When your photographs aren't your photographs

[johnastovall]

Say you took a photograph and then a copy of that photograph sold for 1.2 million dollars.

That's what happend to photographer, Jim Krantz. And it's all legal under the fair use of the copyright laws.

See the full story here.

[David_3]

That would be a bummer.

[carrbowl]

That's just plain wrong...

[studiocygnet]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Say you took a photograph and then a copy of that photograph sold for 1.2 million dollars.
That's what happend to photographer, Jim Krantz. And it's all legal under the fair use of the copyright laws.

Do you know why they are saying it is legal under the fair use laws? He is obviously selling the art for big dough, so I would think that makes it commercial. And Phillip Morris actually owns the photo in question for a Marlboro advert. Why haven't they challenged this?

[nikondude24]

I would be very upset

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by studiocygnet

Do you know why they are saying it is legal under the fair use laws? He is obviously selling the art for big dough, so I would think that makes it commercial. And Phillip Morris actually owns the photo in question for a Marlboro advert. Why haven't they challenged this?

Here's one of the case's which resolved fair use in this context. Selling has nothing to do with it.

[JohnT]

I wonder how this is different from, say, scanning a portrait of yourself that someone else shot, then using it on your web site or biz cards. (Legally speaking of course.)

[Duffy Pratt]

I wouldn't be too quick to conclude that what Price is doing is fair use. From the article, it doesn't look like he has been sued very often, and he has settled in the past -- in the Brook Shields photograph case. What he does is very different than what Koons was doing in the 2d Circuit case. I don't know for sure that he would lose a suit, but it appears likely based on the four factor test that the 2d circuit described.

Duffy