HyperReal

[bcys1961]

Anyone in Canberra over the holidays might like to visit the HyperReal Exhibition at the National Gallery. Also a great photography exhibition at the National Library of Peter Dombrovski's landscape photography.

This is called Embrace , by Mark Sijan (2014)

[Snpsht]

Like the photo.

I was in Canberra briefly on Thursday and dropped past the gallery, vowing to return to see what appears to be a stunning exhibition as I didn't have time to do it justice then.

Thanks for the info on the Dombrovski exhibition - I'll take that in as well.

[jjphoto]

The National Gallery is always worth a visit, even if only to see their regular, and constantly changing collection. I love the NGA, especially for it's Brutalist architecture.

[ricktas]

I moved your thread out of the CC forums. As you cannot post Art that is not your own, for CC.

[bcys1961]

I moved your thread out of the CC forums. As you cannot post Art that is not your own, for CC.

I thought the cc could be on the quality of the photo , not the art ? :scrtch:

[ricktas]

I thought the cc could be on the quality of the photo , not the art ? :scrtch:

Under the copyright act, photographs of other people's art where the Art is the subject, the photograph copyright belongs to the artist of the work of art that was photographed.

Only if the Art is incidental (ie in the background) does the copyright of the photograph remain with the photographer.

The other time you can publish a photograph of someone else's Art is to promote the Art, the artist or to provide a bona-fide review of the Art work. There are also clauses in the copyright act to cover use by schools, to discuss art, history of art, the artist etc, where the art can be reproduced for educational purposes.

But you cannot photograph someone else's art and post the photograph for critique, when the other persons art is the main subject of the photograph. Even editing it, or using part of it, or turning someone's art into something partially abstract, is still considered a breach of copyright.

[bcys1961]

Fair enough . The reason I put the scultptors name and the title of the work was to give them the credit. (Would not want you all thinking I just whipped it up in my spare time.)

I guess all the others posts I have put up from Sculptures by the Sea were also against the copyright act ( but not moved to this forum.) Not to mention the Sculptures by the Sea Instagram and Facebook feeds where they promote and encourage everyone to post photos of the art work .

And at the National Gallery when I asked them is photography in this Hypereal Exhibition was allowed they said "Absolutely- please take as many photos as you want and post them on facebook and instagram etc. as we want the free publicity! "

I guess there is the law , and then there is what everybody does and as if often the case the two are different.

[Mark L]

My basic understanding with things like Sculptures by the Sea is you are taking a photo of a landscape and thus producing a new piece of art. (yes a bit tenuous, but it is a thing)
Your photo here is a simple reproduction of someones artwork (though how artistic can a crop be considered?:))

[bcys1961]

My basic understanding with things like Sculptures by the Sea is you are taking a photo of a landscape and thus producing a new piece of art. (yes a bit tenuous, but it is a thing)
Your photo here is a simple reproduction of someones artwork (though how artistic can a crop be considered?:))

Well many of my SBTS photos are also tightly cropped and focus on the art work, so not really landscapes . But not to worry , I won't post any more photos of artworks , tightly cropped or otherwise.

[Hawthy]

The same artist had an exhibition at the Gallery of Modern Art in Brisbane probably 8 years ago. I had just started in photography and the shots that I took are too amateurish to reveal. Great display though!

[bcys1961]

For the record it appears the law in Australia relating photographing paintings and murals is very different to the law relating to photographing sculptures in a public place.

https://www.artslaw.com.au/art-law/entry/without-my-permission-photographing-public-sculptures/

""The exception to copyright infringement under Section 65 of the Copyright Act allows anyone to make drawings, take photographs or film a sculpture that is on permanent public display, without infringing copyright in the sculpture. A work is on permanent public display where it is in premises open to the public or permanently in a public place. Permitted reproductions extend to the adaptation of the work into digital form for both commercial and non-commercial reproductions. However the exception does not extend to other artistic works, such as paintings, murals or mosaics that may be permanently on public display. In these circumstances, permission of the copyright owner is required to avoid infringement.

As a consequence, where sculptures are on permanent public display in Australia, commercial uses are allowed without the permission or remuneration of the sculptor. That is, a sculptor has no legal grounds to demand payment for any visual reproduction of the sculpture as his or her copyright does not extend to the general control of reproduction rights if the sculpture is publicly situated. ""

In addition , all sculptors with work in the exhibition had given permission for photographs. There was one work you could not photograph , but I think that was more due to it's sexual explicitness , rather than any copyright issue.

[gcflora]

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 65 Sculptures and certain other works in public places
COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 65
Sculptures and certain other works in public places

(1) This section applies to sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of artistic work in section 10.

(2) The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast.


Depends if it's there temporarily or not I guess :confused013

[bcys1961]

Depends if it's there temporarily or not I guess :confused013

How long is a piece of string ?

[gcflora]

How long is a piece of string ?

4 centimetres