Derivatives Without Permission

For awhile now, I have been somewhat concerned about the amount of "paintings" which appear on sites such as FAA and other POD sites which are clearly taken from photographs without any sort of attribution. While copyright laws on derivatives can differ in various countries, most agree that the person who wants to use a photograph as a basis for a painting, MUST obtain permission, preferably in writing, from the original owner of the image, ie the photographer. Attribution should also be stated. With the advent of Google Search by Image, these derivatives are more easily found by photographers as there has been little change, other than by using software filters to change the image into a painting.

Last year, one such "painter" was successfully selling prints without permission or attribution. He always stated that the original painting was not for sale because, of course, there was no such thing. It only existed on his hard drive. To their great credit, FAA eventually took his gallery down. The selling of prints without permission arose recently when I found a UK painter had taken at least six of my images and was selling them as prints from his website (not FAA). He was also selling the original for about $4,000. There were originals in this case as he was a painter but had possibly projected the image onto canvas or other media, and it then became a paint by numbers project. To prove this, I took his painting into Photoshop and added my original image as a layer and lo and behold, it matched completely, right down to the hairs in a beard and beads around the neck of the subject. For him to state that he had painted the subject freehand was complete nonsense as the chances of getting the exact proportions would have been near impossible.

He was also selling originals and prints of movie stars which were direct lifts of photographs which he found online, again without attribution nor permission as even I could not find the original photographer due to lack of watermarking! I am getting legal advice as what to do next as the UK is a very long way from Australia where I live. The painter did ask for my permission a few years back on two of the images (out of the six he took) for "study" purposes and personal use and I agreed as long as it was not for commercial purposes. He then apparently forgot about this condition and sold them from his website and also had several exhibitions in the UK. He even won a prize with one of my works.

With the advent of the very handy Topaz impression filter, I can see the floodgates being opened and photographers work will be used by unscrupulous folk without permission or attribution. I am wondering if artists are actually aware of the fact that they are actually infringing the copyright of photographers. I see this so many times when I check out the recent sales on FAA and can immediately spot paintings which are actually derivatives. Of course, many times the painting is legitimate as the photographer and the painter are one and the same. Or the painter has sought and obtained the permission of the photographer for the work to be used as a derivative.

So I would appreciate the thoughts of FAA members on this subject.

Sheila