Artwork On Wall - Copyright Issues?

[ianmoran]

Hello all,

 

I have a quick question for you. When you create a 3d render and you hang a picture on the wall in the render, are you allowed to use any art work? I mean, are there any copyright issues involved if I was to use a piece of established art in the render?

 

Thank you in advance,

 

Ian

[Josef Wienerroither]

Had the same question a couple of months ago. Essentially, the copyright limitation still are the same as when using the artwork by itself as jpeg etc ...

 

Here's the thread about it :

http://forums.cgarchitect.com/82172-copyrights-well-known-photography-depicted-interior-renderings.html

[ianmoran]

Had the same question a couple of months ago. Essentially, the copyright limitation still are the same as when using the artwork by itself as jpeg etc ...

 

Here's the thread about it :

http://forums.cgarchitect.com/82172-copyrights-well-known-photography-depicted-interior-renderings.html

 

Thank you so much for your reply, Josef. I see that I need to be careful with this. I am also wondering if some artwork is public domain and free to use? I remember once reading that some artwork that was created by an artist who died more than 100 years ago, is free to use (ie. Da Vinci, Van Gogh). However, I am not sure how true that is.

[James Vella]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Australia

 

"Similar to the foreign reciprocity clause in the European Union copyright law, the change to the "plus 70" rule is not retroactive, so that if copyright has expired before the coming into force of the amendment it is not revived. The result is that:

Any work that was published in the lifetime of the author who died before 1 January 1955, is out of copyright.

Any work that was published in the lifetime of the author who died after 31 December 1954, will be out of copyright 70 years after the author's death.[14]

Now, in Australia, in accordance with s210 of the Copyright Act 1968, copyright does not apply to works that were published before 1 May 1969.[15]"

 

General rule of thumb is - change it 10% and its now copyright free

[notamondayfan]

http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/02/article_0010.html

 

Incidental background

In most countries, permission is not needed to include a copyrighted work in a photograph if its is merely an incidental part of the background, or is otherwise incidental to the principle object/subject represented in the photograph. It may, however, be difficult to assess what is incidental. The photographer should ask himself: Why do I want to include that particular work? If it is essential to the purpose of the photograph, then it cannot be said to be "incidental." Conversely, if it is not in the photograph for any aesthetic purpose or commercial reason, then there is probably no need for permission.

 

For example: A newspaper publishes a photograph to illustrate a report on a meeting of world leaders. The photograph incidentally shows a copyright-protected sculpture in the meeting room. Authorization would not normally be required as the sculpture adds no meaning to the main subject matter. On the other hand, our photographer in the photo-shoot scenario above deliberately posed the boy in front of the dog sculpture for aesthetic reasons. As such, the inclusion of the copyrighted work in the background was not incidental. It should be noted that courts are typically much more reluctant to accept free incidental use of works in cases of commercial and advertising use than in connection with the reporting of news and current affairs.

 

From what I understand, setting the scene with copyrighted material is OK, so long as the copyrighted material isn't the focus, and doesn't take up too much of the view. For example how many of us use Ford Focus, Vitra Eames, or a magazine cover in our shots?

 

And by the way "change it 10% and its now copyright free" is the worst advice ever. Derivative works from copyrighted material is still copyright theft.

 

Dean

[James Vella]

http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/02/article_0010.html

 

 

 

From what I understand, setting the scene with copyrighted material is OK, so long as the copyrighted material isn't the focus, and doesn't take up too much of the view.

Dean

 

Great advice!

 

My only concern would be that Interior Renderings benefit greatly from the artwork on the wall

[notamondayfan]

Then I personally would just use paid, commercial use stock artwork to be safe. I use bigstockphoto myself.

[beestee]

Make some original artwork, then when the client asks about the art in the renderings you can sell that as well if the price is right.

[Justin Hunt]

Make some original artwork, then when the client asks about the art in the renderings you can sell that as well if the price is right.

 

thats what I do

[James Vella]

Just had a look @ ur behance Justin, wow dude great work! Can we use your artwork too? Jokes, I wont but u got some talent there bud!

[Justin Hunt]

Kind of you to say, I am open to offers

 

By the way I keep my instagram more up to date than my Behance one

[Jeff Mottle]

 

General rule of thumb is - change it 10% and its now copyright free

 

Good luck with that. I know people who thought the same and were still sued and lost.

[Jeff Mottle]

[/url]

 

 

 

From what I understand, setting the scene with copyrighted material is OK, so long as the copyrighted material isn't the focus, and doesn't take up too much of the view. For example how many of us use Ford Focus, Vitra Eames, or a magazine cover in our shots?

 

Not in the cases I know about. What you are referring to is "fair use" and the latitude for fair use is pretty narrow and does not include for commercial use.

[James Vella]

Interesting, thanks for sharing your experience Jeff!

 

Ok Plan B - I think all my artwork is going to look like this from now on

 

[Rodolfo Tanno]

The same is valid for models of cars, furniture, luminaires, electronics, textures, since all products designs have Copyright.

[notamondayfan]

The same is valid for models of cars, furniture, luminaires, electronics, textures, since all products designs have Copyright.

 

It depends on context. If you photograph a street, where the subject is your friend, do you have to have the permission to show the cars in the shot?

 

If you were to start making a duplicate Ford in real life, and selling the car, then that would be copyright infringement.

 

Definitely, It will have copyright issues better go for paid stock images.

Because you've paid for it, doesn't mean it will have the right permissions to use how ever you like. All you're trying to do is pass the blame in the event of something going wrong.

[notamondayfan]

Not in the cases I know about. What you are referring to is "fair use" and the latitude for fair use is pretty narrow and does not include for commercial use.

 

I disagree from my understanding. If what you're saying is true, how do traditional photographic studios survive without being sued on a daily basis for featuring copyrighted props, furniture, accessories, etc in their shots? Do you think they obtain permission from ever manufacturer?