In this thread, B-Rad asks about a high-resolution image of Peter Blume’s The Eternal City and about museums that can be toured virtually, and it was immediately closed because of “copyright violation.” And yet, exactly what he asks for in on-line in the form of Google “Street View” of many museums along with high resolution images of other art. And Broad Street Review has an image of the individual painting that is 3600x2536, which should be big enough to suit B-Rad’s needs, and I don’t think it will be argued that either Google or Broad Street Review are committing copyright infringement by making these available on the internet.
She was asking someone to go and sneak a photo of the picture.
That’s what was wrong. If she’d purely asked for a link to a high-resolution photo, that would have been different.
In which thread? The OP has a link to everything but the SDMB thread.
Sorry, meant to link it in the “this” of “in this thread.”
I was about to post basically the same thing. Especially when the poster included the stuff about maybe having to pay for the privilege. It seems obvious to me that he was not talking about piracy, but hoping for an official source.
Many paintings have these high resolution photos available. It is far less of a problem than, say, a digital copy of a movie or photograph. The original is what has the value, and even a high resolution printing is obvious to even the untrained eye. And you can get to a quite high resolution before you’re anywhere near the resolution needed to paint an exact copy.
That’s not to say they want you to print them. Reprints are often sold, so they do put up some restrictions. But it’s not so bad that they don’t display them online anywhere. I’ve encountered plenty in my work on Wikipedia. The site Darren Garrison mentions is a common source.
What is it about taking a picture in the MOMA that you think is wrong? :dubious:
The line in question was
And it does seem like a request meant to relate to the type of request of a personal favor, but does not indicate any illegal activity, I don’t even know if they restrict photos there (as a photo can never justify the original), I doubt Chronos knew either.
I’ve never heard of any art museum that does allow photos, and would be extremely surprised if the MOMA did. But that’s not even relevant, because even if the museum did allow photos as a matter of policy, it’s still covered under copyright law. If you make a copy of a copyrighted work without permission of the owner, you are breaking the law. Now, maybe Google has taken such a photo, but if they have, then it’s because they’ve somehow gotten that permission. Some random person on a message board has not.
The MOMA allows “still photography … in some galleries for personal and non-commercial use only.”
Regardless, the MOMA itself has a publicly posted image of the painting available here.
Please tell me if they allow it how is that not relevant to do what they allow if they display the work under those conditions that they can be photographed, which is not a copy of a work of art btfw.
You should reopen that thread.
[
](http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/sme/en/documents/pdf/ip_photography.pdf)And considering that the intent of B-RAD was both educational and transformative:
17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Taking a photo for the purpose of studying a work of art and then making your own art based on that can be considered “transformative”, even if the original art is used in the new piece. My cite is the life and work of Richard Prince, asshole extraordinaire.
This “don’t discuss copyright violations” nonsense is getting out of hand. Here’s a suggestion: if you cannot put your finger on a specific part of copyright law that the suggestion violates, stop closing threads. The rubric “things can’t be copied” is simply a poor rubric to work under, even for laypersons.
More, if you have to prove that you have copyright to every image that you link to here, you might as well ban all linking to images.
(How I found the high-resolution image: I Google image searched the title and artist, picked a couple of good examples (that were each a bit different), did a “search by image”, and choose “large.”)
Because A museum restricting something does not mean you are not violating a copyright law by doing that which the museum does not restrict. Laws can restrict things that museums to do not enforce. That should be pretty obvious. And did you miss “some galleries”? Did you read the quote I posted?
What?
a
Second part first: a photograph of a work of art is not the work of art. or else no one would seek or value the original. First part second: a museum could not display such a work if the artist or copywright holder refused the conditions of the museum. If they allow photographs it is not a copyright violation as a condition of being in a museum that allows photographs of the art work.
That says most countries. I quoted a statement by an intellectual property law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. Does that mean it’s necessarily correct? No. But Chronos is outright stating that it would be a violation of copyright, and he may be aware of laws that he has not yet cited. Or he may be wrong. We’ll see.
How about the part that says “don’t make copies of works of art without the owner’s permission”? You know, the part that’s pretty much the entire thing?
You said (bolding mine):
“Please tell me if they allow it how is that not relevant to do what they allow if they display the work under those conditions that they can be photographed, which is not a copy of a work of art btfw.”
And again, did you miss “some” galleries?
Sounds right. Then the owner or copyright holder would have to request the art be taken down.
Nonsense. A museum not restricting something has no bearing on what constitutes a copyright violation.
The part of what? Can you cite that part?