Screen Shots.......Ethical Dilemma?

[Rick Waldroup]

This is a new project I have been working on for a while now and I just recently started posting the photos on my website.  They are actual photos shot of various television screens.  The images are then highly manipulated by me in post processing and these are some of the results.  The images come from TV commercials, TV shows, and various movies shown on TV.  It has been an extremely fun project to work on, mostly because this type of work is something completely different than my normal PJ, documentary, and street work.

In the past few weeks I have been approached by three different people wanting to buy prints of some of the images.  I have turned those requests down, because frankly, I am not sure about the ethical or moral concept of what I am doing.  I am shooting images off of TV screens, images that were not mine originally, and then heavily editing those images to create the artistic vision I had in mind when I first saw the images.  Also, some of the images are not so heavily manipulated (not shown here) and you can tell exactly what, where, or who the images are of.

The images are presented on my website without titles or captions.  The images stand alone.

Take a look, and please, discussion and comments are most welcome.  Thanks.











To see the entire set of images so far, go here http://www.rickwphotography.com/p890079861#h91fb7eb7

[gryphon1911]

I'm no lawyer and I dare not give any advice that could even be hinted in the legal realm.  If you do wish to pursue selling any of them, I do recommend consulting a good lawyer to get the best possible advice.

SO...I will just comment on the images and project itself.

I like the images, there is something about them that evokes an emotional response....kind of like draw artwork might do.   I enjoyed viewing them.  Thank you for sharing.

I'm a big proponent of personal projects.  I do at least one per year.  Stuff that I want to do, just for me.   Sometimes I share it, like my Scene In Windows project I did a while back.  Personal projects are a way to help us grow and find new and interesting avenues to enhance our other aspects.

[Rick Waldroup]

Thanks, Andrew.  That is exactly what I am looking for. 

[BEZ]

I did a similar project in the pre digital, analogue days (late 70's). I sold a few prints then almost by accident, and have no regrets.

I still took shots off the television on occasion until a couple of years ago. I now no longer have a TV so my project has come to an end. Except yesterday I took a shot of a television image in a bar. Thinking about it I kind of like the idea, and gives me another excuse to go to the pub.

As you may guess I would have no moral or ethical issue with your project. But I have no idea what the legal implications are. I doubt it would of stopped Andy Warhol making a buck.

Cheers

edit: I forgot to say, the second image was very strong in the set. Very interesting series of images.

[pluton]

Ernst Haas, Lee Friedlander, Art Kane, and Stephen Shore did it, so you're in good company.
My amateur legal judgement:  You are safe.
But read these infos on Fair Use in appropriated art:
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/2014/12/22/much-photo-need-alter-avoid-copyright-infringement-hint-cheshire-cat/

[Mongo]

very interesting work and broader topic.

First, the idea is great, different and well outside the box (no pun intended). It can make for an interesting, unique and exciting project. The results are visually pleasing and Mongo suspects, pleasing to you as the artist creating them. Mongo has no ethical dilemma.

Secondly, You add a deal of your own manipulation/work to the screen shots. There is no doubt that you have produced the finished product provided it is sufficiently different to the original screen shot. However, at the same time, it is clear that the "seed" image or a part of the final image also contains someone else's work to a varying degree. Using such work for your own pleasure. Again, no ethical dilemma so far.

Thirdly and last, selling the completed work. Mongo looks at this as having , essentially, two main components. The first is the ethics of , say, selling and making money from the completed works per se; and certainly, if done so without even a credit mention of the "other contributors' work in the finished product. Secondly, it is the potential legal ramifications of doing this i.e using/modifying original work without permission, selling partly original modified work without permission and any income derived therefrom.  Mongo does not propose to go into the last element mentioned here - that is for someone else, if at all. The mention of it is only meant to flag this as a consideration in due course.

[Rick Waldroup]

I want to thank everyone for their comments.  It is very, very helpful.  And thanks for those links, pluton.

[Les Olson]

One issue is copyright.  In the US, fair use of an existing work is not a breach of copyright.  There are four factors that determine if a use is fair use:
(1)  the  purpose  and  character  of  the  use,  including whether  such use  is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The key factor is normally the first.  You are using an existing work to create a new work.  To make using an existing work to create a new work fair use the use has to be "transformative".  It is not enough just to alter the old work, you have to add "something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new  expression,  meaning,  or  message".  It is worth looking at the recent landmark case of Cariou v Prince (https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/cx/2013_Cariou.pdf) to get an idea of what "transformative" means in practice. 

It is hard to see that you could have any trouble with any of the other criteria.

Another issue is what is called "false light" or "passing off".  This is when you use a person's image or an image in a way that carries an implication they object to.  The implication does not have to be actually derogatory.  An example is using someone's picture in an advertisement: they can sue just because people are likely to think they agreed or have some association wit the product or service.  Captions often cause trouble, if they use swear words, eg: the subject can sue because people might think they are a person who uses swear words.

This is especially likely with celebrities, because US courts have created an analogy between a celebrity's image and a trade mark (no, really, they have).  In that context, it would be worth reading James "Jim" Brown v Electronic Arts (https://www.eff.org/files/brown_v._ea_-_ninth_circuit.pdf).  EA used Brown's likeness in one of its football simulation games, and he sued. Brown lost, because for expressive works, which the court said includes computer games, the trademark is not infringed unless its use has no relevance whatever to the expressive purpose, or it is used in a way that explicitly misleads the viewer as to the association between the trademark owner and the creator of the work.  So as long as you don't imply that these people agreed to be part of your works you should be in the clear.


 

[Rick Waldroup]

Thanks so much for that detailed response, Les.  In fact, when I was first approached by someone wanting to purchase a print, one of the first things I thought of was the Richard Prince case. 

[Rick Waldroup]

What do you guys think about me putting a title on each shot which details where the original image came from?  As an example, the first shot in this series I posted is a very brief scene from the movie, Alien.  The second shot in the series is another very brief clip which came from the movie, Planet Terror.  The way that I manipulated the images, I doubt if many people would be able to tell where the scenes originally   came from.

 When I first started this, my original idea was to not provide any info at all about the photos- to just simply let them stand as works of art.  But now, I am thinking maybe that is not the best approach?  Any ideas or thoughts about the matter is much appreciated.

[Akira]

To me, this project is a visual version of Musique Concrete from around the mid 20th century or the sampling by DJs and Hiphop guys starting from the 90s.  And, of course, I'm so intrigued!

Frankly speaking, #3 and the last images with the scanning line are less interesting, because I remember I've seen photographs of similar concepts in the past (maybe the ones by some photographers Keith mentioned?).

#1 and #4 are my favorites in the set posted here.  The deformation and the moire in #4 are very effective.

I can't say anything for sure about the legal stuff.  So long as the owner the copyright and the portrait right are OK, there should be of no problem of publishing them or selling prints.

That said, clearing copyrights and portrait rights could be infinitely difficult.  I have translated for the promotion of a publisher who bought the copyright of the entire series of "Ed Sullivan Show" and released the four shows with the Beatles appearing on them.  In order to illustrate not only the performances of Fab Four who visited the U.S. for the first and the second time but also the whole atmosphere of the time, the publisher decided to include the footage of all other performers appeared on the same shows and even the commercials.  So, he had to clear all the copyrights and the portrait rights of "every" persons appearing not only in the show but also in the commercials!  He said that the clearing these rights was the hardest part of the project and it had taken two years to complete the legal work.  Wow!

[Akira]

As for the titles, it may depend on how you want to present your images.  If you are to present them as abstract images, you wouldn't need to mention the original movies or TV program in the titles and you could title them in the completely different contexts.  If you are to publish them as the presentation of one of the methods for your image making, it could be rather interesting to disclose where they came from in the titles.

[Ethan]

Ethical and Moral goes back to your personality and society canons.

Legal: Why would you want to wade in a legal nightmare?

You are using copyrighted stills of TV or Film footage for commercial purpose. Not withstanding the graphic and artistic value of the altered images, which in fact has been and is being done ad nauseam, you are putting yourself in jeopardy and easy food by hungry lawyers.

The question is: How much is it worth it to you to go to all this trouble when the artistic value is exhausted and the legal value is shining?

Surely it is not the money. Maybe the titillating effect of threading on the thin line of the law or plain vanity.

[Rick Waldroup]

Thanks, Akira and Ethan, for the comments.

The last image is the very first one of these I did, back in 2015.  I was fascinated by the way it looked when I finished working on the image and that is when I decided to do more of these.  Akira, sometimes the scan lines are much more pronounced in the images than at other times.  I have also incorporated surrounding window light in some of the photos to get more distortion into the images.

Ethan, I am not sure why I started the project or why I continue with it.  You are right that money has absolutely nothing to do with it.  I simply like the way the images look.  I have no commercial aspirations for the images at all.

[pluton]

I wish you hadn't mentioned the movie title. (I liked it better when I had no idea what I was looking at!)
Now it's on the interweb, which means it's searchable.  Oops.
The Hollywood studios are perpetually on the lookout for unauthorized copying/piracy.
Amateur Opinion, again:
I doubt this would register on their radar, and you may be on totally legal ground, but....