RE: [Leica] Copyright questions

["Griffith, Lucian" <griffil1@anz.com>]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harold Gess [mailto:Harold.Gess@btinternet.com]
Sent: 15 June 2001 07:41
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Copyright questions


>If the photograph is to be displayed as a winning photograph I do not think
>there is a copyright issue here. If the winning photographs were turned
into
>postcards and sold or given away then I think the copyright would be deemed
>to have been infringed.

I'd agree with this one - I've enquired about these issues at art galleries,
and the basic line usually is you can take photos for yourself but they
can't be used for commercial purposes - more often than not I think it's so
the gallery can sell more of its own postcards....  I'm assuming that if the
photograph of the sculpture in the original posting won a competition it is
still not being used commercially.

As a lay-person / photographer (and ex-academic) interested in these issues
I understand that copyright law usually allows "reasonable" and "fair"
copying for educational and artistic purposes. 

On the same point I always take the view that anything in the public arena
is fair game to be photographed - so long as it's "reasonable" (I know,
fairly nebulous and vague definition here).

The main issue is the _use to which the image is put_ which seems to be
(basically) non commerical okay, commercial more problematic.  Having said
that the "artistic" book by noted Leica user Larry Clark "The Perfect
Childhood" (Scalo) couldn't get distribution in the USA not for imagined
breaches of child porn laws but becuase his use of newspaper clippings, teen
idol posters and various other teen culture ephemera breached the copyright
of the original producers of that material.  (Problem was the original
meaning was subverted, of course, not _really_ because of breach of
copyright, but that's how it was stopped).

Sorry, a bit off topic - but copyright always raises some interesting
issues.

cheers,
Lucian G.