|
I produce large works of art (in the US), some of it landsculpting,
where I move large amounts of earth to create various features for
clients,, visible from the air or neighboring areas, and often
photograph it in novel ways. I also create unique roofs for people who
want a distinctive signature, where I guarantee no 2 are similar.
I've notice some of my work has recently started showing up on Google's
new satellite based pictures, and have a concern about copycats and
loss of my creative .
I thought I had an implied copyright for these, but I've been told that
does not give me the right to ask Google to no longer take pictures of
my art and unique roofs. I would instead need to register each
artifact with the US Copyright Office.
My question is, if I go to the trouble of registering each of these,
would Google be prevented from showing them in their satellite
photographs? Could I charge viewers or Google for the right to view
these if they are each registered?
Thanks very much,
Art
|
| |
| |
In article <0rol61huam5rsphiqb6nclrjjbkk0kena1@4ax.com>,
artoutrageous@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
My question is, if I go to the trouble of registering each of these,
would Google be prevented from showing them in their satellite
photographs? Could I charge viewers or Google for the right to view
these if they are each registered?
No and no. As Americans, we are free to photograph anything
we want to as long as we do it from public space. The air
and space above your artwork is owned by the public. You are
free to put something to block access to it and then charge
for seeing it, much like museums do, but with a roof, that
might be kind of expensive.
A similar thing happens with buildings. Building owners often
copyright or trademark the image of their building, but they
cannot prevent people from taking photos of it.
Even if Google were to charge to view your images, you still
might not have recourse. Consider a private or pay library
that charges to lend out books and DVD's.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
| |
| |
I thought I had an implied copyright for these, but I've been told
that
does not give me the right to ask Google to no longer take pictures of
my art and unique roofs. I would instead need to register each
artifact with the US Copyright Office.
My question is, if I go to the trouble of registering each of these,
would Google be prevented from showing them in their satellite
photographs?
You have the right to ask Google for anything you want. They (almost
certainly) won't agree to the type of thing you're thinking of asking
them for--- unless you hire a very good lawyer who makes a very good
argument. You may even have to go to court, in which case you will be
battling with a multibillion dollar corporation.
In any case, you have learned a valuable lesson. If you absolutely
don't want your ideas to be stolen, DON'T display them in public, DON"T
tell anyone about them, DON'T do anything at all with your ideas.
Because as soon as ANYONE ELSE finds out about them, your ideas might
get STOLEN!!
In fact, if having your ideas be not stolen is what your main goal in
life is, it is counterproductive even to register your copyright. The
copyright filing is a public record, which means that anyone who
bothers to go visit the copyright office can STEAL your idea.
|
| |
| |
y question is, if I go to the trouble of registering each of these,
would Google be prevented from showing them in their satellite
photographs? Could I charge viewers or Google for the right to view
these if they are each registered?
In a nutshell. No. It is irrelevant if your copyright is registered. I
assume that you are referring to images taken from satelites.
You can not copyright photographic images just because they are images
of your art. The art itself is an original work of art that is
copyrightable, but not a photograph of it. The "author" of the
photograph is the photographer. If you took the photos, then you have a
right to protect your copyright in the photograph. Anyone else can take
a photo of your artwork if it is displayed in a public place and you do
not have any rights in their photographs.
You also cannot prevent or charge others from taking photos of your
work. If you don't want it to be seen, do not put it in the public
domain.
Good luck,
David
|
| |
| |
The art itself is an original work of art that is
copyrightable, but not a photograph of it. The "author" of the
photograph is the photographer.
Not *quite*- Frederick E. Hart v. Warner Bros
A prop for the movie "The Devil's Advocate" was derived from Hart's
sculpture "Ex Nihilo". The studio paid money, not for using the sculpture
itself, nor even a photograph of it, but a crude reproduction that *at no
time* was claimed to be the original. I certainly hadn't heard about the
original until I learned about the lawsuit.
Still, I think it would be pretty hard to sue anyone for publishing a photo
of your exteriorly, publically displayed artwork taken from space. There
have been enough photos published of enough objects from space that an
artist or architech should have already sued a satellite owner.
http://www.keanuvision.com/lot/archives/000188.html
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-319473.html
http://www.atheistempire.com/entertainment/movies.html
http://stage.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_article&articleID=VR1117467814&cs=1
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_article&articleID=VR1117467740&categoryID=13&cs=1
http://grove.ufl.edu/~techlaw/vol4/issue3/lucas.html
|
| |
| |
In article <0rol61huam5rsphiqb6nclrjjbkk0kena1@4ax.com>,
<artoutrageous@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I produce large works of art (in the US), some of it landsculpting,
[[.. munch, to keep the moderator happy ..]]
My question is, if I go to the trouble of registering each of these,
would Google be prevented from showing them in their satellite
photographs? Could I charge viewers or Google for the right to view
these if they are each registered?
Thanks very much,
Art
Oh my, you like to stir up real hornet's nests of alligators (to *really*
mix metaphors), don't you?
Given: you're claiming copyright protection on the "works", under the
laws of the United States. But, as _what_kind_ of a protected work?
An "architectural work", or under the category of "Pictorial, graphic,
and sculptural works"? or are you claiming a "design copyright"?
The pictures in question were taken "in space",
Does the jurisdiction of the country, whose laws you're relying on, extend
to space? Do those laws apply _in_space_, where the pictures were taken?
(this is nota trivial question, there has been some *serious* legal wrangling
over whether a governmental entity could _tax_ the value of items in orbit.)
_WHO_ took the pictures? Are they "exempt" from copyright statutes?
*WHY* were the pictures taken? Does that fall under one of the 'fair use'
exemptions?
_After_ you deal with those issues, you get to deal with the 'use' by
Google.
First off, Is Google _itself_ publishing the pictures, or are they being
published "somewhere else" and Google is just providing a 'reference' to
the other location? See 47 USC 230 regarding transmission of information
"provided by another".
Then there is the "small matter" matter of the 'use' of the images. And
"fair use" exemptions for that use.
Developing 'meaningful' and 'intelligent' answers could probably occupy
a legal professional practicing in those areas for a week to a month.
Relying on advice from an unknown variety of dog(*), received in a public
forum, would be "doggone" foolish.
To get a real answer, ask a legal professional. Being prepared to pay
for their opinion.
(*) "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog". Google for it. I don't
think there are any pictures.
P.S.: Woof! Woof! <*grin*>
|
| |
| |
In article <glu271p6ie144qj1ib21ptj92jjt4bh9vt@4ax.com>,
Dave <dland@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
You also cannot prevent or charge others from taking photos of your
work.
Sure you can; put it inside a locked room.
If you don't want it to be seen, do not put it in the public
domain.
I don't think you mean "public domain".
Seth
|
| |
| |
Robert Bonomi wrote:
Given: you're claiming copyright protection on the "works", under the
laws of the United States. But, as _what_kind_ of a protected work?
An "architectural work", or under the category of "Pictorial, graphic,
and sculptural works"? or are you claiming a "design copyright"?
The pictures in question were taken "in space",
Does the jurisdiction of the country, whose laws you're relying on,
extend
to space? Do those laws apply _in_space_, where the pictures were
taken?
(this is nota trivial question, there has been some *serious* legal
wrangling
over whether a governmental entity could _tax_ the value of items in
orbit.)
Well, the laws regarding space are still being developed, but there are
many centuries of precedents involving ocean travel. And Google is a
US corporation, which would give the US government some jurisdiction
over the satellite photos on maps.google.com anyway.
There are some precedents involving the rights to images of famous
buildings. I know there have been controversies over the Chrysler
Building in NYC as well as over the (original version of) the World
Trade Center. If I recall correctly, in case of the Chrysler Building,
you would have no problem publishing photos of the NY skyline, but if
you will get shaken down by lawyers if you publish a photo of just the
Chrysler Building, or if you include it in a stylized artwork of the
skyllne.
I seriously doubt that the original poster will be able to get Google
to leave his pieces out of the maps.google.com picturebase.
A whole another problem is that he is not the owner of the buildings in
question, nor (it seems) is he the architect. In the case of the
buildings (at least) his contribution would be a work for hire and the
intellectual property rights to the building as a whole would belong to
someone else.
|
| |
| |
Still, I think it would be pretty hard to sue anyone for publishing a
photo
of your exteriorly, publically displayed artwork taken from space
Pebble Beach Company, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Transamerica Corp and
numerous other U.S. entities have sued photographers for publishing
images of their *trademarked* symbols (the Lone Cypress at the golf
course, the buildings themselves in the other instances). They usually
lose, but the act of filing lawsuits has been effective in discouraging
photographers from taking pictures of those symbols and extracting
licensing fees from agencies.
Note this is for protection of a trademark, not a copyright. I imagine
all kinds of nuisance suits have been filed against the satellite
companies on this issue. I know an attorney who works for Digital Globe
-- I'll need to ask her about this the next time I see her.
A photographer, but not a lawyer (and certainly not an IP lawyer),
RFM
|
| |
| |
|
