That's a good idea! It definitely stops the worries...Originally Posted by Richard Wasserman
That's a good idea! It definitely stops the worries...
The painting was still for sale, wasn't it?
Very true! I didn't mind....The painting was still for sale, wasn't it?
But only in the US. Other countries don't bother with registration as you can prove ownership in other ways... such as having the negative.
And don't forget that it is possible (but obviously illegal) to register someone else's image as your own so registration is not always absolute proof of ownership.
Steve.
The painting is for sale for a significant sum.
It's your call whether to pursue this, but this has happened to me and I did receive remuneration. In my case, a magazine authorized a painter to make renditions of photographs that I had submitted. It then published the paintings. I learned this from the photo editor whose objections had been over-ruled by the editor. I threatened legal action after my polite letter was ignored. After some discussions, received the same payment that I would have received had my photographs had published.
If you value your rights as an artist, and IF you truly believe that your copyright has been infringed, you should try to resolve the issue even it's only to make the artist aware of your feeling that your has been misappropriated. The more often we are quiet, the more often it will happen.
Why? The law is the law, right?
As I said in my review, registration merely changes who has the burden of proof on several matters. It does not fundamentally affect the owner's rights. And you are correct that registration can be overturned, it's just that the person seeking that now has the burden of proof to show their work was infringed by the registrant. Again, it only affects who has the burden of proof.
If the painter made his painting while looking at Richard's image on his computer monitor, then he infringed Richard's copyright, and that's true even if he painted an extra tree and changed the lighting. And the reason that is infringement is because the painter indeed copied Richard's work, and only Richard owns the right to copy (hence, copyright).
Even if he had Richard's photo on his monitor, the painter might still avoid infringement by creating a transformative work that does not affect the marketability of Richard's original.
So, the problem is not Richard's rights, but what Richard would have to prove to enforce those rights. Many are arguing that Richard should not have those rights, but that is not relevant in that Richard indeed has those rights even if some think he should not. Having a beer instead of taking expensive legal actiion is an investment in one's peace of mind, but it is not an investment in rights enforcement.
So, Richard, if you believe that he had your photo displayed on his monitor when he made his painting, you should write a polite letter and show some effort to challenge him, at least to demonstrate that you are willing to enforce your rights to a reasonable extent. Even if you do nothing else, that will keep some future and more obvious infringer from undermining your rights by showing that you were not willing to assert them.
Rick "noting a confusion of agendas" Denney
I'm working on a letter as we speak. I don't really expect to get any results from it as I think a good argument can be made that the painting is "transformative". But I do want him to know that I know what he did and my dis-satisfaction with him, and what I see as his abuse of my copyright.
Hi Rick,If the painter made his painting while looking at Richard's image on his computer monitor, then he infringed Richard's copyright, and that's true even if he painted an extra tree and changed the lighting. And the reason that is infringement is because the painter indeed copied Richard's work, and only Richard owns the right to copy (hence, copyright).
I guess we know how you'd rule if you were judging this case, but I'm not sure the law is on your side here. If you copy something, you have more than one of it; copy a photo, you get two photos, etc. Painting a monitor image of a photo represents several degrees of abstraction from the original work. After all, it's not illegal to copy a jpeg of a photo to create a copy jpeg, so how are you so sure a copyright protects against the painting of a jpeg of a photo? I don't think Richard's rights regarding the suspect painting are nearly as clear cut as you claim, even if he could prove the painter did as you suggest, which, of course, is an open question.
OK, I think this is a logical question:
If a good argument can be made that his painting is indeed transformative, than how exactly does that constitute an abuse of your copyright and what is the purpose of the letter?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks