kevinmcgowan Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Hey All, I have a general question regarding the use of Artwork in renders of interiors etc. Say you have a piece of artwork hanging on the wall, does the artwork have to be royalty free?. If so, it seems very restrictive. Is there a time limit where artwork becomes public domain?. All in all I guess my question is, what are the boundries, if any?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Thomas Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 As far as I'm concerned it's no different to taking a photo of an apartment interior with artwork hanging on the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcgowan Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 I agree Stephen but since our renders are ultimately used for marketing doesn't the artist have a say on how their artwork is used?. For example we can't just use any random music we want, it has to be royalty free. I just wonder if this applies to artwork as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Thomas Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Where would it stop though? How about modelling context buildings, should you consult the architects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcgowan Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 Very true, the same can be said for furniture. We make exact replicas but we don't worry about the copyright of the design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcgowan Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 I guess though, I can't grab one of your renderings off your site and do with it as I wish, right?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Thomas Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 But you're not implying the painting is yours, are you. I dare say if you chose to put one of my renderings into one of your interior renderings as an artwork, or printed it onto a t-shirt and wore it for that matter, then I probably wouldn't be aware of it in the first place, and if I did I probably wouldn't tell you to remove it. I know it's a contentious area though. If you were to set up a website selling those nifty t-shirts with my rendering on it then maybe that would be another matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcgowan Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 There goes the t-shirt idea!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salvador Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Depending on the context (as stated above) I think some artists (furniture designers, painters, etc., even toilette furniture brands) would be glad to have their pieces promoted for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcgowan Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 I guess that depends on whether their products look good in the renders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 You absolutely DO need to use royalty free artwork. I can't remember who, but several years ago an office was sued for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcgowan Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 Yeah that would be my main worry, thanks for the feedback Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dollus Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 same goes for sculptures. If the artist or the entity holding the rights to the piece sees the sculpture and wants it removed, you will need to remove it. In terms of abstract art, it doesn't even need to be an exact duplication. As long as there are lawyers, this will be a concern so better safe than sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Schroeder Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 It's one of those one in a million chances. But yes, you cannot use an artist's work in your rendering without written permission. I had a job that had artwork commissioned from a local artist and in the contract was a specific clause that the artwork could only be used in this job. I could not use it anywhere else. You want artwork for your walls? Grab your camera and go out and shoot various scenes and your family. You have all the artwork you need at your fignertips. Run some watercolor effects on past renderings, etc. This way, everything is of your own creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Jeff Mottle Posted October 15, 2012 Administrators Share Posted October 15, 2012 Absolutely need the rights to use artwork in your renderings. Without question. There are two companies I know who were sued. One for over $100K. Don't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuzupetals Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 you guys should have a deeper look into copyright laws in whichever country you are and take immediate action to secure your artworks. in uk you can register copyright for artwork for as little as £65 but if you're having employment contract or any contract work it should be part of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcgowan Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 Thanks for the feedback guys. Jeff I know you can't say the companies name but do you know anymore specifics?. I am assuming that you may run into problems if you use a very specific piece of artwork in a very high profile job. I think you are less likely to run into problems if you use a mass produced piece of artwork in a not so high profile job. What I can't understand is if companies have run into problems with artwork copyright, surely other things such as furniture, cars etc are all subject to some sort of copyright as well?. Thanks again for the feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Schroeder Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I'm betting things like furniture, while do carry copyrights, fall into a similar copyright loophole as architecture does. Specifically, "First, when a building is ordinarily visible from a public place, its protection as an "architectural work" does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work. Thus, the architect will not be able to prevent people from taking photographs or otherwise producing pictorial representations of the building." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States under the rights granted section) So the plans are protected, the building is protected, the design is protected, the structure is protected, but the photographic reproduction isn't necessarily protected as it is visible in public. However, your rendering that you did for the architect is covered by copyright law. Someone can't use your rendering as art in their rendering, but if they themselves took a picture of the building then it is okay to use in a rendering. Strange and confusing, I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcgowan Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 Thanks for the insight Scott, it's very confusing but you make some valid points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Jeff Mottle Posted October 23, 2012 Administrators Share Posted October 23, 2012 Thanks for the feedback guys. Jeff I know you can't say the companies name but do you know anymore specifics?. I am assuming that you may run into problems if you use a very specific piece of artwork in a very high profile job. I think you are less likely to run into problems if you use a mass produced piece of artwork in a not so high profile job. What I can't understand is if companies have run into problems with artwork copyright, surely other things such as furniture, cars etc are all subject to some sort of copyright as well?. Thanks again for the feedback. I can't go into to details but trust me any form of copying known artwork (popular or not) is going to get you into trouble if the original copyright owner sees it. The circumstances around one of the cases I know you would never have thought in a million years they would know or find out...they did and they won. Regarding models etc, when I worked at ArchVision obviously all of their car content content was based around creating a commercial product around someone's copyrighted design. The lawyers felt it fell under fair use laws and they never had issues, however it wasn't too long ago that the makers of the iconic Kitchen Aid Mixer started going after online sellers of their model and there was a car manufacturer (I can't recall which one now) who did the same for one of their models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcgowan Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 Interesting Jeff, I hope it's not a slippery slope over the years. If we have to watch copyright on every single item, it would be crippling to our industry. Thanks again for the feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Schroeder Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 As for cars, if you notice on almost all of the collections, they do not include the logo. Similar to TV shows that don't want to pay the car company. Oh sure Mythbusters, we all know it's a Toyota but they put that little strip of black tape over the logo and BAM! generic car that just happens to look like a Toyota. Same thing probably applies for model collections. It sure looks like a Kitchen Aid appliance, but most of the smart companies will leave the logo and name off. I think that's how they can get you on copyrights for things like cars and appliances. If you make a Ford Mustang, it's within reasonable expectations that the Mustang is a widely known design and is of public use. However, if you put the Ford logo, the Mustang Logo, or anything of that nature, then you are treading deep into copyright waters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcgowan Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 Makes perfect sense Scott, I wonder if you change the art slightly in Photoshop whether that fits into the same parameters?. It resembles the artwork but it's not a perfect copy. One other thing, do you guys have sites that you use to get artwork. I noticed Art.com allows you to buy prints but not digital usage rights like Istock. Does a website exist like istock for art?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Schroeder Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I use my own art and my own photographs or from friends. It's just easier that way. You don't need to be a pro. Just take your point and shoot camera outside and snap away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Jeff Mottle Posted October 23, 2012 Administrators Share Posted October 23, 2012 I wonder if you change the art slightly in Photoshop whether that fits into the same parameters?. It resembles the artwork but it's not a perfect copy. Trust me. NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now