I am a digital artist that composites photographic images taken in cities. As a consequence of this I get incidental appearances of ads, logos, and company names.
I presume that any appearance of copyrighted or trade marked material, whether incidental or not, regardless whether or not the image was taken in a public space can not be displayed/exhibited without seeking copyright permission. I PRESUME this but I am not sure what my rights are. Public space is easy enough to define, but incidental is not. My images are not used editorially, but for gallery exhibition and fine art reproduction. I am currently digitally manipulating a photograph of a Hong Kong high street, that is displaying company names and logos. Legally speaking am I obliged to seek permission, (which would be impractical), or change their appearance (which is what I would prefer to do). There is a link below to show what I mean. http://www.bernadettefeely.com/html/studio/2_HK2.html Other photographs that I intend to exhibit in the future, are of a person wearing a helmet with a logo, and a photograph of a facade of a hotel, that shows the building's signage. With these examples do I need to seek permission from the motorbike helmet manufacturer, and the proprietor of the hotel chain? Dear Bernadette, This should cover most of your problems as the item is on public display. So as long as you don't use it for advertising it is problem. I get this with buldings and over zealous security guards. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm for the whole act. Section 62 I think is what you are after The following sections deals with works on public display and this includes buildings. Representation of certain artistic works on public display. 62.-(1) This section applies to- (a) buildings, and (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. (2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by- (a) making a graphic work representing it, (b) making a photograph or film of it, or (c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it. (3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright. (Only a buildings paper and electronic drawings are covered by copyright, architects models are not. Any attempt made to remove film/disks/copyrighted material from a person regardless of whether they are on a public highway is classed as theft and assault.) (my addition) Reconstruction of buildings 65. Anything done for the purposes of reconstructing a building does not infringe any copyright- (a) in the building, or (b) in any drawings or plans in accordance with which the building was, by or with the licence of the copyright owner, constructed. So if any one has a go just point this out. I was recently threatened by the managemnt of a bulding that they would sue me for even photographing the building. I sent them a polite but stern letter reminding them that ignornace of the law has never been an excuse in court and they should familiarise them selves with section 62 of the copyright act. I got an extremely apologetic phone call will an invite to go there anytime I would like to. I spent hours on the phone getting to the bottom of this one Hope that helps cheers Ian Reynolds =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
