Posts Tagged ‘sculpture’
Step into the Foto Henny Hoogeveen Leica store in Lisse, the Netherlands, and you’ll be greeted by a giant stainless steel Leica camera that weighs a whopping 350kg (~772lb). The sculpture was crafted by Chinese artist Liao Yibai, and there are only three of them in existence. Besides the one found in the shop, the other two are owned by Leica itself and a distributor. The camera isn’t based on any one model, but is instead a hodgepodge of features found on the M6, M7, and M9.
Korean artist Gwon Osang makes creative photo sculptures by photographing subjects, making hundreds of prints, and then plastering the photos onto a styrofoam sculture. Photographing the body takes up to half a day to complete, and Osang carves the sculptures himself since his background is in sculpture rather than photography. Each piece takes one to two months to complete.
The legal battle between photographer Mike Hipple and sculptor Jack Mackie over a photo of Mackie’s public art piece “Dance Steps on Broadway” has ended with Hipple paying a settlement out of court. Mackie writes,
Anyone can make photographs of any public art and do most anything they want with the photograph. Private photos are most likely not infringements. People can frame them and give them to their uncles and aunts as gifts, they can post them on their facebook pages, or they can make Valentines with them and give them away. What they can not do, and this was the basis for the lawsuit, is offer to commercially sell them, which Mr. Hipple did, at least twice.
[...] The legal issues surrounding this case have always been clear and obvious. Instead of acceding to the clarity of the law, Mr. Hipple attempted numerous defenses. Mr. Hipple pleaded that because my art work is popular I should no longer be allowed to hold copyright. Tell that to Walt Disney. Mr. Hipple pleaded that one can not copyright public art. Tell that to the US Registrar of Copyrights. Mr. Hipple claimed that my art work is “instructional” and that his photograph “depicts dancing.” Taking him up on this argument we produced an image of his photograph containing my Dance Steps juxtaposed to an image of his carefully posed shoe model on a blank sidewalk [shown above]. Does his image without the Steps “depict dancing?” You decide.
Our initial post on this case in early 2010 sparked quite a bit of debate in the comments, with plenty of people arguing both sides.
Ann Arbor-based physician and photography-enthusiast Stephen Rosenblum was visiting the Breckenridge International Snow Sculpture competition when he came across this giant large format camera that some giant snowman must have accidentally dropped earlier. The 12-foot tall camera was even hollowed out to look realistically like the inside of bellows from behind.
You can see the winners of the 2011 competition (and catch a glimpse of this camera) here.
(via The Online Photographer)
Image credit: Photograph by Stephen Rosenblum and used with permission
Accordion Obscura is a sculpture by Andrew Lewicki that mashes together an accordion keyboard and the front of a 4×5 large format camera, joined together with the part they share — bellows. The result is a strange piece of equipment that would certainly cause weird looks if the thing were actually used on the street, though making the setup usable is a whole nother story.
Image credit: Photograph by Andrew Lewicki and used with permission
Last week we reported that a photographer was in hot water after photographing public art and selling it as stock photography. It just so happens that a new case has arisen involving just the opposite: sculptors basing work off a photograph without permission.
The above image, “Sad Vader”, is a popular photograph made by New York City-based photographer Alex Brown that has become ubiquitous on the Internet and sometimes published without crediting Brown. UK-based sculptors Craig Little and Blake Whitehead of littlewhitehead created a sculpture based on the photograph titled “Spam” due to how the photograph can seemingly be found everywhere on the web. Here’s a photograph of the installation:
When emailed by Brown, the artists replied,
On all the blogs we found it on, none of them mentioned the maker of the image. We never knew the image had been taken by a professional photographer.
In an email to Photo District News, Brown states,
My main objection to all of this is that I exhibit this image in galleries and sell limited edition prints, [...] By appropriating it, they directly undermine my ability to do so.
What are your thoughts on this situation? What action should be taken?
We contacted Alex immediately after hearing of his concerns and asked if there was anyway we could deal with the situation amicably. We assured him it was never our intention to upset him, nor was it merely to copy what he had already done. However, instead of replying to us, he has selected certain parts of this email and posted blogs slandering us plagiarists. He has also contacted galleries we’ve worked with also slandering us plagiarists. We do not really believe this is an appropriate first step towards dealing with the situation amicably.
In February 2008, Seattle-based photographer Mike Hipple received a letter from the lawyers of sculptor Jack Mackie that one of his stock photographs infringed upon Mackie’s copyright. Shown above, the photograph includes a portion of Mackie’s “Dance Steps on Broadway”, a public art piece created in 1979 with public funds.
Though the stock agency complied immediately with Mackie’s demands by removing the image and providing a settlement, Mackie is now suing Hipple for “copyright infringement and claiming the full measure of statutory damages, possibly $60,000 or more.” On the blog Hipple set up to collect defense fund donations, he states,
Now if this doesn’t qualify as fair use of the sculpture, I don’t know what does. “Fair Use” is a legal concept that allows a certain amount of copying of someone else’s work—you can get a fuller idea of how it works at the Stanford Fair Use Project website.
Think of it this way: if Mr. Mackie is correct and this isn’t fair use, then he can file a $60,000 law suit against anyone who, when strolling along Capitol Hill, thinks the dance steps are nice and takes a photo or video. He may not find you if you just leave the image on your camera or computer, but as soon as you post it to Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, etc., he can (and apparently will) sue you.
What do you think? Is this a case of copyright infringement or fair use?
(via A Photo Editor)