Stop by and copy my images?

[goamules]

About half the galleries in Paris allow photographing the art, but some do not. There is one that houses most of the best Impressionist works, and they'll stop you as soon as you pull a camera out. But this is not the same thing this thread is about, these are old, not copyrighted works by people long dead. There is no money to be made by the "owners" really.

If the OP or anyone is actively making a living by selling their copyrighted art, it's their choice to disallow photographic copying. I've even had vendors at the international gem and mineral show in Tucson (usually foreigners) stop me from photographing a table full of rocks. Don't quite get that one.

Like most of us are saying, it gives your more advertising and popularity to just let them do it. But "looky-loos" (people that have no possibility of wanting to buy something) are the problem with all businesses. Motorcycle dealerships, clothing boutiques, antique shops, even my business - the trick is finding the potential buyer, and giving them the best service you can. The others, you don't want to eliminate with any false action, in case they are a "hidden" buyer.

[Brian C. Miller]

... The pics were sent to China where hired artists were paid a pittance to copy the work. The copied paintings were sold to dealers as originals by the victimized artist. ...

What's the difference, Cole?

There is a major difference between a LF photograph copied with a cell phone and printed, and a painting being reproduced by another painter. When the photograph is copied with the cell phone, there is a deterioration of image quality. When the painting is reproduced by a forger, the forgery is sold instead of the original, and the living artist gets nothing. It's easy to spot a cell phone picture. Is it easy to spot a forgery of a painting that you've never seen before?

As Jim said, the painter has no recourse. I wonder about the consumer. Was the consumer notified? If the consumer knows they have a fake, can they get a refund from the gallery? If the gallery does not willingly give them a refund, then can they profitably sue? I suppose that depends on the value of the painting, and the skill of the attorneys.

But both the producer and the consumer are out some money. The gallery might lose some money, but based on things I've read about local galleries in the Seattle Times, I bet not.

[Drew Wiley]

I happen to routinely interact with the Silicon Valley crowd too. And no, their careers are not oriented to digital plagiarism, but to applications vastly more profitable
than any art gallery. Even last Sat I got stopped on the trail, once I had a good long hike with relative solitude with my 8x10, but then had to take the "freeway" trail
back to the truck to get home on time. One of them did take a picture of my camera, and one of me using it. But otherwise, they were admiring my apparent dedication of what seemed to them a lost craft. Over and over again, I've had these software engineers express an interest in doing "real" photography with a "real
darkroom", meaning "real" quality. Maybe a lot of this is just "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" mentality, meaning they're sick of their day job
in pixel and software land, and want something hands-on. I sympathize, and am eager to get away from computers myself. ... mind you, I am not criticizing the
choice many of you make to pursue digital workflows. Just a different toolbox. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if a few of these guys turned to something like
wetplate or carbon just to feel they weren't themselves slaves to modern technology, like they are sixty or seventy hours a week.

[ROL]

Of course, at the Louvre they have large skylights and don't seem to give a crap about a million flashes going off all day long!

…and if you want to see photography too dimly lit to be seen, go to the Getty.

[ROL]

A cell phone is not a darkroom.

Well, there's some wisdom in that, intended or not. Much of copyright infringement concern is academic to those of us who still make limited edition wet prints. Nobody's picture of your work will ever be more than an easily identifiable inauthentic copy. A picture of Michelangelo's David doesn't make you the sculptor. This may be one of the last truly rational arguments to stay in the DR. Turned on its perceived head, imitation is then the sincerest form of flattery. Of course, for those who are exclusively digital artists or who derive income partially from image royalties, the situation becomes ever more problematic.

[dsphotog]

Darin,
Your cards look great, and will keep folks coming back to your gallery.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't think any of us have to worry about some master forger electronically faking our own work and getting rich off it. Even the Uncle Earl incident which did
momentarily cause a legal hiccup concerning authenticity didn't really fool anyone in the know. But if you're one of these guys who uses a cell phone to capture
Google Earth images on a screen, then frames that smashed bug wad of mush, or are a stock photographer marketing images electronically... well, that's a different story.

[Corran]

One of the things I thought was interesting when I visited the MoMA up in NY was that photography was totally allowed and expected. In Atlanta, at the High, you have to actually sign a waiver and get a photography "permit" to even take in a camera, and then they supposedly do not allow posting of any photos taken in the museum to be posted online (and specifically social media). I wonder how they plan on policing that. I guess I understand the point of view that they want viewers to come to the museum, rather than experience it vicariously through their friend on Facebook and lose ticket revenue. Of course, I doubt actual patrons would choose to only view crappy camera phone photos and be satisfied...

Anyway, I applaud your stance on the matter Darin.

[John Koehrer]

A good policy would be to walk up to any visitor who is taking photos and ask them about the purpose - friendly and open. It's a good way to get a conversation started. Few visitors will snap images to hang them on a wall or sell them. Most other uses are fine and actually beneficial for you.

I like this one best.
But the free post cards are great too.
Do you have a guest register for people to leave information on for future shows either by email or direct mail?

[dsphotog]

http://cpyrightvisualarts.wordpress....vs-jeff-koons/

You never know what one will do once they see your photos...

Once a photographer in our club got into trouble for photographing a bronze statue, I guess it goes both ways.