# Gun jumped in thread closing? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [February 7, 2018, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392 "2018-02-07T21:52:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/1 "2018-02-07T21:52:42Z")
In this thread, B-Rad asks about a high-resolution image of Peter Blume’s [The Eternal City](http://www.broadstreetreview.com/art/peter-blume-nature-and-metamorphosis-at-pafa#) 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](https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/beta/theme/igKSKBBnEBSGKg) along with [high resolution images of other art](https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/beta/explore). And [_Broad Street Review_](http://www.broadstreetreview.com/art/peter-blume-nature-and-metamorphosis-at-pafa#) has an image of the individual painting [that is 3600x2536](http://www.broadstreetreview.com/images/uploads/posts/09_BLUME-ETERNAL_CITY-MOMA.jpg), 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. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/2 "2018-02-07T21:59:48Z")
She was asking someone to go and sneak a photo of the picture. > [@B-Rad](#): > > I don’t suppose anyone in NYC could scootch on over to MOMA and sneak a snap for me? That’s what was wrong. If she’d purely asked for a link to a high-resolution photo, that would have been different. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/3 "2018-02-07T22:14:39Z")
In which thread? The OP has a link to everything but the SDMB thread. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/4 "2018-02-07T22:19:58Z")
Sorry, meant to [link it](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=848777) in the “this” of “in this thread.” ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/5 "2018-02-07T22:43:38Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/6 "2018-02-07T22:47:54Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > 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. What is it about taking a picture in the MOMA that you think is wrong? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/7 "2018-02-07T22:51:15Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > What is it about taking a picture in the MOMA that you think is wrong? :dubious: > [@](#): > > According to the lawyers I spoke with, snapping such a shot is generally O.K. in the United States if the work of art is in the public domain. For art, this generally means anything created before around 1923, they said. > > “If the painting is in the public domain, you can take a picture of it, you can reproduce it,” said Chris Sprigman, an intellectual property law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who has written on copyright issues for the Freakonomics blog. > > But if the work of art is more recent, the artist generally has the exclusive right to any reproduction, and the piece is generally covered by copyright law. > > In this case, “if you take a picture, you are making a reproduction and that is a copyright violation,” Prof. Sprigman said. And that applies even if you are just planning to hang the reproduction for your own private use. “That’s still a violation,” he said. [https://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/when-its-illegal-to-photograph-artwork/](https://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/when-its-illegal-to-photograph-artwork/) ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/8 "2018-02-07T22:54:03Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > 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. The line in question was > [@](#): > > I don’t suppose anyone in NYC could scootch on over to MOMA and sneak a snap for me? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/9 "2018-02-07T23:35:07Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/10 "2018-02-07T23:39:42Z")
The MOMA allows “[still photography … in some galleries for personal and non-commercial use only](https://www.moma.org/visit/tips#policies).” Regardless, the MOMA itself has a publicly posted image of the painting available [here](https://www.moma.org/collection/works/79988?classifications=any&date_begin=Pre-1850&date_end=2018&locale=en&q=eternal+city&with_images=1). ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/11 "2018-02-07T23:43:53Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/12 "2018-02-07T23:47:48Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > [Can You Legally Take a Picture of Art? - The New York Times](https://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/when-its-illegal-to-photograph-artwork/) [ > [@WIPO](#): > > • Taking photos for purely private use > > In most countries, you are allowed to take photos without authorization, if you use them purely for private purposes. For example, taking a photo of a painting to post on your home refrigerator will generally not constitute copyright infringement. ]([http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/sme/en/documents/pdf/ip\_photography.pdf](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: > [@B-RAD](#): > > I just know that if I stick this in front of my youngest (the painter in the family) she can render a modern interpretation for the USA–purely as a thought experiment, of course. [17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107) > [@](#): > > Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— > (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; > (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; > (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and > (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. > The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. 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. > **[Cariou v. Prince](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariou_v._Prince)** > > Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013) is a copyright case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on the question of whether artist Richard Prince's appropriation art treatment of Patrick Cariou's photographs was copyright infringement or fair use. The Second Circuit held in 2013 that Prince's appropriation art could constitute fair use, and that a number of his works were transformative fair uses of Cariou's photographs. The Court remanded to the United Sta Cariou... > **[Richard Prince v Suicide Girls in an Instagram price war](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/may/27/suicide-girls-richard-prince-copying-instagram)** > > Founder Missy Suicide offers prints of Instagram posts for $90 after discovering versions by Richard Prince for sale at Frieze art fair for $90,000 ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/13 "2018-02-07T23:49:52Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/14 "2018-02-07T23:54:09Z")
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.”) ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/15 "2018-02-07T23:57:10Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Please tell me if they allow it how is that not relevant to do what they allow 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? > [@](#): > > if they display the work under those conditions that they can be photographed, which is not a copy of a work of art btfw. What? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/16 "2018-02-08T00:03:33Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/17 "2018-02-08T00:10:27Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > • Taking photos for purely private use > > > > In most countries, you are allowed to take photos without authorization, if you use them purely for private purposes. For example, taking a photo of a painting to post on your home refrigerator will generally not constitute copyright infringement. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/18 "2018-02-08T00:16:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **DSYoungEsq** : > > 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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/19 "2018-02-08T00:17:24Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > a > > Second part first: a photograph of a work of art is not the work of art. 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? > [@](#): > > First part second: a museum could not display such a work if the artist or copywright holder refused the conditions of the museum. Sounds right. Then the owner or copyright holder would have to request the art be taken down. > [@](#): > > 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. Nonsense. A museum not restricting something has no bearing on what constitutes a copyright violation. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/20 "2018-02-08T00:26:02Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > 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? The part of what? Can you cite that part? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392.md?page=2)