When It'south Illegal to Photograph Artwork

By Jennifer Saranow Schultz
We turned to lawyers to find out if and when it's legal to snap a photo of a work of art you like at a museum or gallery. Michael Falco for The New York Times We turned to lawyers to find out if and when information technology'due south legal to snap a photo of a work of fine art you like at a museum or gallery.

Who hasn't walked into a local gallery, been shocked by how expensive all the pieces are and and then walked out empty-handed?

A couple of years ago, when I really liked a painting, a cheaper workaround to the situation ran through my mind: taking a moving picture of the painting (or even of a postcard of the painting) and then blowing up the reproduction. I never went through with the arroyo, because I knew it was ethically problematic. Just leaving aside the question of whether this inexpensive approach to obtaining fine fine art is upstanding or non, is it even legal?

Having recently explored the legality of copying your favorite apparel, I decided to also consult with some lawyers well-nigh snapping a shot of art at a gallery or a museum for personal apply.

According to the lawyers I spoke with, snapping such a shot is more often than not O.One thousand. in the United states if the work of art is in the public domain. For fine art, this generally means anything created before around 1923, they said.

"If the painting is in the public domain, you tin have a picture of it, you can reproduce it," said Chris Sprigman, an intellectual property law professor at the University of Virginia School of Constabulary who has written on copyright bug for the Freakonomics blog.

But if the piece of work of art is more than recent, the artist generally has the exclusive correct to any reproduction, and the piece is generally covered by copyright constabulary.

In this example, "if you have a movie, you are making a reproduction and that is a copyright violation," Prof. Sprigman said. And that applies even if you are simply planning to hang the reproduction for your own individual use. "That's notwithstanding a violation," he said.

In other words, if the artist somehow finds out about your copy, you lot could be sued for copyright infringement and substantial damages. This is true even for those shots you take of a friend standing in front end of a work of art that is still protected past copyright constabulary, say at a museum. It'southward also true for whatsoever photographs y'all might take of a reproduction (like a postcard) of the protected piece of work of art.

Only regardless of when the work was created, some museums have their ain photograph and reproduction policies, meaning you may be kicked out if photos aren't immune or you may be required to pay a sure amount for the correct to make a reproduction. If you don't pay, you could be sued.

In add-on, if the piece of work out of art is outside the The states, different and more strict rules may use. Mr. Sprigman said that countries in Europe frequently give artists certain rights even when copyrights take expired.

To be sure, if yous aren't caught taking the motion picture, information technology'south unlikely an artist would e'er know you had a re-create hanging in your business firm. "For the law to be enforced, there has to be a detection of the violation," Prof. Sprigman said. If zippo is detected, "that doesn't mean y'all are non violating the law. Information technology just means yous might get away with it just every bit you might go abroad with speeding on a nighttime road." Still, after knowing these rules, I'm glad I didn't try the approach I briefly considered.

Have you ever taken the photo-approach to obtaining cheap art? What are your strategies for inexpensively decorating your walls?