Copyrights Question

Yes. Unless you can prove public domain or you have permission. Listing photographers means nothing if you do not have permission to use the work

well, I guess that's a bummer :( Not all is recreated, and all of the photographs I post have been taken by me. , so I guess that's a positive note :-)

Koons got in trouble with this because he is so exacting. Others have used their own hand and won in court.
While others have lost. If you became successful you'd open up a lot of hassles for yourself.

I do something you could play with. I use public domain works creatively going elsewhere with them.

Many folks are turning to PD works tor the basis of new works. The LOC is one of the better sources
for photos that are now in the PD. The Library of Congress clearly states when an image is PD, public domain.
I think Great Depression Public Works photographers have some stuff in the PD before the 70 period after
their deaths is over, the LOC makes it clear what is PD.

Dave

Thanks Heike for this topic.

I have question about street photography.
Does this photo could makes me problem with the person shown in it?



A person that i dont know and i havent permission from him to make public his photo even it shows some artistic beauty and element.
Thanks alot

You should have release forms signed if loading here as the person is recognisable

You can load people without if they are in a crowd (I believe) or not recognisable.

Thank you Lady Isabella. I delete it. But i have some pin on it from a few people!

If you don't take chances, people may never know your art.

Thank you all. I have found a couple of photographers and submitted a request for permission.
I already had a "no", why not ask for a "yes" ;) And Monsieur Danl...that is a risky statement, and I love it! Merci!

Thank you Dave, the PD is a great idea.
And again, most of the Art I post is mine, there a couple that I recreated from others.

I wouldn't personally advise using found images for reference for your artwork that you plan on selling originals of or prints of. Use your own reference.

Well let's say you wanted to paint the Sphinx... you can't afford to hop on a plane to visit it and take photos or sketch it... you can certainly download a bunch of images of the Sphinx to use as reference images for your painting. It would be equivalent of what artists did before the internet... go to the library and take out a bunch of books on Egypt to study the images of the Sphinx as references for your painting. No difference.

What you don't want to do is find some unique image and duplicate it in a painting. At least not without permission from the original photographer assuming that it is not already in the public domain.

"You should have release forms signed if loading here as the person is recognizable." --- Abbie

I am surprised that you did not qualify that statement as not being legal advise... Through all the discussions I have seen on this forum it has been stated many times that anyone can photograph anyone one in public and use / sell that image without a release form. What requires a release form is to use the person's image to "sell" something else.. as in an advertisement or other commercial use.

Now of course that is only what I have been told many times.. so my statement should not be considered legal advise... ;O)

You can basically copy anyone's art work that you want as long as you making it your own.

It is called Derivative work.

"So What Is a Derivative Work?

A derivative work is a new, original product that includes aspects of a preexisting, already copyrighted work. Also known as a "new version," derivative works can include musical arrangements, motion pictures, art reproductions, sound recordings or translations. They can also include dramatizations and fictionalizations, such as a movie based on a play. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law"


The question is how much alteration of change does it take? The other question is, just because you can do it does it mean you should do it.

No one in here is a copyright lawyer so there is no sound legal advice here.

Most to the "starving artist's" type of work that is done by the Asian importer is "copy" art and no one that know of has ever won filed and won a lawsuit against these people.

Personally, I would stick with Public Domain and/or getting permission.

The only legal advice that I ever pass on comes directly from my attorney: "The best legal defense in the world is to never put yourself in a situation where you are ever going to need one".

That goes along with the old saying, " always error on the side of caution or safety".

Thanks Floyd :-)

Heike, you can find images you can use freely on site that provide free public domain images. Unfortunately I believe it is against the rules
to post links here in the forum to alternative sites such as i speak of, but just do a google search for free public domain images or free commercial use stock images, etc. etc.

Make sure if you go the way of a general google search that the sites you use are legit. Many of these free sites are using stock images, usually stolen, and offering them free, either as a way of enticing you to buy whatever the site is really selling, or you'll click on ads on their site, or bait-and-switch or for no obvious reason (possibly political? or ...?)

Heike, why not be original since you have an obvious talent for painting? That way, the notions of copyright and plagiarism are not involved. .

Hey.. just noticed where you are from

This is the scene that is 5 blocks from my house.. ;O)

I would take my own pictures. This way you know it is your own work and nothing to worry about. If you do use someones work and got permission to paint and re-sell your paintings make sure to get it in writing.

you have to use your own images. google is not a free shopping mart. or you have to pay for the use and be sure they know it's for re-use and your selling it. people have sued or sent bills to the user. and if you are using stuff from google - you'll want to change it enough so it no longer looks like you took it from someone.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Hi Bob G.
Nice to have a neighbor here :)

Interesting conversation and info... QUESTION... if images are posted on Facebook public profile, or other sites listed as publicly visible... does that make it Public Domain to be copied / used in paintings or other mediums?

No Patrick.

Lady Isabella: your comment, "You should have release forms signed if loading here as the person is recognisable." Why? Does the paparazzi, then, routinely violate this premise with celebrities? Are they brought up on charges each time for capturing an image of a star?

Paparazzi images are ok for editorial usage. Not commercial usage.

Which is exactly why we as artists do not need releases either. Their [ people in public] images cannot be used commercially and art is not considered commercial usage. It must be used to sell something else... as in t-shirts and coffee mugs etc...

I am not a copyright lawyer so use my comments with caution.. ;O) But that is how the law is written.

I do take my own pictures (photographs) and make paintings of them as well. I use other's to work on my skills, like exotic animals. Can't just pack up and fly to Zimbabwe on the weekend ;)
I received permission from one of the photographers, to sell, if I pay him $100.00 royalties per print, lol...considering my mark up is only $5 - $10 per item, I declined and won't sell his work until after I modify it .

you should increase your prices if your only getting a few bucks. you would have to modify the image HEAVILY for it to count as edited (as in it no longer looks like the original). your still using his images however and now he knows your name.

there are public domain sites you can get images from.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Imagine the costs and time the photographer incurred to travel to Zimbabwe or to get an appointment with a Celebrity.

For information on United States copyright law: www.copyright.gov.

www.copyright.gov is published by the US Copyright Office. They have an excellent Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page, which is clearly written and easy to understand.

It also has instructions on how to register your work with the Copyright Office -- registering your work is a good thing to do if you think you might ever want to enforce your copyright, registration makes enforcement easier if you think other people are infringing your copyrighted work.

The copyright office also has instructions on how to search for work to find out if it's copyrighted. You may need to know the photographer's name and the title of the photograph in order to search to see if the photo is copyrighted. The search helps you find out if a work *is* copyrighted if you find it in the Copyright Office registry... it doesn't help you know much one way or the other if you don't find it in the registry.

By the way, you can't get legal advice on the FAA discussion boards. Even those of us who are lawyers have been asked not to give legal advice in these threads, for reasons that make sense to me. For legal advice, you should go to a lawyer who isn't just chiming in on the FAA discussion threads.

Disclaimer: As always, this is my opinion, not legal advice.

though even if its not registered -- its still his. he just can't sue you for as much. even if you don't sell the image, you still can't make it, it's someone else's copyright.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Floyd;

If an original artwork derivative and it is titled with the name of a copyrighted personality like a famous artist or movie star then you can be liable for a lawsuit too or not?

Since the subject comes up frequently, here is an excerpt of the Copyright Act, from www.copyright.gov. It covers the "default setting" (my term, not theirs) for which rights a copyright owner has. The biggest exception is "fair use" - two of the more commonly invoked fair uses are "educational purposes" (which is why you may have done a lot of copying in art classes - but you might not be free to sell what you copied in class) and parody.

Anyway... the default setting for derivative works: the right to make derivative works belongs to the copyright owner. There are exceptions, but... the basic rule is you don't have the right to make derivative works from other people's copyrighted stuff without their permission.

"§106 · Exclusive rights in copyrighted works38
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has
the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
§104a Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright
Copyright Law of the United States 17
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or
lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform
the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes,
and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual
images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted
work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly
by means of a digital audio transmission."

Disclaimer: My opinion, not legal advice.

then of course - would you Heike - want to have it happen to you? if someone took your painting and made their own thing with it. a collage or really anything. would you want to sue or send them a bill for the usage? i'm betting you would. many only see their own images protected by copyright and not the stuff they use as reference.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Edward,
I totally get that. I was polite and told him I understood his expenses. I thanked him for his reply and told him I would not sell my art until I modify it.
And he was not unreasonable in asking for the royalties. If I made a ton of money on it, I would give him his share.

yeah but modifying it isn't enough. your still using his image as a base. i can't imagine how much you would have to change for it to be considered modified. the point isn't that if you make money, you used the product. and your using it to advertise your name at the very least. i think his royalties were a bit high personally, however if you already made the image i can see why he set it to that. if he saw that you still used that image, even with a few modifications, he can still sue you for damages. just something to think about. i know of people that sued painters using their images, and the photographer did win. you would have to sell a lot of prints to pay off damages.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Vincent:
There are different kinds of intellectual property - there are things that can't be copyrighted, my understanding is that names of celebrities would not be copyrightable.

It might be possible to trademark a celebrity name, though, and that would be covered by trademark law. Also there is another area, privacy rights, which to a certain extent protect a person's right to his own image and how that is used.

Disclaimer: My opinion, not legal advice.

Mike, you have excellent points. Of course I see my originals as mine, very proudly, as I think any artist would. It is a hobby of mine, I am not in it for the big bucks. If someone took my art and sold it, I would be upset, sure! That is why I contacted the artists and asked for permission. I can't pay the price they asked for, so I won't sell it. I respect and accept that.

And he has actually not seen my drawing of his picture yet, he set the price blindly. Could have been a real Kindergarten style picture, he didn't know :D

I think we need to know how Heike is using these images... I mean are we talking about painting a beach scene with palm trees and sailboats... If she is collecting photos of beaches, boats, and palm trees as reference to get the subject correct.. then there is no infringement... those images are in public areas for anyone to see.. she is not hacking into someone's computer to get images behind a firewall. She needs to know what a panther's eyeball looks like.. there are a million images of panther eyeballs on the web. She does not need to credit of contact the 2 or more photographers of the images that she used for the reference. That would be absurd.

But.. if she was to find that unique image of a panther staring right in to the camera with a snarl and sharp teeth showing, and there are distinctive markings on the cat's fur... and there were plants with flowers etc.. and she copied that unique collection of objects faithfully then.... yea.. she would need permission for that.

So as in a lot of things in life... it depends. ;O)

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.

http://1stangel.co.uk/blog/derivative-works-when-do-i-need-permission/

You were not given permission so even modifying it is wrong imo

It seems in the U.S. You can sell...as art....photos of people.

I'm not a lawyer

Keevan Callahan has paintings he has made of unsuspecting people he has photographed. I havepersonallyseen the real paintings and he has them posted online here.

The subjects mostly are unknown but people he has found interesting inside his compositions with a camera which, like wildlife artists, are taken without any permission or knowledge by the subjects.

Would this be a gray area?

Thanks Bob...
not only are those images of beaches and palm trees a dime a dozen, but I DO take photographs of these scenes in order to reference them in my painting. I took the picture of Newport Avenue, printed it out and used it to paint it. Sunset Cliffs, I took the picture, then painted from the print, Arizona Desert, same thing....like I said before, I can't fly to Africa, but I guess a trip to the San Diego Zoo is in order for some ideas I can capture on my camera ;)
I am easy, I can adjust and follow rules

"If an original artwork derivative and it is titled with the name of a copyrighted personality like a famous artist or movie star then you can be liable for a lawsuit too or not?"

I am having a little trouble understanding what you mean by "original artwork derivative". The derivative would be an original based on some one else's art. I don't think it would be wise to keep their title or name on it other then credit for the use of the of their image. But I really don't know.

Can you be liable as in open to a lawsuit, sure. You can get sued for anyone. Will the case have merit? Only a judge can determine that.

the finished product doesn't matter what it looks like. if you used someone else's image to make your own, then you took it. and you owe him money. he spent money to get the shots you wanted. he didn't tell the pilot... i can't pay you now, you'll have to wait until i get paid...

also don't advertise you use from the san diego zoo. they have been known to sue anyone using their animals, even animals that were lent out to other countries.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Your word Floyd words "derivative" with a definition from yesterday. I took it to mean art based upon other art or photos but not copied. Like eclectic art perhaps.

Lets say Elvis Presley's name is used with a guy looking like him in the art flying down the road in a Harley and the titled is "Elvis Sunday Cruising".

Might be a good picture come to think of it.

ok...sorry....a venue with animals not local to my home :-)

Heike,

You need to do your own research, copyright.gov

You need to come to your own conclusions.

You are not supposed to use other people's work until 70 years after their deaths when
it in the PD.

We are not here to give legal advice. You should seek out a lawyer or take your chances without us.

It is your business make up your own mind how you want to proceed.

Dave

Mike Savad;

You do not make anything original except the arrangement of your composition.
Looks like most every photo composition you have in your portfolio is taken from someone else's images. Firetruck, razor, etc.
The exception is your amazing abstract and op art works!

Floyd;
all of your portfolio is the work of someone else, not yours.

" I mean are we talking about painting a beach scene with palm trees and sailboats... If she is collecting photos of beaches, boats, and palm trees as reference to get the subject correct.. then there is no infringement... those images are in public areas for anyone to see.. she is not hacking into someone's computer to get images behind a firewall. She needs to know what a panther's eyeball looks like.. there are a million images of panther eyeballs on the web. She does not need to credit of contact the 2 or more photographers of the images that she used for the reference. That would be absurd. ' - Bob Galka

Probably the best post in this thread.

30 years of being a systems analyst has ingrained looking at things logically... I can't help myself. First remove the noise and look at what is actually happening... not what someone else says is happening...

"all of your portfolio is the work of someone else, not yours"

That is a bold face lie and you know it.

Vincent, are we really going to dance this dance again? What is your problem?

That is a bold face lie and you know it.

Floyd; you are not the one who painted the paintings you are selling is what I meant. Nothing wrong with your portfolio. Nothing I said is meant to insult you. You are a very good business man and art dealer as well as successful. It's that fact that you are not in the same airplane as most of the artists on this flight since you are not an artist.

I apologize if it looks like I have insulted you but this was not my intention.

Vince

You have a funny way of not meaning to insult some one. I have about ten time more of my own work here then you do. And unless you have bought Sean out, you do not have the right to decide who does and does not have a seat in the airplane. We had this same discussion a few months back.

Then you attack Mike. Most people know that Mike and I do not see eye to eye on a lot of thing but you were out of line there also.

The word "original" is very misunderstood.

There are not many things in this world now that are original.

My derivative works lay claim to what I do in the works, not to the
underlying PD images.

Abstract work can almost always be "original", but so what?
Abstract art used to get all sorts of responses, now it is decor
for the most part. It is a right of passage for young art students to come
to terms with.

Dave

Sorry guys; no harm done I hope. I love you all!

People know me as a realist and sharp with tongue but I like both you, Snyder(especially), and Mike Savad too. I just saw the idea of taking other's art as what both of you say is wrong so I brought out what you both have done just this ........to illustrate the fact that you really both do this. Nothing that bad about it really is there?

All artists use other's art. It's the way of the world and no need to get too technical about it. If you are an art dealer or an artist you are what you are because of the other artists, not because of your self alone.

If we were musicians we will be doing just this and be strumming to Mississippi Blues to do the next Stones concert. It's all good really and I'm hoping you are cool about it as I said it. Anyway don't short change your selves...I love you all!

Vincent nice apology.

Original is way over done. Especially since it aint really there.

The Stones are not my favorite band, but they were better than most of the acts they derived
their work from. They had better production standards. I am not counting Muddy Waters and a few
others, but the older guys who are into deep delta blues? Really? Can you understand any of the words
and are you waiting literally note to note for what is coming out of boredom?

I know I have broken a rule here, I am not cool. You have to say Blues are cool and hope you dont have
to hear them. LOL. Muddy is one of the few exceptions, BB King as well, but their production qualities are much
much higher than was was produced in the 1920s or 30s. BB King might as well have been one of the Stones. He
got everything from a prior generation just like the Stones did.

Dave

vincent original means you took the picture which i did. ideally there really is no such thing as a totally original artwork because it's mostly all been done. but we aren't talking about comparing firetrucks. we are talking about using someone else's image and using it for their own gain. and not compensating them for it.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Hey Floyd......I looked your site up and see for the first time that yes you have some of your own artwork there.

I made a mistake to say you are only an art dealer and businessman. You are an artist as well. I did not see any of this earlier. You have a pleasant sense of humor in your work! Keep it going please.

Your friend I hope,

Vince

Mike,

The images I use are photos of masterwork paintings. The photos can not be copyrighted. They are too exacting.

It is what an artist does with his work that matters.

Dave

David,

Always informative are copyright discussions because there is just not one rule but many variations.

The thing is people who get into art cannot seem to resist diving into the pool with the rich and famous in the art world once they become aware of them all. They can't just think of something without getting inspired by those before..which is only natural. Scientists are the same. Athletes the same.

I just used the Stones(not kidney)as an example of how these artists searched into the "soul" and "heart"of music; which is emotion and drama.
Without such intense experiences in life the music is just a square dance thing. So the Stones an numerous if not all rock stars looked into the emotional level of
the artworks of others and how it had come to be in order to tweak something new and exciting of their own. Which brings us to the real underlying motive for making our own art in the first place.


Copyright suits are common lately among musicians and stars about who wrote what and when but in reality all the artists borrow and imitate what they need.
A winning style is often improved upon too. But still in the end the most distinguished of artists had a more personal relationship with their art...a private one not meant for the public. This may be why their success can't be duplicated no matter how expressive their imitators or copyists are.

From my experience.
Someone drew a drawing from one of my photos that they found online (I'm guessing my Flickr) and I was not happy - but all I could do was tell them that I was grumpy about them using my work. It had been reblogged by the famous person featured in the photo and so it kinda blew up big (that's how I saw it).

I've used others' art in my work - with their permission (and I pay them a portion of the sales agreed upon when getting the usage permission) I've also been asked if an artist can use my wore and I have happily given them permission.
Just ask - they might say yes. I feel so much better when I see my work floating around the art world where I've given permission (and parameters) for its use.

Vincent, not to worry I have a quick fuse and a short memory.

For the record, as I have explained before, 75% -85% of the images with Barbara Snyder on them are work that I did. We sell everything that is "neutral" under that name. Some stuff I do put my name on. This stated over 30 years ago when we were both taking photos with the same camera on a trip to San Diego. We came back and we had about 6 images that became hot sellers for us. I said I took this one and this one and my wife said, no that one is mine and that one is yours.

I have been married for over 40 years because I know which arguments are not worth winning so I said, okay, how about we just put your name on all of them? That made her extremely happy that I would do that for here. (Like I said, knowing which arguments NOT win are sometimes more important the winning any of them. So I have been doing every since with some exceptions.

Vincent,

Rembrandt was schooled on how to paint. He was into a form of realism that recognized fully how
problematic realism was with the tools of his day. He made art as most artists in his area did.
He was generally better. He had more depth in how he saw and used subject matter. But he was
not the only guy doing what he did.

We live in the times we are born into. There is no total escape of our times.

Dave

You have an interesting point David.

Each of us artists are living in a time period with a few cross overs during our lifetime and cannot can't avoid the inevitable change. In today's time is this ever advancing technological imagery. Humanity requires new venues. None of us will get anywhere by turning our backs to progress and just going out into the woods and fields and painting our connection with nature or could we?

But the aboriginals maintain their humanity through continuing time honored traditions don't forget.



Floyd,
Thanks for giving me a break. I never win arguments with women. Compromise is lucky as well.
I wish I could be a little more like you on the business and financial side of things. I love the fact that you are a strong personality and willing to express your thoughts outright...so we can just move on.

I owe you a brew or two!

Good art to you and Barbara!

Vince