Artwork in scenes (real and CG) and their copyright

[TommyJ]

I'm working with a client at the moment who's an interior designer.

 

We were discussing the copyright implications of showing artwork and/or photographs on the walls and I wasn't able to give her a solid answer.

 

If, for example, you or the client put a print of a Jackson Pollock on the wall, take a photo of it and then put that photo on your website, are you technically committing copyright fraud?

 

The same question would apply to a CGI scene if you found a jpg of some art and displayed it in a render

 

any help appreciated.

[RyderSK]

This has been discussed many times over years, without definite answer. Copyright laws also largely differ around globe ( even quite dramatically between US and continental Europe for example).

 

Imho, it absolutely falls under 'fair use'. The artwork is modified by your use and features minorly. Safe territory to me as it gets.

 

But because I am good guy and for some prominent projects I wanted to be on the safest side imaginable, I source artworks from local artists. It's free, I get it in good high-res quality, it's unique, everyone is happy.

[TommyJ]

thanks Juraj.

 

I was thinking along the same lines, and it's interesting to have the blurriness of the situation confirmed by someone else.

 

If it were a photo or a 3d image of one of my buildings, I'd definitely just bank on fair use applying, I'm just a little nervous about advising a client the same way.

[beestee]

I live near Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art and they allow non-flash photography. If there was a legal issue on this matter, I would think of all places, an art museum would not allow photography.

[Scott Schroeder]

You can't just go on Google, find a well known artist's (or any artist for that matter) work, and apply that in your scene. Is that what you are asking? The exception is if you search in google images with creative commons license turned on. If you do a Google image search, under search tools and under usage rights.

 

Yes, your rendering probably won't be see by as many people as this, but you never know.

http://www.polygon.com/2016/2/24/11105554/uncharted-4-trailer-stolen-assassins-creed-black-flag-concept-art

 

Posting a photo of artwork that you took in a public space is much different than going onto an artist's website, and doing save image as on their work.

[Justin Hunt]

this is one of the reasons I use my own art in renderings, I can only sue myself for copyright infringements

[Nic H]

i would be very careful in using peoples artwork in commercial renders

(don't do it and put the onus on the client to provide)

[Joel Gray]

I would chalk this up to fair use as well. You're selling the interior design concept, not the artwork on the wall. I would equate it to cars in exterior renderings - it's highly unlikely an auto manufacturer will be gunning for you because their latest make and model are parked in front of your building.

 

Joel

[Scott Schroeder]

I would chalk this up to fair use as well. You're selling the interior design concept, not the artwork on the wall. I would equate it to cars in exterior renderings - it's highly unlikely an auto manufacturer will be gunning for you because their latest make and model are parked in front of your building.

 

Joel

 

http://www.shakelaw.com/blog/using-images-from-the-web-a-guide-to-fair-use/

 

I don't think it is fair use to take an image from the web that doesn't explicitly state that you have the right to re-use it. The artist or photographer may not want their work splayed all over some McMansion. If anything, you are treading deep into murky waters here with the definition of fair use and whether or not renders are considered "for profit". The whole Richard Prince thing and "rephotographing" really showed that there is no true black and white guides in the world of the internet. While you may be legal to do so and maybe no one well ever say anything, it's still a lousy thing to do.

 

It's best to either use to Google filters by license or search directly on the creative commons site;

http://search.creativecommons.org/

 

Funny how we light the torches when someone posts our work on their site, yet we'll rob someone blind for artwork and claim it as fair use.

[Joel Gray]

Scott,

 

I didn't condone the use of copyrighted material randomly acquired on the internet. You're reading too much into my comment and taking the question into a larger debate. If I'm a professional photographer taking pictures of the finished interior, and that interior happens to have a Jackson Pollock print on the wall, I don't see how that is any different than a virtual representation of the same space.

[philippelamoureux]

If the artist is alive just send him/her an email and ask politely. I've done it for a Marc Seguin painting and he had no problem with it. If the artist is dead then I don't know!

Edited July 22, 2016 by philippelamoureux

[John Dollus]

I would chalk this up to fair use as well. You're selling the interior design concept, not the artwork on the wall. I would equate it to cars in exterior renderings - it's highly unlikely an auto manufacturer will be gunning for you because their latest make and model are parked in front of your building.

 

Joel

 

You would be incorrect. It's not fair use at all. A large rendering studio was dragged into the legal arena over this issue a while back. Have you ever noticed how logos and paintings are obscured or removed for reality tv programs? Not much difference when it comes to mass media. Just because it's a common practice, doesn't make it legal. Same goes for including celebrities in renderings as entourage. I used to see that all the time from architecture firms. Unless it's your photo, covered under creative commons or you have permission from the originator (artist or photographer), you are exposing yourself and your client to liability.

 

In your photographer example, the client OWNS the piece being photographed.

[beestee]

Funny how we light the torches when someone posts our work on their site, yet we'll rob someone blind for artwork and claim it as fair use.

 

There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope. We give them a turn and they make new and curious combinations. We keep on turning and making new combinations indefinitely; but they are the same old pieces of colored glass that have been in use through all the ages...

 

The kernel, the soul, let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances is plagiarism.

 

Ever taken a screen capture and placed it on a monitor in a rendering? If the issue is so absolute then even this should be unacceptable since application UX design is artwork in and of itself.

 

I personally feel that there is a notable difference between using another persons artwork as a texture ultimately equating to a small percentage share of pixels in an artwork that would be used as a portfolio piece, and using another persons artwork as a portfolio piece outright.

 

There is definitely a line to be drawn somewhere, but exactly where who can say? I guess courts try to define it somewhat, but even then it is for very specific circumstances, and the outcomes of which are likely co-related the depth of the pockets and/or mind share of the parties involved.

Edited July 22, 2016 by beestee