Saturday, February 25, 2012
Do You Need Permission To Take A Photo With A Chair In It? You Might In France...
Techdirt: The British Journal of Photography (BJP) brings us yet another story of aggressive assertion of copyright wreaking harm on artists -- the very people it allegedly empowers. It concerns some photos in Getty Images' stock library that have chairs in them. Because a few of those chairs are "famous" in the sense that they were produced by a couple of designers that worked with the architect Le Corbusier, the heirs of those designers, together with the Le Corbusier Foundation, have sued Getty Images in France for copyright infringement -- and won.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
While I understand and agree that there does need to be freedom to express and take photos, I think intellectual property rights are very important. There is a reason you cannot tape a play and you have to pay royalties to use someone else's choreography. However, I would like to think that there is a distinction is what you need permission to use and what you do not. I do not know the specifics of this chair incident, but I think creating boundaries between public and private is a good way to start. Taking a photo of a street performer does not warrant a need for permission, taking a photo of a Broadway play, probably yes.
I'm really not sure about this blog. I think that it is a little true when they say that the creative wheel is restricted as people start to care more and more about copyright infringement. It is similar to getting an assignment with definite restrictions and rules that you are constantly thinking about throughout the creation process. On the other hand, it is important that everyone's hard work is noted and that no one has copied work and created it as their own. An artist doesn't have many rights, but they should be protected. The bit about the chair and the overall excessiveness about the matter is a little annoying. Again, the specifics are not written but if we keep focusing on the details, we might loose out on a new concept because one corner of one chair couldn't be displayed.
This seems ridiculous to me. I agree with the author of this blog that so much restriction on what can be photographed can really squash creativity. This just seems like too much restriction. Like Meg, though, I agree that IP rights are important and should be handled with set guidelines/boundaries. I just wonder when enough is enough though. People take and sell plenty of pictures of the Las Vegas Strip, but I can guarantee you that the architects of every one of those buildings are not getting paid whenever a picture of their building is sold. How do you even organize or regulate something like that? I understand giving credit where credit is due, but when you put something out there like a building or a chair, you should be putting it out there for people to use and enjoy in everyday life (and yes, people take pictures of buildings and chairs in everyday life). No one should be able to profit on reproducing or representing your work on its own, but there needs to be a point somewhere where artistic freedom is encouraged and financial compensation is no longer warranted.
This article made me annoyed to think that anyone has to stifle their creativity by wondering if they will get sued while taking a spontaneous picture. I suppose I understand the works of art thing to a degree but maybe only if it is in an actual museum at the time. For anyone to have to take the time to research an inanimate object that could randomly be anywhere is rediculous! I think there should be certain rights for such things. We have freedom of speech so why not freedom of photography at least to the degree that doesn't infringe on ones way to make a living.
Post a Comment