The Wednesday edition of the Tuscaloosa News had an article that may be of interest. I assume some of you are familiar with the recently filed suit by the U of A against artist Daniel Moore and his countersuit.
According the the article the U of A is pursuing artist to license for sale of prints such as Moore does. A photographer, Tim Bailey, in Taylorville (near Tuscaloosa) purchased a photograph from the Tuscaloosa News that was taken by staff photographer Jason Getz at the U of A/Arkansas game in 2004. Bailey did an artist rendering of the photograph to “show the U of A the quality of his work” so he could be licensed.
It just so happens that the News is owned by the New York Times and one of their lawyers said it appears that Bailey violated the copyright law and he may be the target of legal action.
For those unfamiliar with “copyright” there is a federal law that protects the creater of a work of art (photograph, painting, writing, etc.) from being copied by anyone other than the creator without his/her express permission. Even though you purchase an original work, for example a photographers photograph, you do not purchase or have the right to reproduce it.
Thought this might create some interesting comments! Have at it.
I can see if you were to make copies of a photo and try to resell them but to do a painting or drawing from one I can't see how that could be construed as copyright infringement. But I could be wrong as I'm definitely not a lawyer.
That is what Bailey said but the copyright law says it is a violation to make a copy for any reason. In other words, the only person that can make a copy is the originator who by law owns the copyright.
I was not complete in my reply. Under the copyright law, making a copy does not mean "making an exact copy" as with a copy machine. If you paint a likeness, as Bailey did, of a photographers photograph you have in effect copied his/her creation. Had you been there, at the event, and painted what you saw it would be a different matter but to take his photograph and paint a likeness would be copying.
Soooo, If someone took a picture of a sunset....then I painted it or took another picture of a sunset...I violated the copyright law?
Whenever I see an old lady slip and fall on a wet sidewalk,
my first instinct is to laugh.
But then I think, what if I was an ant, and she fell on me.
Then it wouldn't seem quite so funny.
- Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
That's a good question GM. How about this? Was the photographer the only person to see this game? If bailey was there or even saw it on TV then he can paint any scene from the game and not be accused of copyright infringement, right?
Live with intention. Walk to the edge. Listen hard. Practice wellness. Play with abandon. Laugh. Choose with no regret. Continue to learn. Appreciate your friends. Do what you love. Live as if this is all there is.
That would be a matter of simply offering proof in the form of another picture taken of the same scene or instance.
IN the case of U of A, I think it's more using the Crimson Tide logo and name rather than a painting of a football game. You have to admit, if the paintings don't have Alabama on them (just generic players) they woudn't sell nearly as much.
This post is meant for educational purposes only. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental. Void where prohibited. Some assembly required. List each check separately by bank number. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during shipment. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or implied. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Postage will be paid by addressee. Subject to approval. This is not an offer to sell securities. Apply only to affected area. May be too intense for some viewers. Do not stamp. Use other side for additional listings. For recreational use only. Do not disturb. All models over 18 years of age. If condition persists, consult your physician. No user-serviceable parts inside. Freshest if eaten before date on carton. Subject to change without notice. Times approximate. Simulated picture. No postage necessary if mailed in the United States. Breaking seal constitutes acceptance of agreement. For off-road use only. As seen on TV. One size fits all.
That's a good question GM. How about this? Was the photographer the only person to see this game? If bailey was there or even saw it on TV then he can paint any scene from the game and not be accused of copyright infringement, right?
Bailey stated he made his painting from the photograph made by the Tuscaloosa News photographer. He, in essence, has admitted to purchasing and copying the photo. Had he said he was painting a scene he recalled from the game, it would have been more arguable in court.
Daniel Moore, on the other hand, paints his portraits from scenes he witnessed at the football games. The issue with Moore is; is he infringing on the U of A trademark in painting and selling these scenes? I think Moore has an arguable case whereas Bailey might as well pay up and learn from his. Elsewise, he's (Bailey) gonna pay out a buttload of money to lawyers who are only gonna tell him or a judge and jury tell him to pay the NY Times in the end.
I do not know what all the hype is about. The University should be greatful for these painting. In a since they have been a free (free to the University) marketing program. But that is just my opinion. And you know what they say about opinions!
