolute control by the rights holder. This is not, and never has been, part of the copyright contract with the public. Read the fucking constitution: LIMITED rights, LIMITED times. Not eternal, absolute control.
You lie from your mouth when you make a statement like that. You most assuredly WOULD argue the SAME point if it was in a public place. LIAR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WRONG!
No it does not. Read your constition, and the law. LIMITED rights, LIMITED times.
"Maybe when you idiots start learning to respect others property and rights there will be no need for more and more restrictions."
Copyright is not property. Ideas are not property.
"I don't know what is worse mikees nonstop whining or the bullshit coming out of the keyboards of the commentors."
You would know...
"Copyright is there to protect the creator, when you screw the creator by trying to force your will on them, then the creator pushes back through the law, then you screw more and they push more. If you don't like what they want or how they want it sold then do without their creation and move the fuck on and quit whining."
Exactly! So please do so. The arrow points both ways here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Owners Rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proof?
I'd actually laugh quite hard if Le Louvre enforced copyright on the Mona Lisa or Het Rijksmuseum enforces copyright on De Nachtwacht.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Louvre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Louvre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They even have guidelines for sketching!
Could the poster living within walking distance please check these guidelines and post them?
There's a comedy series in there somewhere, 'Fawlty Towers' in the art world. I'm reasonably confident that the management considers visitors a necessary evil, and would like to get rid of them all together. Way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calm down already
Galleries make a nice earner on the sale of Memorabilia -- postcards, books ect. Personal private photography threatens this source of income & is rather annoying .
'Copyright' is in this case almost certainly a phantom- a boggie man used to try and stop/limit the obsessive photographing of virtually everything that is modern life.
"visitors a necessary evil"
Visitors get in the way of looking . Perhaps they could just line up at the side of the building and get a download, a plastic sandwich and a virtual life .. No?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calm down already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
photos used by Daniel Moore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
W
[ link to this | view in chronology ]