legal advice needed

[tele]

newbie and new member so HELLO :)

I've been referred over to this forum from another forum in regards to a recent problem I encountered and now trying to deal with. I have no experience in this arena so I'm freaking out a little.

Basically, I just started doing some projections (with live music) and in there is a photograph I took with someone else's work in it. The artist saw this and is now asking whether I had permission etc. I don't know how to handle the situation.

Any advice appreciated. Thanks!!!

[sleepytom]

was his work displayed somewhere where you were allowed to take photos? if so then he has no right to complain. If it was displayed in private and you took a sneeky picture then you should say sorry and stop using it.

If he is still annoyed you could maybe suggest an exchange where you talke some photos for his website / portfollio or whatever and get to use some photos of his work for your projections. Suggesting that you'll credit him on your website is also a good idea.

[vdmoKstaTi]

Why type of work was it? The one you took the photo of?
Actually, tell us the full story. How it happened, where it happened, what did you do with the photos in question and if they are displayed somewhere and under what conditions.

[tele]

ok here's the low down.
it's basically that I made a slideshow with my photography which I projected with live music (i've only done it once in a public venue - and a second time tomorrow - come by if u can!).
I made this slideshow as my final project at uni. I think I was a little naive to just take it out of the educational context. I really didn't think it would reach anyone or catch anyone's eye... but there you go.
I don't even really know what he can claim on legal grounds... it's a free event. no money.

I took the pic in an exhibition but other ppl were taking pics too so I don't believe it was a sneaky snap. :sigh:

[sleepytom]

if you were legally allowed to take the photo then the photo is yours and you can do what you like with it.

[ender]

I don't know if photography in a gallery even if there no notice prohibiting it would be considered a public space. The issue of commercial use of the image also comes into play.

Bit of a grey area really.

Excellent summery of the issues here.

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm

[vjrei]

I had a problem like that once. I used to do the visuals for a party but I got bored, then the owner of the party (actually a DJ colective that use to make small parties in small pubs) asked his cousin to do the visuals and they barow my computer several times. One they the cousin couldn't do the visuals and I went with my computer, the visuals of the otherguy were there and I used them. The guy was at the party (30 people at the most) and he got really upset.

I told him it wasn't my intention, he was claiming he made the visuals and people may think I did them. He was/is actually a very good animator that used to spent too much time in a room with computer and lost his social skills.

Any way, I started to use my own visuals and that was it.

Two years later when I moved to the US and went to FL I spoke to some people at MTV and a girl told me: Ohh... are you VJ Rei? I got an email claiming your videos are not yours and that you steal work from other people.

This guy took the time 2 yeasr later to start spreading emails from Venezuela to Miami to people I didn't even knew telling that sort of things.

Today I use many peoples visuals any way but I am sure whos visuals I use.

The point is to be carefull with people outhere, you do not know what is going to happen, specially artist who do not make money and are usually upset at the world.

[dreamteck]

why is it i've never ever had problems even remotely similar to people on these forums.

Sometimes i feel like i'm living in my own little world and completely out of sight *phew* : )

[evomedia]

was his work displayed somewhere where you were allowed to take photos? if so then he has no right to complain.


Not true tom, the artist ALWAYS retains copyright unless you specifically gain permission, and double so if your using it in a commercial sense, he can pursue this as far as he likes especially if the set that displayed it was a paid one. Take a carrier bag graphic that even though people have them on the street, the bag design is still copyrighted, if you buy a photograph or a scuplture and put it in a public place people don't suddenly have the right to rip off the design and sell it on.

There is NO legal recourse except to apologise or plead that you'll happily credit him or cease using it in future, probably explaining the orginal uni context may help, however if the artists wants to pursue legal action he is 100% entitled regardless.

If the artists displays a photo in a gallery or a book that is displayed publically and you then copy it, you still have to gain permission to copy it for commercial purposes.

Court cases are only not pursued if the artist infringed chooses not to continue.

[deepvisual]

......, however if the artists wants to pursue legal action he is 100% entitled regardless.

but it would be rather pointless.
no point sueing someone who has no money.
so unless our Vj is the son of richard branson, then 'the artist' ( oh how that phrase makes me wince) can huff and puff all he wants, but there is no house to blow down.

apologies and a group hug would be more appropriate.

[evomedia]

In terms of copyright the artist always retains his rights and is covered by all of the following:

reproduction:

The reproduction right is perhaps the most important right granted by the Copyright Act. Under this right, no one other than the copyright owner may make any reproductions or copies of the work. Examples of unauthorized acts which are prohibited under this right include photocopying a book, copying a computer software program, using a cartoon character on a t-shirt, and incorporating a portion of another's song into a new song.

It is not necessary that the entire original work be copied for an infringement of the reproduction right to occur. All that is necessary is that the copying be "substantial and material."

Public Display :

The public display right is similar to the public performance right, except that this right controls the public "display" of a work. This right is limited to the following types of works:

literary works;
musical works;
dramatic works;
choreographic works;
pantomimes;
pictorial works;
graphical works;
sculptural works; and
stills (individual images) from motion pictures and other audio visual works.


Public Performance:

The public performance right allows the copyright holder to control the public performance of certain copyrighted works. The scope of the performance right is limited to the following types of works:

literary works,
musical works,
dramatic works,
choreographic works,
pantomimes,
motion pictures, and
audio visual works.
Under the public performance right, a copyright holder is allowed to control when the work is performed "publicly." A performance is considered "public" when the work is performed in a "place open to the public or at a place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances are gathered." A performance is also considered to be public if it is transmitted to multiple locations, such as through television and radio. Thus, it would be a violation of the public performance right in a motion picture to rent a video and to show it in a public park or theater without obtaining a license from the copyright holder. In contrast, the performance of the video on a home TV where friends and family are gathered would not be considered a "public" performance and would not be prohibited under the Copyright Act.


Derivative Works:
The right to make a derivative work overlaps somewhat with the reproduction right. According to the Copyright Act, a derivative work is

a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.
A derivative work usually involves a type of transformation, such as the transformation of a novel into a motion picture. In the computer industry, a second version of a software program is generally considered a derivative work based upon the earlier version.

[evomedia]

but it would be rather pointless.
no point sueing someone who has no money.
so unless our Vj is the son of richard branson, then 'the artist' ( oh how that phrase makes me wince) can huff and puff all he wants, but there is no house to blow down.

apologies and a group hug would be more appropriate

Maybe Deep but thats the artists choice, he can sue whoever infringes his copyright if he chooses, damages rewarded are not subject to if you CAN afford it, its a penalty for doing it, you dont avoid fines because your broke in terms of the law.

A artist who is very prescious about their work as their living is much more likely to sue an individual to protect himself than a hollywood studio.

[tele]

I don't know if photography in a gallery even if there no notice prohibiting it would be considered a public space. The issue of commercial use of the image also comes into play.

Bit of a grey area really.

Excellent summery of the issues here.

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm

thanks for the link ender. it is true that with photography there is a lot of 'grey' area - well, not just photography, but this is what I am learning thus far.

[tele]

Hi. Thanks all for your advice.

I am now seeking some free legal advice at www.own-it.org (http://www.own-it.org) which may come in handy for anyone out there who encounters similar situations.

[tele]

it seems that i may be able to get away with paying a license fee... which is what I should have done prior to using the image. i don't know what extra fees I will incur as for using the image without prior consent...

[evomedia]

Hope it all works out without too much pain,

I don't see him as being particularly nasty, copyright is an artists protection so seeing others opening stealing their work will tend to put their back up, and in that state they are likely to use the laws available to them.

It's especially relevant to photographers where the number of copies directly affects the value of the work, all photographers try and ensure the number of copies are limited as they themselves could duplicate an image for enternity, hence they have to limit the number of copies to make them saleable, thats true for either digital or a print, that means any commercial usage or unauthorised duplication can serious affect their income. A limited digital release (rights managed) means each digital copy can be worth thousands, but an unlimited (royalty free) image may be as low as £2

Its a different thing than ripping off a multinational corp, who look at finacial loss in different scales, but one man artists seeing their hard work used commercially without even a simple ask will get annoyed, especially as unauthorised copies potentially devalue their work a huge amount.

Digital images are a minefield for duplication and rights should always be sort for photographs, better off just using sites like stockxpert where all images are royalty free, can be used pretty much anywhere and are cheap, (everyone here can afford £2 for a photo)

Getty images are the worst, they actively look for illegal usage and do pursue through the courts, previous companies I've worked for have had to pay thousands for not clearing an image. They really will catch you if you use their rights controlled images on the web or in print, no matter who you are or how much money you have.

[tele]

yes it's true what you say evomedia. i guess i would feel the same way if I were on the other end of the pole.

[vj_jasper]

if they start talking big dollars, go find yrself a good lawyer who knows these kinds of cases and usually wins. sure, you perhaps made a faux pas, however should be given leeway, considering your inexperience.
don't put anything in writing, don't sign any agreement, without your own lawyer.

so, looking forward to the future, of mixing video art realtime, legally ..

perhaps checkout lightrhythmvisuals.com ... some of their video singles are pretty "arty" for want of a better word .. they exhibited .. or, rather 'performed' at the Museum of Modern Art, california.. and their visuals carry a performance license for the VJ who buys them.

some places will actually sell you a publishing license along with a vj clip, allowing limited commercial production runs.

[vjrei]

why is it i've never ever had problems even remotely similar to people on these forums.

Sometimes i feel like i'm living in my own little world and completely out of sight *phew* : )

Probably you are not doing enough :rolleyes:

Or probably you have the gift of being incredible polite.

In my experience doing visuals, breaking trough and doing extraordinary things involve changing paradigmas.

As a VJ when I am asked to participate in a show I have to create special footage for that show, that takes time and time is money, money the promoters do not want to pay.

Then I want to create a custom screen set up, that put me into conflict most of the time with the stage designers.

I ask for certain beamers with certain lummen, that put me into conflict with the provider because he just has his beamers and those are the ones he want to rent.

I get into conflict with some other people because I need to be infront of the screens, not behind or on a side. So the lighting guy and the laser operator get upset because of the special treatment and the stage designer in his unknowlege do not understand I hev to see hwat I am doing and I can not do that on a 8" monitor.

So, if you haven't being there:

1. You are not doing your best.
2. You are in VJ heaven.

I quit doing visuals after the Carl Cox concert, my partner keept doing them. He goes with his laptop and controllers and some twiking here and there with the screen. He have been doing visuals for 4 years now and he have been in many places in my country more than me. Now, he never charged more than I do and never get reviewed as I was. He is better than me because he is a graphic designer ( I am not) and he creates all his footage but he is going slow slow. He is younger, about 4 years than me, probably he is into doing a lot of work still, I decided to quit that without receiving a proper earning.

Any way, to be out there changing things usually create confrontations because there are people with egos who do not understand and most of the time that includes me.

[deepvisual]

either phone them up or go see them and apologise.

once the lawyers get involved, nothing can stop them.

[Rovastar]

Evo explained the factual legal situation well enough here.

There are grey areas of the interruption of any legal matter. But testing the law is difficult and expensive.

Try to do anything you can to avoid the legal route (although that is his call not yours).

Explain the situation, explain you will not use it again and be willing to sign a something to that effect - often the first legal step will be a cease and desist to stop you showing it more in the future - so be pro-active on this part. Do all efforts that you can to stop you going down the legal route.

Lawyers cost for both sides in a situation like this I imagine he doesn't want a large lawyers bill too. A donation/fee out of court/without lawyers might make the situation go away and at least the willingness I think will be looked on favourably if it did go to court.

[asterix]

Supplementary to this thread - I'm wondering why you've taken a photo of a photo and used it in your university final work? And you still refer to it as yours?

[vj_jasper]

I don't even really know what he can claim on legal grounds... it's a free event. no money.

I took the pic in an exhibition but other ppl were taking pics too so I don't believe it was a sneaky snap. :sigh:

he can claim that you have no right to project his artwork.

if the event was public, you can use the picture most likely without permission in a news article in print, and perhaps you may need permission for an online news article, for that is putting the jpeg of his work out there on the net )unless of course the artist' publishing/promotion company sends you specific images and text via email for press release purposes...

whereas print newspapers are a dime a dozen, designed to be recycled, a digital easy accessible jpeg is a "durable consumable bitable good" as far as product lifespan goes.

[vdmoKstaTi]

In theory if you are NOT member of Law Society, you are not allowed to give legal advice. Makes you wonder if most of the laws even apply to you, ha?
Keep the tiger in the cage and stay well out of it :) Let BAR stand in between..

words are there for a reason ;)

[vj_jasper]

In theory if you are NOT member of Law Society, you are not allowed to give legal advice...
Keep the tiger in the cage and stay well out of it :) Let BAR stand in between..
ah, true dat, :p