Water Color Painter Wants My Photos To Paint

I noticed you said "paintings", does that mean the artist wants to use all or any of them, and how does the artist plan to sell the paintings? For commercial purposes or ? You are lucky the person asked, as it seems so many might look and use somehow without asking. I think you might set up a contract with....a use fee for one rather than all. Would be my opinion only. You might need to know if for commercial use as a higher fee for that use(or not at all). As for amount of fee, others may have an answer. Good Luck!

Did he say he wanted to pay for the oppurtunity to paint your photos?

Mary and Joseph

Thanks for your reply. He's a private artist, not commercial. He probably sells his paintings for about $1000 or so (I'm looking into it now... I can't access his website right now), so based on that, is there any president on how the financial end can be handled? He gave me the names of the first three he wanted to paint, so he may choose more after that.

Thanks!

Debb, if it were me, I'd first have to be very, very sure I liked his product, then I'd switch the images over to FAA's licensing site. Everything gets buttoned up nice and legal there and their cut isn't that much.

Lois I don't get that. Why would you give 30% away when you brought in the deal?

Another question: what would a fair fee be for the use of a photograph?

I guess I'm not getting a reply as to whether he said he wanted to pay you for his chance to paint your photos. Some people don't expect to pay. I let a painter have at one of my shots because we are both from the same town. The agreement was he got to paint one of my shots and give me credit and that was it. The third party that put us together says he doesn't sell much, but that a lot of people know his work and name. We basically did an e-mail agreement. You will probably want to do something a little more binding. Ifhe doesn't want to pay, you may still want to allow him to do one of your shots with credit given. Or you may decide it's not worth your time.

If it were me, I wouldn't charge them if I know them, since I've given several of my photography images of wildlife to painters who loved them.
Maybe it's because I am a painter and photographers I've known have offered to give them to me at no charge.

I agree with crediting you, and I would insist on it. I would not take payment, but that's just me. A painter here did use one of my photos for a painting, and THEN informed me -- after the fact, not before. I was miffed and told him I'd prefer he did not do that. But I'm not going to pursue it ... got other things to do with my time. In your case, I'd consider it an honor and credit would be enough.

My regrets - my answer would be no - he could by the © for whatever you think you might expect to make on them - but "I" personally would not sell otherwise for use for another artist to make money. In 'most' art groups I have ever belonged to - not only is painting from another persons photograph, but from magazines, slightly more than just frowned on - it can get them removed from art shows. I'm really "hard hearted" about this subject. but in the end - it's your decision. Have you ever seen his work? would it take away from your work?

Imo you can ask him to buy this photo in specific size at FAA.
To sweet this deal take money upfront and buy print yourself and give to him.
If he wants more photos, he must to buy more. That's a deal.
Don't send him digital file!

Thanks for the suggestions and I am honored -- especially because I consider myself a beginner photographer who happens (so I'm now being told)
have a good eye for photography.

Again, thanks everyone ..

Unless it's some really unique photo, at most I might ask for a print of the painting but often just let them use it.

"How is the payment handled?"

-- Paypal
-- Cash
-- Check
-- Barter

Whichever is agreeable and convenient. Congrats, Debbie.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Adam and Dan, thanks so much for your input (and everyone else, too, but it's redundant). :)

Much appreciated!

I got asked this by a painter on Flickr... I wonder if it is the same person? I let him do a painting from mine and he said he would credit me (by which I expected a link) but all he said was "to a photo by (name of photographer). I emailed him and said he should be linking to my original photo/photostream. He gets lots of comments on the painting and everyone thinks it is his. Although he said it's not for commercial use I am not sure. I won't let him do any more of mine.

Nicky, thanks. A link sounds like a good idea!

Remember to include any future reproductions of the painting.

Personally I would not worry about being credited. I don't know how that can even happen? He is painting originals and I assume signing them. How does he credit you as the photographer that took the pictures?

I agree with no giving this deal to FAA licensing. You have to be able to do your own contracts. I don't think you owe FAA anything here. Yes, they can do the contract, but the fee is not really being earned.

Once you learn how to do this, you can do over and over again and not have to pay for someone else to do the contract. If you have no idea and there are significant possibilities in the future, you may want to consult an agent or attorney for the first deal but make sure you learn how to do the next one on you own. These things are not that complicated.

On Flickr where he posts a picture of the painting he can link to the photographer's profile.

This happens often with me and I just tell them to buy a greeting card or the size print they want (which is why I price one single greeting card about the same as a small print) and insist they give me credit - but you can't ensure that. I consider it advertising and you still get SOMETHING out of it. I thank them because they could just print out a screen shot and you would never know they stole your work. Someone is probably doing that to one of your works as you read this. Photographers and painters have a symbiotic relationship in that most painters don't want to put money into photography when they can spend $10 on a bird print and get written permission to use it, right here on FAA. I don't sell a huge amount of greeting cards, but the ones I have, that's what they bought them for and they didn't even ask permission. As I've said, its better than nothing.

Thanks for your ideas, Floyd, Nikki, and Robert !!

Actually this discussion confuses me a bit.

In another thread they were talking about copy art and how evil it is.

Now we are seeing people say just go get my greeting card and copy it all you want?

I am not saying that is right or wrong, but it is certainly contradictory to the majority thinking that was prevailing in that other thread.

I do know that artist do share source materials all the time. Usually it is for free if it is between friends. Not saying no one should charge, in fact if someone wants to buy, I am always willing to take their money. lol

Couple of great wildlife artist that were world famous in their day, one has died the other very old, retired and ill, used to travel the world together. One used a sketch pad the other a camera. Each thought their method of capturing animals in the wild to paint form later was superior. The funny thing was is they shared their sources with one another so both were using photos and sketches.

Thanks for bringing this up. I agree that being credited is important since you captured the image in the first place. I also agree that future sales should be considered. Example: How would you feel about them making a lot of money of their piece? Great discussion.

Floyd - in my case the painter asked my permission to use my photo for NON-commercial use. Which I granted him via email and I was quite specific. I have no way of knowing if he is keeping to that agreement - he doesn't appear to have a website - but I also have no way to say that he isn't. The reason I mentioned crediting is 1 because he agreed to credit and I wasn't particularly happy with his idea of crediting on Flickr. He could have linked to the photo, but instead he simply said "to a photo by Townie-Brit." - TB is my Flickr handle (and I think English isn't his first language). He recently added another of my photographs to his favourite list and so I looked at his profile and saw the above with no link. What got me is that the painting he did (and those he did of others photos) got hundreds of views, faves and comments saying wonderful painting etc, etc while the original photos barely got viewed... because people will click on a link but they won't bother to search.

The painting IS good. And as long as he is not selling it all I would ask is that "to a photo by Townie-Brit" is linked to the original photo. Which, I would not have a problem doing if I was in his place. Other than that I don't have an issue... in fact I might even make painting of it myself. But if he is selling commercially then he is breaking the terms of our agreement....and that is a very different story. If he wanted to use it commercially and if I agreed there would need to be a different arrangement which would involve money. It would also be a derivative work.

Tamara, if they make a lot of money and I see it - Then I'm gonna get my share :)

@Nicky, I was not suggesting you did wrong. I am suggesting that what ever each person decides to do is right for them.


Good points made on being credited. I was thinking of "on" the original painting and the prints. I was not thinking of the website where the original or the prints would be listed.

Actually you could be credited on the prints in very tiny print. Something like, "Painted form a original photo by... ". However if I was the artist I would not do that. But it could be done.

Excellent points that wen right over my head! lol

All your thoughts are very interesting to me. I'm not a photographer, I'm a painter. I draw and paint from my own sources. I did draw a piece in a classroom setting from a stock photo and it sits in my studio. Most of my family and friends like it best of my work but I refuse to sell it or prints of it because I feel it would be unethical. How do you as photographers really feel about the matter? Do you not feel that a painter painting your photo is next to plagiarism?



This image is beautiful!

@Floyd - it never entered my head that you were suggesting I did anything wrong (I know I didn't) I was giving more context to my story for clarification. It's an interesting thought about being credited on the actual print.... tbh not only did I not even think of this but I wouldn't expect it and as you say I would think the artist might be reluctant to do it. Of course, it would be a good thing for me... I am just not sure I could be bothered to ask for it. But again, if the intent was for commercial use, perhaps that discussion would have come up.

@Neva.... Looked at one way you could argue it is. When he first asked me my first thought was "why don't you paint from your own sources/imagination?" But then I thought, for personal use only, why not? I didn't look at it as similar to plagarism because the painter was creating something different (the painting) and he asked permission first, plus the photo was a source. But from a painter's perspective? What say painters?
The other thing is, when people paint portraits they often paint from a photograph that they get from their subject (or subject's relation). I believe it isn't limited to portraits either... but I have never thought of that as plagarism. Now granted there is payment and an understanding of what is the photo is for but does that make any difference?

I guess putting the shoe on the other foot I certainly wouldn't want a photographer to photograph my work and sell it as his own. As to portraits, if a painter is doing a portrait for a person off a photo that person has taken, I guess I see it differently. They are approaching the painter and commissioning them to do a work for them, not the painter approaching them for their photograph to do a work for themselves. I don't know, it just seems like a disrespect of the photographer for a painter to want to use their compositions and call them their own. I just always assumed it would be offensive to a photographer.

I didn't find it offensive, quite the reverse actually. I sill don't. I saw it more as cooperation. For all I know he could have been using it to practice his brush strokes. He asked permission for personal use. I think it would only become an issue if commercial use/money became involved. Or, had I said no, he went ahead and used it anyway.

I get what you are saying, That's good.

This is my favorite piece you have here at FAA. Best of luck on future sales.

Thanks, you too. It's one of my favourite ones too as well as one of my popular ones. Actually I sell more offline than I do on FAA so I have been focusing almost entirely on that for the past few months. But I still link to my photos here so it's all good.