Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Here's an interesting one to debate. I think I may have raised this before but could not find the thread. So let's go again. A couple of days ago we had a report filed following the member reading one of my articles: How to photograph Stain Glass Windows. He suggested that it was wrong to do this as the work belong to the artist who created the window, and you would just be copying the result.
This is something that involves that famous line we talk about and where do you cross it.
Is taking a photo of a stain glass window any worse than photographing a statue (where the sculpturer is the artist) or, slightly more extreme, a building (architect) or, pushing the line to full extremes, a portrait, or landscape (who many would say god was the artist)?
My line is to the left of a stain glass window. I think if you add your slant it's fair and in the stain glass window case this could be a zoom blur or light spilling through creating patterns on a wall adds to make it personal. I also include graffiti as been okay, but why should I?
Where's your line? Could be an interesting debate.
In my view, there's nothing wrong with photographing something someone else has created. As you say, we have all photographed buildings or statues or whatever. If that's wrong, there isn't much left to photograph. Just as long as you're honest about what you photographed, I don't see anything wrong with it.
It would be quite another thing to photograph, say, a painting, and pass it off as a manipulated photograph which was made to look like a painting. That would be crossing the line for me.
Now that's an interesting angle.
If you take a photo of a stained glass window, just a straight shot, no slant, no nothing...it might be deemed ok, but if you do the same to a painting, even if you do not pass it off as anything other than that then there'd be more uproar - are they both wrong or is one more wrong than the other?
I see photography as a tool to document the world, surely a photograph of something that has long ago been lost or destroyed becomes almost as valuable as its subject. For example a lot of the graffiti artist Banksy's work would be lost forever unless it was photographed.
It is context dependent. If there is no commercial element then the issue is one of creativity. Then issues of lighting, view point and possibly abstract views come into it. what has been added over and above what the original artists provided. But it is a personal issue.
If there is a commercial element then the above becomes more important. A straight copy of a painting for example smacks of a rip off, but a well lit statue is tht different from a posed model?
But follow the original creation bit too far and you start to compliment the parents of a model on their prowess and contribution to the conception and gene pool. It may cause offense 
it's perfectly legal if it is on public display:
Quote: Works on public display
Sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (such as stained glass), if permanently situated in a public place, or in premises open to the public and buildings (which includes bridges) may be freely photographed, though in fairness to the sculptor, architect, designer, engineer or artist and in the interests of researchers in the future, captions should identify them where appropriate. In some cases a credit may be required if the artist’s moral rights have been asserted. It should be noted that photographs on public display are not covered by this exception so photography of photographs, on say headstones in a graveyard is not permitted without the consent of the copyright owner. Works which are on private property but are visible from public places, continue to enjoy full rights protection. This can constitute a problem when the work is in a private garden and is clearly visible from a public right of way. If the work is permanently displayed in a public place, there are no restrictions on photography. But a private garden, unless it is opened to the public, is not a public place and the Act will apply. The work should not be photographed for publication unless its inclusion in the photograph is `incidental’. (See the section on `incidental inclusion’ below).
from here
Quote: If you take a photo of a stained glass window, just a straight shot, no slant, no nothing...it might be deemed ok, but if you do the same to a painting, even if you do not pass it off as anything other than that then there'd be more uproar - are they both wrong or is one more wrong than the other?
Exactly - is the fact light coming through it and the interaction with the light your control/artist ownership- just like it is when photographing a window (built by a carpenter/glazer)? Which apart from being less pretty is really just the same? Gets you thinking doesn't it?
My wife is a stained glass artist, mostly churches and private commissions. She wouldn’t mind someone taking a photograph of her work as long as they didn’t then make money out of it. E.G. postcards, use in books or magazines etc.
It is interesting though because I wouldn't think twice about taking a picture of a building or statue and then making a postcard and selling it. I wouldn’t photograph a painting or another photo though.
To be honest I don’t normally think should I be taking this picture.
Andy
The photograph is a 'text' in itself, whatever the subject/object may be, whether it is any good though is a different matter, a photograph can be of an high value object, say the Mona Lisa, but if it's taken in situ would not be of a particularly high quality, however, under good conditions on a copy stand with good even light then the photograph should increase in quality and therefore value. The subsequent prints can then sell for whatever the market allows. As regards the ethics, the original subject/object should be clearly identified and acknowledged. If not then it's a form of plagarisim.
I doubt many people give this sort of thing a second thought, in reality.
Bear in mind, of course, that when taking the photo from inside the building you are standing on private property. I have seen notices up in quite modest churches saying "No photography or video". You have to abide by that.
If planning to sell photos taken on private property, a property release would be a 'belt & braces' approach, especially if you are going to offer the photo to, e.g. a stock agency.
For many years, I photographed an important art collection and it was made very clear that those photographs were never to see the light of day, other than the clients own copies or where he was giving express permission.
In my view, a record shot for posterity and/or insurance purposes has it's place but a photograph of another's work of art should interpret that work, in that it shows something of the work in a wider context, a new meaning, or to make art of art - possibly even bring the work to fresh eyes with fresh eyes.
Quote: For many years, I photographed an important art collection and it was made very clear that those photographs were never to see the light of day, other than the clients own copies or where he was giving express permission.
Archival / insurance photography has a particularly valuabel function.
Quote: In my view, a record shot for posterity and/or insurance purposes has it's place but a photograph of another's work of art should interpret that work, in that it shows something of the work in a wider context, a new meaning, or to make art of art - possibly even bring the work to fresh eyes with fresh eyes.
Ahh, this just shows photography and photographshave multiple purposes, and differing values given to their different functions, yes, if one was to look to create an 'original' photograph from an existing artwork, then any new insight or interpretation should have it's own set of values. It's all about fitness for purpose.
Many stained glass windows will be old enough to be out of copyright anyway. But in my book taking a phootgraph of someone else's work is out of bounds just because it is completely unoriginal. It may be possible to photograph something like a stained glass window in an original way that adds something to the original artist's idea, but I have never seen t done.
To some extent, I find most architectural photography uninteresting for the same reason - you are really recording someone else's ideas. But because architecture is 3 dimensional and there are so many ways of looking at it, the very best of architectural photography can be original, or even inspirational. Also, as buildings and their environments change with age etc, it's possible to get an idea or a take that the original architect could never have envisaged.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...Featured e2 Photo
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top