Could Taking A Selfie In A Museum Violate Copyright Law?
from the of-course-it-could dept
Copyright infringement is everywhere. A few years back, John Tehranian wrote a paper (and then a book*) called “Infringement Nation” about just how much copyright infringement happens incidentally on a daily basis. The conclusion, from a back of the envelope estimate, is that an average person is likely liable for $4.544 billion in incidental infringement in a normal year. And that’s not for sharing music and movies and what not, but just doing the normal everyday things you do.
With the news that the National Gallery in the UK has rescinded its long-standing “no photographs” rule, it appears that another opportunity for incidental and accidental infringement has been unleashed upon people in the UK. The National Gallery apparently realized that with everyone carrying a smartphone these days (and the fact that it offers free WiFi that it encourages patrons to use), it became kind of ridiculous to try to block photographs while encouraging people to use their phones to research the artwork they were looking at.
However, the original notice noted that “temporary” exhibits will still have restrictions on photography “for reasons of copyright.” But, as IPKat notes above, it’s not clear why that should only apply to the temporary exhibits, since many of the permanent exhibit works are still under copyright as well (though the museum itself might also hold the copyright on many of those works). Either way, IPKat wonders if merely including a piece of copyright-covered artwork in the background of a photo — such as a selfie — might lead to claims of infringement. While some countries have freedom of panorama laws** that say it’s okay to represent artistic works on public display, that apparently does not apply to paintings (though it does apply to sculptures).
In the end, it appears that while it may be unlikely to get sued over taking a selfie in the National Gallery, if you’re the extra cautious type, you might want to avoid it for fear of yet another ridiculous copyright claim. As IPKat notes, the caselaw is at least ambiguous enough that if someone wanted to go after you for your selfie with fine art, you might be in trouble. That this end result is ridiculous and kind of stupid isn’t really discussed in the piece, but seems rather obvious. Yes, it may be unlikely that a lawsuit will come out of it, but we’ve seen sillier lawsuits in the past, and I doubt it would surprise many if this new policy also results in a lawsuit down the road. Because that’s just the way copyright works.
* Speaking of Tehranian’s book. According to Amazon you can currently get a Kindle ebook copy for… just $39.99! Yes, an ebook for $40. It almost makes me wonder if they’re demonstrating the insanity of copyright laws, in a book about how silly copyright law is, by pricing it at an insane price.
** On that note, I have to admit my knowledge of such “freedom of panorama” laws was fairly limited, but it seems ridiculous that no one is considering passing such a law in the US. The number of stories of people getting sued for photographs of public displays is getting silly here.
Comments on “Could Taking A Selfie In A Museum Violate Copyright Law?”
Well
Wikimedia Commons has a full on, country-by-country breakdown of these laws worldwide.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama
In the UK, it is not considered an infringement to photograph architecture, three-dimensional artwork, and “works of artistic craftsmanship”, if it is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. Just don’t take photos of the temporary exhibitions or paintings whose author has not died within at least the last 70 years.
good story... but
Well, as per usual, what is missing here is that little concept called “common sense” and “practical application of the law”. Nobody is going to get sued for a selfie that doesn’t show anything in particular, but generally if they say “don’t take pictures here” then a selfie would get you in trouble.
The “4.55 billion” story you point to is also pretty much a crock of shit. You don’t see people getting sued for copyright infringement as a result of unintentional appearance of copyright items in personal pictures. Forwarding a picture someone sent you be email to someone else? Are you kidding me? Posting it up on social media might be an issue, but private one to one email pretty much shows no intent to violate anything.
Trying to use stuff like this to condemn copyright is pretty much the biggest reach possible – and pretty sad.
Re: good story... but
So if I emailed 1 song to someone, that is not copyright infringement, what about 2? how about 100?
Why do you think that pictures in an art gallery do not deserve the same copyright enforcement as a movie in a movie cinema?
Do you have a list of these laws that you think that it is OK to ignore, and what is the arbitrary limit that you think is where the line should be drawn?
So if I take a selfie, with copyrighted material in the background, then make a million dollars from that selfie, is that copyright infringement? what about if I only made $1000, or If I only made $1?
This is why idiots like you and the rest of the maximalists are not respected by anyone with any sense of morals.
You state that no one will be sued for copyright infringement for doing something, then when it happens, you spout off about how the law is the law and there is no excuse for breaking the law.
WANKER
Re: Re: good story... but
Thanks for the ad hom. Perhaps a few people will down vote your obvious personal attacks. One can hope, right?
My examples were all related to personal use, not commercial ends. So the selfie that sells for millions… yeah, guess what – it’s commercial and those who can will certainly come after you for their money. A selfie that you just send to your friends won’t get much attention, would it?
Do you have a list of these laws that you think that it is OK to ignore, and what is the arbitrary limit that you think is where the line should be drawn?
No, it is called common sense and tolerance. The “beeeeeelions of dollars” example is a crock of shit because it cites examples where there are few if any cases EVER.
So if I emailed 1 song to someone, that is not copyright infringement, what about 2? how about 100?
Actually, it is. The point is while every example IS technically a copyright violation, nobody gives a flying crap about the little stuff. 1 song? Do you think anyone will check? 100? maybe. 100 to a mailing list? Probably yes. You would have to use a little common sense and a little self control, and nobody will knock your door.
“This is why idiots like you and the rest of the piracy apologists are not respected by anyone with any sense of morals.”
FTFY.
Re: Re: Re: good story... but
Here’s a tip – copyright holders tend to go after people who can’t fight back.
Personal versus commercial? That doesn’t matter.
And you seem to be still stuck in the rut of thinking that everyone who disagrees with copyright maximalists like you is a piracy apologist.
Re: Re: Re: good story... but
You mean like a video of a dancing baby posted on Youtube for family and friends did not get much attention?
/s
Re: Re: good story... but
The problems are related to delineation of the law which is completely crap. Particular de minimus is ridiculous in not setting anything concrete.
What he seems to present is the “no photos” you find in certain museums and using that as a defence. Also, he seems to make a very problematic distinction between private and public.
Re: Re: good story... but
Your logis is not making sense.
Copyright is never about profit, please learn some history first.
And secondly, How is taking a selfie with a art work, going to make a million dollar, and why should the money go to an artist that is most likely long dead.
And even if it makes a million dollar, what is to say that it is the art work, and not the person that took the selfie that is drawing the interest
Re: Re: good story... but
And one more thing, how is a photograph whether intentional or not intentional,
And a photograph is not a artwork
Trying to link them would lead to rather hilirious situation.
In your situation, the rule is pretty clear that it only apply to painting, as sculpture and other 3D art is different from picture.
And the “lost” profit really wouldn’t occur, unless the picture taker try to pass off the photograph as the artwork, then that would be into scamming, and different area of law.
All nothing to really do with copyright, in which the purpose is to promote science and culture, not MAKE ALOT OF MONEY.
Re: good story... but
Page 13 of this comic.
Honestly, considering how sue-happy copyright holders can get and usually are, plus how they consider playing free-to-air radio to a private stable for horses as a public performance, there’s no precedent that would stop them from attempting the above, or fighting for a law that would let them attempt the above.
But hey, it’s no surprise – you’d rather defend wealthy corporations that can afford to sue people and drain their resources.
Re: good story... but
“Posting it up on social media might be an issue, but private one to one email pretty much shows no intent to violate anything.”
And you still missed the point completely.
I see a good use of the word “idiot”, and it’s not an insult when it’s based on fact.
Re: good story... but
How do you like getting DMCAed, chucklenut?
Re: good story... but
“The “4.55 billion” story you point to is also pretty much a crock of shit. You don’t see people getting sued for copyright infringement as a result of unintentional appearance of copyright items in personal pictures.”
Nay, good sir! ‘Tis you who is the crock!
That article doesn’t say that everyone gets sued for 4.55 billion every year. It’s a though experiment in where someone analyzes the daily events of some random guy and then calculates the damages assuming he was sued for every single instance of infringement.
You are either a mediocre troll/shill/whatever you are, or a very good idiot.
Re: good story... but
Ah, yes, your utopia. A land of laws that no one can avoid breaking, so your lovingly trusted authorities can selectively enforce them against anyone they choose.
Re: good story... but
Dude, there have been plenty of examples of the MAFIAA suing people for such instances you call “common sense”. Do we remember some idiots getting worked up because people were whistling or singing songs in commercial places without paying royalties? Remember that?
Posting it up on social media might be an issue, but private one to one email pretty much shows no intent to violate anything.
Because people take selfies to keep to themselves. There’s no record of social networks being flooded with such things, no. /sarcasm
Trying to use stuff like this to condemn copyright is pretty much the biggest reach possible – and pretty sad.
Let’s talk about how the copyright morons stretch the law to try to profit from everything, block legitimate things everywhere and even use lobbying and other shady tactics to expand copyright in an never ending crusade, shall we? If this is sad to you then your side of this ‘war’ is pure, deep, suicidal depression.
Please do not photograph, discuss or otherwise publicize my works because I love hanging around the starving artist get togethers in parking motel lots. If not for this much desirable complete obscurity I might have to profit off my talents, this can not be allowed to happen.
You might not want to post that selfie...
… of you with the Hollywood sign in the background on your website, or the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce will be after you for a trademark-licensing fee.
“pricing it at an insane price. “
Yes, because it doesn’t cost any money to publish a book, and the publisher has no need to recoup those costs, for a book that likely will have very limited readership at any price. So I guess they shouldn’t try, right?
Re: Re:
What’s this got to do with museums?
Re: Re:
Any publisher that spends too much money publishing a book that will have limited readership at any price, will go out of business. That is exactly as it should be.
Re: Re:
Temporary Exhibits
I’m guessing that (at least in some cases) whoever’s providing the temporary exhibits has “no photos” restrictions in their exhibit agreement with the National Gallery.
Much cheaper to remove the lawyers that want to sue.
Simply put a bounty on the parasitic lawyers and let the cleansing begin.
Security/surveillance cameras could conceivably violate copyright laws as well. The IP rabbit hole runs deep.
selfie in museum
the solution is to charge a copyright birthing fee. when someone is born the parents are charged a lifetime copyright payment of let’s say 4 million dollars. that entitles their child to download, copy whatever painting, photograph, music, video, movie or some other as yet undiscovered thing (like quantum tele-transporting the entire earth to another universe) for free.
easy solution!