Should I have taken this photograph? Advice please

[GirlfromIreland]

Hi,

Recently, I saw a painting of Jesus that I really liked in somebody’s home. The painter lived close by and so it would have been possible for me to buy a similar painting for myself. However, since his paintings are expensive, I decided to take a photograph of the painting, enlarge it and frame it. I use it for devotional purposes.

The painter is completely unaware that I took this photograph or even saw his work.

What do you think - did I breach a form of ‘copyright’ or was this ok to do?

Thanks.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

Hi,

Recently, I saw a painting of Jesus that I really liked in somebody’s home. The painter lived close by and so it would have been possible for me to buy a similar painting for myself. However, since his paintings are expensive, I decided to take a photograph of the painting, enlarge it and frame it. I use it for devotional purposes.

The painter is completely unaware that I took this photograph or even saw his work.

What do you think - did I breach a form of ‘copyright’ or was this ok to do?

Thanks.

Yes. You violated the artist’s copyright. What to do about that? That’s up to you.

 

[guanophore]

Hi,

Recently, I saw a painting of Jesus that I really liked in somebody’s home. The painter lived close by and so it would have been possible for me to buy a similar painting for myself. However, since his paintings are expensive, I decided to take a photograph of the painting, enlarge it and frame it. I use it for devotional purposes.

The painter is completely unaware that I took this photograph or even saw his work.

What do you think - did I breach a form of ‘copyright’ or was this ok to do?

Thanks.

1 Tim 5:18-19
18 for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

 

[Greg27]

It would depend on what the local copyright law is; but in general, unless you take someone else’s intellectual property and try to use it for your own commercial gain, copyright law does not infringe on legitimate useage of another’s work. However, if you intend to make lots of copies of this and share it with others, you might want to get some legal advice.

 

[Ramalama]

Whether the copyright laws were broken is not the issue. Whether you should return/destroy the picture or compensate the artist is one issue. Whether you should confess this is another.

Good luck with it.

 

[GirlfromIreland]

Whether you should return/destroy the picture or compensate the artist is one issue. Whether you should confess this is another.

Good luck with it.

Yes, that’s exactly it - that’s what I’m looking to know. I can’t return the picture as I saw the painting on a recent visit to another country. I am now home again. Neither did I ever meet the artist, I just heard that he was local.

The original work was quite amazing, it was painted on stone and mounted on a solid backing, making it look almost 2-dimensional. Obviously, what I’ve been enjoying is a much weaker imitation, given that it is merely an enlarged photo. It is nothing compared to the original.

In saying that however, if this was morally wrong to do, I would destroy the photo and confess it in confession.

Thanks for the replies - the advice has been very helpful.

 

[rwoehmke]

To imply that this is a violation of Copy Right law would fiorst of all deny the right to one copy for personal use only. It would also mean that photographing any fairly recent statue or painting in a public display would also be an infringement which I highly doubt. If one were to make an exact duplicate of the painting, texture, basic substrate, etc. to sell or give away it would be infringement. A photograph has already changed the media so significantly that it is no longer a painting. A photocopy of pages in a book do not depart to a significant degree from the original so it would be possible for the law to apply if…

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I don’t believe this is copyright infringement. I would hesitate to post the photo on your homepage, or to make t-shirts to sell bearing the photo, however.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Maryam]

I really don’t see this as a big problem…The only thing I see that was wrong is that you should have asked the family first for permission to take a picture of the painting.

I know that when I have gone on vacation or visited a religious shrine, museum…etc…I have taken pictures in order to remember my trip/visit or because I found something very beautiful to take a picture of…

I would say that since it is just an enlarged pic and you did not make extra copies to give to others then just take it easy…

Plus, it was not like the picture you took was in the original artists home…it was in the home of a family that had purchased it from a local artist.

If it really bothers you that much then just speak to the family in question and tell them the truth…that you found the painting they had in their home so beautiful that you took a picture of it.

Now…if they are bothered by you having done this then just destroy the picture…and if not then keep it.

God bless

 

[Diddi]

Hi,

Recently, I saw a painting of Jesus that I really liked in somebody’s home. The painter lived close by and so it would have been possible for me to buy a similar painting for myself. However, since his paintings are expensive, I decided to take a photograph of the painting, enlarge it and frame it. I use it for devotional purposes.

The painter is completely unaware that I took this photograph or even saw his work.

What do you think - did I breach a form of ‘copyright’ or was this ok to do?

Thanks.

Usually, if an artist has a copyright that prohibits photographic reproduction without the artist’s permission, he/she will include this information at the point of the sale. It would therefore be the responsibility of the current owner(s) to inform you of this if they knew what you were doing. Still, it is unlikely that they would even remember whether they received such information.

You could call the artist and ask him what copyright restrictions would apply if you bought one of his paintings. If he informed you that it would be a copyright violation to photograph the paintings without permission, then don’t tell him you already did it. Instead, tell him you saw his painting in someone’s home and ask for permission to photograph the painting and make one print for personal use (and give dimensions). If he says you cannot, then prompt him for a price. If he still says you cannot, then distroy all copies of the photograph including the print and negative/memory. The same applies if you cannot afford the asking price. If you can afford the price or he says there is no restrictions or he gives you verbal permission, keep a note of the conversation and you are legally ok (assuming you asked for or had the implied permission of the current owner).

Personally, I think the posting of Greg27 (“copyright law does not infringe on legitimate useage of another’s work”) will be applicable here. I only suggest the above strategy since you are concerned.

After you do the above, you have the moral considerations to think about. If when you took the photograph, you felt you were doing something immoral, or if you feel that way now, then by all means confess it, brace youself for the possible scurpulosity lecture and move on. Confession is one of the nice perks of being Catholic.