Stop by and copy my images?

[ROL]

I've always thought it was petty for photographers/artists to have "no photography" signs up everywhere.

It may be for petty reasons, often for other good reasons. While I've never posted 'no cameras' at my own gallery or shows, I also think it petty (if not inscrutable) for wannabes to arrive with DSLRs plastered to their chests – in fact, it has always struck me as just plain odd. Why is there simply no expectation that one may do anything unrecorded, even at private venues, these days? My interaction with these walking cameras has mostly led me to believe their interest is anything but flattering. Frankly, they are typically not even nice people. Anyone with sincere interest in your work will ask more than politely if they can use their camera, posted or not, which more often than not is their phone or a P&S they pull out of their purse – not the lensed badge of dishonor loudly screaming, "SEE, I AM A PHOTOGRAPHER TOO! (...and have no interest in buying any of your lousy prints, because I can do better)".

[dsphotog]

This is why my prints are framed with glare glass.
Although the "copier" is most likely a photographer that wants to steal your idea, or try to find the exact same tree or rock.

[drew.saunders]

Hmmm, I thought they (the Louvre) didn't permit flash photos. The answer is on their website.

Photography is forbidden with flash throughout the entire museum.

Les

And they have a really amusing sign regarding flash and other "no-no" behavior:


P1000479 by Drew Saunders, on Flickr

[ROL]

Huh? A bare-breasted woman can't touch a man's bicep. What is the world coming to?!?

[Liquid Artist]

I wish no photo policies weren't needed, but in my opinion they are these days.

This is after my last time featured in a gallery.
I was working in a photo lab the last time, and had one woman come in, and ask how much it would cost for our biggest enlightenment. I told her, and she suddenly said she was taking a photo of a photo in a gallery and would get me to print it. So I told her it's illegal, and I can't print it. She stood there arguing with me for almost 10 minutes, saying she had the right to. This was at Christmas, in the busiest mall in the area, so she caused quite the lineup.
When she finally left she glared at me and said loudly "You Charge Too Much " directing it right at me.
That's when I realized she wanted to photograph one of my pieces and for me to print it. One of the other featured artists had told her where I had worked, although none ever admitted it.

That night we had a quick meeting in the gallery, and the next day there was a strict "No Cameras" policy.

As I told the other artists, we can always bend the rules to allow the right people to photograph our work, but we can't stop the wrong people without a policy and signs in place.

[ROL]

I was working in a photo lab the last time, and had one woman come in, and ask how much it would cost for our biggest enlightenment.

It sounds as though her biggest enlightenment may have come from you!





…Don't you just love auto spell checkers?

[StoneNYC]

This is kind of ridiculous, there are millions of pieces of art, and we emulate art in all of our work, someone who takes a picture of a mountain that Ansel Adams took a picture of shouldn't be sued by Adams for copying his work simply because he took that photograph first, that's ridiculous, and this is even more far-fetched because it's a sculpture of an image taken, so it's completely different it's not even a copy it's a creation based on another work which we all do...

How many photographers or sculptors or sketch artiste have taken a photograph or re-created an imitation of the statue of David or The Thinker, so we all should now throw that work away because it's an imitation of a sculpture, I don't think so, that whole concept is ridiculous and I think the only reason that court case lost was because they were arguing the wrong thing and so the judge was forced to rule off of the argument which was a poor choice rather than arguing something that would have been a better choice, not sure what the argument should have been but what they chose to use as an argument was pretty shaky ground, but still, the judge should know better.

That's my opinion anyway.

[ROL]

This is kind of ridiculous, there are millions of pieces of art, and we emulate art in all of our work, someone who takes a picture of a mountain that Ansel Adams took a picture of shouldn't be sued by Adams for copying his work simply because he took that photograph first, that's ridiculous, and this is even more far-fetched because it's a sculpture of an image taken, so it's completely different it's not even a copy it's a creation based on another work which we all do...

Huh? I thought this thread was about photography of the work of human artists (in gallery settings). I can only assume the 'This' beginning your first sentence refers to the words you have written which follow. Don't lump me into your copyist mentality mea culpa.





…and believe me, if the Adams trust could sue under the conditions you stated, they would.

[StoneNYC]

Huh? I thought this thread was about photography of the work of human artists (in gallery settings). I can only assume the 'This' beginning your first sentence refers to the words you have written which follow. Don't lump me into your copyist mentality mea culpa.





…and believe me, if the Adams trust could sue under the conditions you stated, they would.

Just because one CAN do something, does not mean that one SHOULD...

[ROL]

Stone, heed thy own words. The only reason anyone should do anything in the artistic realm, is because they cannot do anything else.