Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10 »
 on: Today at 04:58:23 PM 
Started by trevarthan - Last post by Slobodan Blagojevic
The usual disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. And this stuff is not simple (when it comes to lawyers, nothing is simple Wink)

The major watershed is whether it is a commercial (advertisement) use of a photograph or not. The risk of copyright or trademark infringement is much higher for commercial use than for editorial or fine art use. However, even in the area of stock photography for commercial purposes, the risk (that you might be sued) can be classified as high, medium or low. A good primer is on my stock agency's (ImageBrief) blog:

Part I: Copyright Law

Part II: Trademarks

The bottom line is, while in this country (and many others) anyone can take you to court for anything (and thus expose you to legal costs even if you win the case), the reasonable thing to do is to asses the risk.

For instance, the Bean sculpture in the Chicago Millennium park is copyrighted, yet millions of tourists are snapping that picture every day and posting it on social media, etc. While technically it is a copyright infringement, it is highly unlikely that the sculptor is going to take them to court. However, he did take to court larger corporations when they tried to use it commercially.

 on: Today at 04:39:12 PM 
Started by RSL - Last post by RSL
Right. And look at us now: all wildly successful photographers, writers, and philosophers. Maybe that kid's one of us for all we know.

 on: Today at 04:30:57 PM 
Started by luxborealis - Last post by shawnino
There are possibly millions of this type of image online and in print, but this particular image strikes me as exciting and fresh.

The colours in the sky are ethereal and a little unusual, but the field is bold and rich and familiar. The composition is well conceived. The detail pulls me into the scene. It's the type of work I can look at over and over again. Well done.

To the cropping question, I've "cropped" it by holding my hand in-between the image and my face--I think it works both ways.

 on: Today at 04:25:30 PM 
Started by trevarthan - Last post by KirbyKrieger
The rules are set by law, not buyers.

First, just to clarify, by "buyers" I meant the agencies that purchase (or license) images from image-makers.

I am sure there are copyright laws restricting the use of those images.  Are there laws that restrict which images stock photography companies can purchase?

My citations point to appropriations and modifications used in Fine Art.  They are quite pointed: in one, an artist purchased an object, exhibited it, and sold it.  In another, an artist reproduced an object depicting a trademark, exhibited it alongside a similar but "artistically" modified copy, and (afaik) sold it.

The OP asked about selling landscape images he makes as Fine Art.  He/She has altered that in his/her follow up.  My response was to the original post.  The OP now seems more concerned with selling images to Stock agencies.

Your response ... "What?  And for what?" is much more likely to move the discussion forward.

Fwiw, here is what I think is a good short video primer on copyright issues regarding Stock photographs.

 on: Today at 04:15:55 PM 
Started by JayWPage - Last post by Peter McLennan
Microceramic luster.  Many sizes, including 17X25.
Great service and price.

 on: Today at 04:15:52 PM 
Started by RGaren - Last post by David Eichler
My i1-display Pro colorimeter works like a charm on that device. And indeed, there's no advantage over the NEC branded unit which is the same, other than perhaps the cost.

Plus you will also have the i1 software that you can use to calibrate other monitors, if necessary.

 on: Today at 04:12:49 PM 
Started by mal mcilwraith - Last post by Slobodan Blagojevic

No problem, that wasn't a personal criticism. I have nothing against digital imagery, montages, combo techniques, etc. Nor against oil, watercolor, pencil drawings, etc. It is just that I am predominantly a photographer, and tend to value (pure) photography differently. Not better or worse, but differently. I particularly highly value images where the photographer managed to transcend the documentary aspect and elevate it above the obvious, using photographic techniques. In that respect, I like your original photograph of the place more than the watercolored one.

 on: Today at 04:02:14 PM 
Started by Justinr - Last post by Glenn NK
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck

 on: Today at 03:57:20 PM 
Started by RSL - Last post by seamus finn
Yeah, I was born in 1946 - we were all influenced by 'Americana'. This image has the look of that era - some guy maybe in a bus station heading off to imagined stardom in LA and not knowing what lies ahead of him, not knowing that his fate is not in his own hands - like every other guy that ever was born!

 on: Today at 03:48:24 PM 
Started by Chris Calohan - Last post by Chris Calohan
His wingspan is less that both my hands tied at the thumbs making flapping motions.

Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10 »