Photos of publicly displayed art: copyright?

Museums own the copyrights to their own photos of their artworks, but they do not own the copyrights to the artworks themselves.

Click to expand...

Speaking of US law, neither of these statements is necessarily true.Copyright law is a highly specialized area of practice, and a lot rides on the specific facts of the situation. This is one area where professional advice is worth taking.

There are a few interpretations on what the law is in these kinds of situations.

In Gaylord .v. US Postal Service a photograph of a sculpture was deemed to be fair use.

A later lawsuit over a similar issue (Mackie v. Hipple) ended up being resolved in mediation.

You mentioned it being a travel memoir. It is worth remembering that the US Law is a bit different to most other countries.

In Australia, Section 65 specifically permits the kind of photography you are talking about - it is 100% clear that it isn't a copyright infringement.

In Canada Section 32.2(1) of the Canada Copyright Act states that it is NOT an infringement of copyright for a person to reproduce in photo or film a building or 'a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship that is permanently situated in a public place or building'.

However the US equivalent leaves out the sculpture references - it only applies to buildings.

Obviously I'm not a lawyer - this is just my understanding as a layperson.

Mac
(PS: Rogers .v. Koons is an amusing reversal - and a pretty pathetic attempt to claim a 'parody' exception)

In Australia, Section 65 specifically permits the kind of photography you are talking about - it is 100% clear that it isn't a copyright infringement.

Click to expand...

Section 65 exempts photographing art in places open to the public, or broadcasting or making a film in an area open to the public that contains images of the art, from claims of copyright infringement. It says nothing at all about taking and then selling a still photograph, or including it in a publication.
The law is a complicated beast, best not to attempt self-help in this area, seriously.

Ketzel said:

It says nothing at all about taking and then selling a still photograph, or including it in a publication.

Click to expand...

Agreed about the law being a complicated beast. But it really does cover taking and selling a still photo in this specific scenario.

Yes - it only covers the area of copyright infringement .. you could still fall afoul of other areas .. eg - if you tried to pass off your photo as being an official authorised photo there could be a passing off claim. But it really does cover the basic issue we are talking about here.

Yes - obviously get real professional advice from someone else. But I'm still going to pass on the professional advice I've worked with in the past. (A bit of background - I was one of the non-lawyers invited to give feedback on the proposed changes to the Australian Copyright Act - specifically about the issues with getting clearances for derivative works. So I've certainly sat around a big conference table with those who are responsible for the Australian Copyright Act and had these kinds of discussions with them. Mind you - what lawyers decide to interpret later may be a very different story!)

Good luck,

Mac