Can Prints Have Captions ?

its not at the bottom, but on the right hand side in the message box. every image here should have a description so people know what's going on. i think its below the tag box when you edit.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

I'm not sure I understand, John. Do you have permission to use those photographs?

There is a place for a description.

Um....do you have permission to use Rob's photography? I see he does lots of surfing photographs

I contacted 5 photogs explaining that their name will be on the prints. One gave me permission and the others, including Frank Quirarte and Robert Brown, ignored me. Is this not free publicity for the caption to say "this photo-exact scale painting is based on the photo by X"? In my bio I thank the photographers profusely and encourage anyone interested to contact the photographers for actual photo enlargements. My paintings don't have as much detail as a photo. I create a simplified, color exaggerated, clarified reconstruction of their photo. I also encourage all photographers to contact me if they have any concerns. If the day ever comes when someone buys one of my prints, I'd be delighted to send a percentage to any photographer whatever they feel is appropriate. My paintings are substantially different from the photographs because I use illustrative techniques. Would it be satisfaction enough to see a homage to their photograph among the company of the "biggest waves ever surfed" collection?

no its not. if they didn't give you the actual permission that you will be not just using their images but selling it-- putting only their name is not the same as getting permission.

all i know is, if i saw someone using my image and then modified my image with just a name at the bottom, i'd be sending you a bill, or worse. only use your own images or if you can find it, PD images. and only if you have written permission, should you be using their images. i'm guessing they sell photos so they can eat, posting their name after mashing the photo is not how you make money, nor is it good publicity for them.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

btw... you have the longest bio i have ever seen.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

here's the ironic part. at the very end of the manifesto:

This artwork is owned solely by the artist and as such is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws, all rights reserved. This artwork may not be copied, reproduced, manipulated or used in any way without written permission.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

You can use the one who gave you permission only if you actually can and do name h on the print. The others are likely to stop ignoring you when they find their images have been used.

I would go with what Mike says, he has a lot of good informative information.
The bio is very long . Not that it isn't interesting but ya lost me around the 5 paragraph , but I have a short attention t span lol. OH SHINEY!!
Id get permission to avoid any nasty things like getting sued .
Mike I didn't recognize you without your flower . : )cool avi

Also, are they paintings or digital manipulation?

he's selling them as paintings, but they look like digital filters.

the copyright you put on to yourself, they have the very same copyright and all the rules that go with it. and usually a percent isn't enough, usually there is a licensing fee that is also involved. not to mention those images - may not belong to those people you took them from. they might have take it from another place. and if for example, getty owns them, they have been known for suing for anything remotely resembling the stock they sell. even if they were painted by hand - it doesn't protect you from copyright law, especially since there wasn't enough changed. adding a surfer doesn't make it yours.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

@jennifer, i change them monthly, it's star wars day next month, celebrating it for the whole month. the bio has the details.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Only the original copyright owner has the right to produce, and profit from, an original work by making a new derivative work.
Only a copyright owner can give permission to someone else to make a derivative work based on the original.
If permission is not granted, the secondary work is considered to be a copy of the original. This makes the new work’s originator liable for copyright infringement.
from my site http://1stangel.co.uk/blog/derivative-works-when-do-i-need-permission/

If anyone is using 'paint' filters please do not call them paintings, they will be either digital painting, photographic manipulation or digital art

A quote from your bio "I believe I don't need permission from the photographers because my illustration techniques go beyond their photographs."

All I can say is... WOW.

Cool bit of info on Darth Vader Mike :)

So your father was an art school teacher for 43 years and he never taught you about artistic integrity or copyright?

His paintings indicate that they are 'acrylic on panel.' Shouldn't that mean they are actual physical paintings? He states the size and that the original is for sale.

They seem to be actual paintings if you read his descriptions...and there were surfers in the original photographs on the ones I googled.

acrylic on panel is fine... my message was for anyone who does use filters

However the copyright information stands.

Definitely.

one really can't say - i don't think i need permission, then have a copyright of the stolen work at the same time. the curious thing is, if someone stole your version and you found it - what would you do?


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

He says he projects the photograph with some sort of projector and then outlines in pencil the areas he needs to paint in. Actually doing this is one thing....and then putting it in the bio? I was pretty much floored.

And then stating that he believes his paintings surpass the photographs anyway. That's a very rude thing to say to the photographers you're copying. "well your work is so-so, but I can make it better by painting it" (quotes are mine).

Perhaps they have been added to a flag list for the printers not to print the prints.

Wow...you wrote this "This artwork is owned solely by the artist and as such is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws, all rights reserved. This artwork may not be copied, reproduced, manipulated or used in any way without written permission" ...Yet you actually believe it does not apply to their work???

In answer to the OP's question: No, there is no way to add a caption or mouseover event,etc., to the image. You would have to include it in the JPG or PNG image itself as part of the image.

- Richard Reeve
ReevePhotos.com

I am a bit confused. How/where did you obtain copies of the original photographs and the names of the photographers who took each individual photo, as well as each surfer's name and wave location? Was there copyright attribution and reservation of rights by/on behalf of the photographer?

If you take someone's photograph, copy or create a derivative work, and hang it on the wall in your house, nobody cares. But, when you seek to profit and ultimately do profit from someone else's work, you need to know and follow the law. If the owner of the copyright has registered the work and wins an infringement action, the defendant(s) will be liable for monetary gain, attorneys' fees, and possibly more. If the owner has not registered the work, an infringement action can still be initiated.

You have some hefty prices on these prints, and with a multiplier of 10, 20, 30... etc., potential profits could add up to a lot of money, This has the potential to get messy for you and FAA if written permissions are not obtained!!

An artist I know did a beautiful painting which received some acclaim. Another artist in another country did a lame copy of the same painting and claimed it as his own. Well, artists are good at remembering styles and certain paintings, etc. The original artist found out from his fans and issued a take-down. The other artist's entire site was immediately removed from the internet. Many artists are quite flattered when someone wants to use their work in a video, tutorial, etc., as long as a disclaimer as to the original artist with permission is made. But, in this case, you are looking to make lots of money on a derivative work without permission.

Just my 2 cents based on 30+ years in the legal world.

here's the part where you kick yourself.... you left a paper trail of who's images those are. i know of people that will now contact the original photographer a little more aggressively than you tried to do. if the original photographer is nice he will simply let you steal the image and sell it for your own. more than likely he will charge you a certain amount per use, paid up front (this is how you would have normally obtained the images you needed), it may cost several hundreds of dollars or more. the third case is the one where they take you to court. since you have physical things you made already and are already selling it. with a denial in the bio, and a history of taking other things. my guess is, it will never end up in court, and you'll settle it out of court, but it would be even more expensive.

now if you never added those names (and it s a bit too late now), no one would have really noticed at all. and the original owner... doubtful they would look up the image. but you never know.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Imagine the expense and logistics involved in creating the originals plus they were no doubt paid for and published by sponsors and magazines. Lots of people involved with vested interest in protecting their properly.

Due to the extreme remoteness of these giant waves there were probably no more then 10 people who witnessed the event. A photograph of a death defying event is no doubt more compelling than any painting. The view can feel the extreme conditions that faced the photographer while one can't exactly expect to think a painter witnessed the scene and recorded it.