A question about derivative images

I'm fascinated by statues of all kinds. And since I almost always have a camera with me, I've compiled a collection of statue photos (grave stones too). I regularly see questions from photographers about an artist making a derivative work of a photo, but what about the other way around? What kind of hassles am I in for if I try to pass this off as a "fine art" photograph?
And, while you're looking, what are your thoughts on this image?
Thanks,
Paul

I like the image, however, I do foresee problems in trying to sell the image unless you have express permission from the artist....I would see copywrite playing both ways to answer your question, It is only my opinion and would have be be addressed by copywrite attorney to get a qualified answer. Joe Rogers

I think this is a fine capture of this statue! Love the grass in the foreground and the toning,
but find the vignette a bit heavy handed.
The amount of work you put into crafting this image (pre & post capture) seems to qualify it as 'fine art' to me but selling it may be another matter entirely. I hope someone can answer your question definitively, as this calls into question commercial images taken of Mt. Rushmore, et. al.

I'm with Joe on this issue. Better get permission from the artist. Also, if I may. Your watermark should include the date of first publication (for photos, typically the year it was taken). You can spell out "copyright" as you have, or use the © mark. Here's the reference Circular 3 from the copyright office.

I'm also with Joe on this. It should be a two-way street in regards to derivative works, and I'm certain it is. I don't think Mt. Rushmore presents similar problems, since it's owned by the federal government, and thus belongs to us. But this statue is certainly more problematic.

As for the photo, I absolutely love it! The inclusion of the grasses that John mentioned is right on. I guess I could do with a little less prominence in the vignette, but I like it as is, too.

Thanks guys! And Ken, thanks for that link Very informative.

I don't think Mt. Rushmore presents similar problems, since it's owned by the federal government, and thus belongs to us. But this statue is certainly more problematic.

What if this statue was purchased by the US Govt? Lot's of statue's are purchased by the US Govt and placed on Govt property. In that since are owned by us. So, does that give yourself the ability to give yourself permission?

Just a question.

Depends on the use, depends on the subject, depends on way too many things to go into here...
Bottom line--get permission if you can!

One of my stock agencies accepts unreleased images of statues for editorial use. The statues need to be easily photographed from public access areas. If they were on private property and you had to be on that private property to get the "viewpoint" you wanted, then it would not be used even editorially without a release.

Thanks Don. I always shoot from public access areas.