Who owns the image

Charles, I agree that copyright is messy. But, somebody better have
one and make it known considering other legalities the copyright
office in the USA has going for use of so called orphaned works.

Thanks for your expansion of the thought of making something from a
photo and not violating copyright. I certainly undertstand what you
said and did say an item of public domain would be free if
infringement…such items included as ancient works and historical.
Your points are good and are appreciated.

Yet, to me the substance of the entire issue here is "why the photo"
and who asked for it to be shot in the first place. I can be asked
to shoot a street scene and all is well and good, no ownership
issues. I can shoot the Eiffel Tower lights display and better be
prepared to pay or be dishonest. (I imagine thousands are shot for
personal use and not a thought given to it!)

I can shoot a lovely model and and it depends on “why” and who signs
releases. I am not going to own rights to an image which is shot as
a paid commission of the model and I have no permission to use it
other than fulfilling the commission and providing an excellent
image to the client. I can shoot a little lady on a park bench,
fully a shot of her and seen as a shot of her…it is hers and I
better have a release to use the image for my profit. Oh, but the
little lady will not know better and I will use the
imagecommercially…has been done and is done but is wrong and not
legal within the framework of who owns what.

Re the original post in all of this: I will stick to getting release
forms from the artists whose work is photographed and not to worry
about public domain items. Certainly the photographer will receive
credit for that work, credit but not ownership. Image ownership may
now be with SNAG, depending on the wording of the release.

Enough from me. It is time a copyright lawyer provided a legally
correct answer beyond all the rest of this. Enjoy folks, I am now out
of this quite interesting discussion.

Hi Val,

That would be me that stated that, and it’s definitely different in
Australia. Collage wont run you foul of copyright law, however
there’s a rub, as outlined in the following paragraphs :-

Using already printed material to create a new artwork won't
amount to copyright infringement. For example, collage,
d?collage and d?coupage all involve cutting or tearing images or
patterns from magazines, newspapers, postcards, wrapping paper or
other sources. Creating these artworks doesn't involve doing any
of the exclusive acts reserved for the copyright owner so you
will not being infringing the copyright in the source materials
when you create the work or when you hang it in a gallery. Of
course unless you have a licence or can rely upon a statutory
defence, you would be liable for infringing the copyright in the
source material if you then reproduce your artwork, for example
by creating prints or uploading a copy of the work to the
internet. Taking a digital photograph of your collage and
uploading it to the internet would involve reproducing,
publishing and communicating the source material and the right to
do any of these acts is the exclusive right of the owner of the
copyright in the source material. 

Although collage, collage and coupage generally don't involve
copyright infringement, it is still important to keep in mind
that such work may attract other forms of liability ? they could
all potentially involve infringement of the moral rights of an
artist whose image you have used. You may be infringing the
artist?s moral right of integrity if you have cut up or
otherwise altered the source material in such a way that it is
prejudicial to the artist?s honour or reputation, perhaps by
exhibiting it in a derogatory context. Similarly, displaying the
copyrighted work without expressly including the name of the
artist will infringe the moral right of attribution unless it was
reasonable in the circumstances not to attribute the source
material or the artist consents to the infringement of his or her
moral rights. Arts Law and the Copyright Council both have
sheets about moral rights.

I checked a couple of injunctions in the UK and it seems to match
the Australian system.

Regards Charles A.

I do know that in art there are legal differences in how the
product is obtained and might also differ for different countries:
Somebody who commisions an artist to make something is the product
copyright owner (unless an contarct states differently, which might
be disputed)Somebody who buys an existing product/artwork is not
the copyright owner This how far my knowledge stretches and is
based on an experience from some years ago: I did do a big
sculpture commission and discovered to my amasement that the owner
also holds the copyright to it, not the maker/designer. 

While New Zealand law is somewhat different from US law on this
topic, most industrialized countries, including yours, have signed
onto a copyright treaty (the Berne Convention) that unifies the
treatment of copyright issues from country to country. Also, most of
them (NZ too) have passed laws to recognize artist’s moral rights
(the “droit morale”) which among other things protects an artist’s
right of attribution (nobody else can falsely say they did it) and
the right to object to derogatory treatment of it (they should ask
before they paint it pink).

Under the normal operation of the law, even in New Zealand, the
copyright to your sculpture would lie with you, not the person who
commissioned it. However, it may be that you signed a document in
order to get this commission that assigned copyright to the owner. If
you did that, then the copyright is theirs, although they still can’t
legally violate your moral rights. But unless you specifically
transferred the copyright to them in writing, I’m pretty sure it’s
still yours, no matter what the owners might say. Here’s an article
which discusses NZ intellectual property law as it relates to that of
the rest of the world:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/VUWLRev/2001/4.html#Heading257

Andrew Werby

I did do a big sculpture commission and discovered to my amasement
that the owner also holds the copyright to it, not the
maker/designer. 

if the commissioner or his agent or lawyer told you no longer hold
the copyright you might want to google up the copyright laws on
intellectual property. the current u.s. copyright laws have much
improved the way artists can control their work. in CraftsReport a
few years back they cited the laws and printed this example: if you
sculpt something, make a mold, have it cast and then sell it. and,
after the sale and delivery, your mold breaks and you want to make
another - the owner has to allow you to take their (your) sculpture
for a reasonable period of time to make a new mold. i used to have
all the '79 or so copyright info in a file, but my partner hired a
techie to change systems and the techie deleted all of my files,
emails, images, info, etc. and then bought the hard drive. the
funeral is next thursday.

ive