Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
The Coins of Benvenuto Cellini (not ancient, but...)
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="ycon, post: 2973634, member: 91771"][USER=39084]@IdesOfMarch01[/USER] Bridgeman art library was in the business of claiming it had copyrights to <i>photographs </i>of works of art, preciscely what we are discussing here. It was deemed that those <i>photographs </i>were made to be as objective as possible, so were therefore not original and since the work they were reproducing was out of question, so too were the <i>photographs. </i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p>As I already stated, I think my claim to the photograph of Perseus is weakest. There is certainly an argument to be made that is an original work and not simply a reproduction (though not necessarily a winning argument). However, as I also stated, that photograph is copyright free. <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_Loggia_dei_Lanzi_02.jpg" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_Loggia_dei_Lanzi_02.jpg" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is the original image, along with its creative commons license.</p><p><br /></p><p>Photographs of 2-dimensional artworks, such as coins, paintings, drawings, and prints, rarely if ever constitute new copyrights because their purpose is just to reproduce.</p><p><br /></p><p>Perhaps this would make more sense if I showed you some works that DO constitute (at least arguably would constitute) new copyright claims. [ATTACH=full]730109[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>This is an image, taken by me, of a 15th century sculpture by Claus de Werve. I took the image on black and white film, and composed it dramatically and with chiaroscuro lighting. As such, it is not a straightforward reproduction of the sculpture in question (as it would be if I had shot in in neutral lighting, with color film, on a gray background, for instance). The artistic choices I made are enough, in my opinion, to constitute a new work of art. Of course, this is subjective and someone could argue that my changes were insufficient and so I don't have copyright to this photograph. In the end only a judge could decide that.</p><p><br /></p><p>Similarly, here are famous images taken in museums by the photographer Thomas Struth. <a href="http://www.thomasstruth32.com/smallsize/photographs/museum_photographs_1/index.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.thomasstruth32.com/smallsize/photographs/museum_photographs_1/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.thomasstruth32.com/smallsize/photographs/museum_photographs_1/index.html</a></p><p><br /></p><p>The images reproduce art works, but they also show the experience of the museum, of <i>looking </i>at the artwork, rather than just of the artwork itself. That is enough to make them works of art in and of themselves, and therefore subject to copyright.</p><p><br /></p><p>I have seen some of the images that you took of the Cellini sculpture. I think it is debatable whether or not you have copyright to it. On the one hand, you surely made many decisions about how and when to compose your picture. On the other it is a fairly faithful reproduction. I'm not going to say that you don't have the copyright to it, but as I have demonstrated (in this specific are of copyright) merely taking the photo does not guarantee your rights.</p><p><br /></p><p>I think images of coins are much more straightforward. Frankly I think almost none of the pictures here are copyright-able, because they are very direct reproductions of works that are themselves out of copyright. This is not in any way to belittle the tremendous skill and effort people put here into photographing their coins, or to say they don't deserve credit for their work.</p><p><br /></p><p>Another example could be [USER=81896]@Deacon Ray[/USER] (you'll excuse me for dragging you into this) who makes careful presentations of each of his coins. The presentations themselves are undoubtedly copyrighted because they constitute original content, but the photographs that he uses as part of the presentations wouldn't have copyrights in-and-of-themselves.</p><p><br /></p><p>Finally this is an actively developing are of the law. In England, right now, there is currently a major controversy over the fact that many museums charge licensing fees for photographs of their artworks, when it is likely illegal for them to do so.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="ycon, post: 2973634, member: 91771"][USER=39084]@IdesOfMarch01[/USER] Bridgeman art library was in the business of claiming it had copyrights to [I]photographs [/I]of works of art, preciscely what we are discussing here. It was deemed that those [I]photographs [/I]were made to be as objective as possible, so were therefore not original and since the work they were reproducing was out of question, so too were the [I]photographs. [/I] As I already stated, I think my claim to the photograph of Perseus is weakest. There is certainly an argument to be made that is an original work and not simply a reproduction (though not necessarily a winning argument). However, as I also stated, that photograph is copyright free. [URL='https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_Loggia_dei_Lanzi_02.jpg']Here[/URL] is the original image, along with its creative commons license. Photographs of 2-dimensional artworks, such as coins, paintings, drawings, and prints, rarely if ever constitute new copyrights because their purpose is just to reproduce. Perhaps this would make more sense if I showed you some works that DO constitute (at least arguably would constitute) new copyright claims. [ATTACH=full]730109[/ATTACH] This is an image, taken by me, of a 15th century sculpture by Claus de Werve. I took the image on black and white film, and composed it dramatically and with chiaroscuro lighting. As such, it is not a straightforward reproduction of the sculpture in question (as it would be if I had shot in in neutral lighting, with color film, on a gray background, for instance). The artistic choices I made are enough, in my opinion, to constitute a new work of art. Of course, this is subjective and someone could argue that my changes were insufficient and so I don't have copyright to this photograph. In the end only a judge could decide that. Similarly, here are famous images taken in museums by the photographer Thomas Struth. [url]http://www.thomasstruth32.com/smallsize/photographs/museum_photographs_1/index.html[/url] The images reproduce art works, but they also show the experience of the museum, of [I]looking [/I]at the artwork, rather than just of the artwork itself. That is enough to make them works of art in and of themselves, and therefore subject to copyright. I have seen some of the images that you took of the Cellini sculpture. I think it is debatable whether or not you have copyright to it. On the one hand, you surely made many decisions about how and when to compose your picture. On the other it is a fairly faithful reproduction. I'm not going to say that you don't have the copyright to it, but as I have demonstrated (in this specific are of copyright) merely taking the photo does not guarantee your rights. I think images of coins are much more straightforward. Frankly I think almost none of the pictures here are copyright-able, because they are very direct reproductions of works that are themselves out of copyright. This is not in any way to belittle the tremendous skill and effort people put here into photographing their coins, or to say they don't deserve credit for their work. Another example could be [USER=81896]@Deacon Ray[/USER] (you'll excuse me for dragging you into this) who makes careful presentations of each of his coins. The presentations themselves are undoubtedly copyrighted because they constitute original content, but the photographs that he uses as part of the presentations wouldn't have copyrights in-and-of-themselves. Finally this is an actively developing are of the law. In England, right now, there is currently a major controversy over the fact that many museums charge licensing fees for photographs of their artworks, when it is likely illegal for them to do so.[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
The Coins of Benvenuto Cellini (not ancient, but...)
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...