Including copyrighted works on your photography
We’ve all been there – photographing a nice street scene only to find out later that the art installment on the background is indeed copyrighted by the artist.
While for editorial use this might not be much of a problem, for any other use that photo is pretty much out of bounds. Still, once in a while some horror stories of photographers getting sued for copyright infringement come up.
So, how to deal with this issue? What is fair use and what isn’t? While the definitive answer is too much of a gray area even for the courts, from our discussion you might be able to get a few pointers on what is allowed and what you should avoid.
Many thanks to David Sanger (@davidsanger, David on facebook) and William Burrard-Lucas (@willbl, Will on facebook) for their insights on this discussion.
As you’ll probably notice, the conversation was going and going and I didn’t want to interrupt just for time reasons. In any case, I know that not many people have over one and a half hours for just one episode of PhotoNetCast, so we’ve decided to break the conversation in two. The remaining part (including answering some listener questions and our Selected from the Web) will be released in a few days.
As always, your comments are very much appreciated. Drop them below or use our re-opened Listener Voicemail.
Show Notes
Intro
Copyrighted Works in Photography
- Photographers beware: This Seattle case opens a can of legal worms
- Broadway sidewalk dance causing another legal two-step
- Mike Hipple’s side of the story
- Public Art Lands Photog in Hot Water (the photo in question)
- The art piece
- Eiffel Tower by William
- Eiffel Tower by David
- Eiffel Tower by William
- Photo Attorney
