Painters Should Collaborate With Photographers

If anyone wants to paint any of my photos I'd be happy to discuss it. I only wish I had the talent to do it myself. :)

I have a couple of photos I've been told look like they could be paintings.

I have a few pieces that I have always thought would be great as paintings. I have always planned to do it myself, but somehow never get around to it. Since I have the ability to do it myself, it has never occurred to me to collaborate with a painter...but I might be interested if it was someone whose work I admired.

If any painters would like to use my photos as reference, please message me. With all the talent here, I'd be honored.

nope.

because i'm trying to sell my photos, and even if they bought the rights to use it, we would be competing with the same thing. and the link would then send them right out of my store and into theirs.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

I agree with Valerie about the painter being good enough to represent the photographers work. However, why not let your photo speak through the painter and possibly be surprised and delighted with what they create. If you don't like don't allow it as a link!

I do collaborate with a photographer, me. I use photos for the starting point many of my paintings. I generally use my own work. BUT I have often offer my photos to other artist for them to use as well. All anyone has to do is reach out to me.

Here's an example of one of my faves that has been often compared to a painting. If anyone wants to paint it, please do contact me. I'm in this for the love of art at least as much as to be successful (and good thing too!) and I'd be honored to see this painted.



Best regards,

Charles Kozierok
DesktopScenes.com

Painters Should Collaborate With Photographers ....with permission. Not everyone sees the upside for their photograph being copied in paint.

I already did recently, I gave a photo, (not one uploaded to FAA) to a fellow FAA artist to use as reference for a painting. My focus is actually painting though, I've only just started getting into fine art photography. As a painter though, I actually do not want to use anybody's photo but my own for reference, (the exception being my sketches based on vintage photos). For me it's not an issue of copyright, it's that I only want to paint from my own experiences. Someone else's photo is their experience, not mine.


Mike, your new avatar is your creepiest yet.

copyrights become tricky. while i have allowed some to use it, i only allowed one to sell it. i prefer they just shoot their own stuff.

yeah thanks, the avatar is for halloween, the mad hatter, burton style... certainly grabs attention huh?


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Hi I do both photography and oil painting. I usually use my own photographs for reference, that way I can get my reference in the right angle etc. I often paint pictures from photos that are not up to standard or mix several reference photos together. I would let another artist have one of my photos but I would need to have an idea of the style and what they wanted to achieve or maybe collaborate with them to make a joint work. I wouldn't want someone doing a photorealistic, exact copy, painting of one of my good photos that I was trying to sell.

Charles - I like your photograph but if I were to use it it might end up with a fairy castle in the lake

Ya, I see that as a great idea in concept but no likely to end well with the exception of a rare case now and then.

The other thing is, photographers don't need painters to convert to painting.

Buy yourself a good painterly program or learn to use the painterly features in your PhotoShop and you have the best of both world and no problems with conflicts or copyright issues.

I have commissioned artist in couple of times in the past to paint my photographs. But I bought the rights to the painting.

Photographers may get inspiration from painter's artwork too, but the location is often omitted.

A fairy castle could be fun. :)

I'm not talented but I'm always looking for images to paint

The problem here is not collaboration but what we are allowed to do with the work once painted. I'm not going to spend days painting only to give it to some one else :)

My photos, at times, reflect what I see in art. It may include, but not limited to, painting in the form of graffiti, sculpture, architecture, words, automobiles, a door, a window, etc. We all feed each others thoughts/creativity in some way or another

As I said Abbie, if you need one of my photos, ask. I do have a library, especially from Africa. Only some of my shots are good enough to publish so I don't worry about you (or anyone) doing a painting based on my photo then selling it. I see the naysayer photogs have wriggled out of the woodwork. Heck, once someone does a painting from my photo I do not even expect attribution. After all you have made it YOUR work of art. For better or not. Wink, wink Abbie.

Aw Kevin! And you know I love Africa

I do both painting and photography, just because I want to have my own copyrights.

Abbie beat me to the punchline..

The issue that smudges up all the happy-go-lucky let's get together and collaborate ideas is the end result is now considered a "Derivative of" Any questions about "derivative artworks and copyright issues", please feel free to Google it :))

As Edward just mentioned above, not everyone (photographer) sees the upside. It's not such a bad thing that a painter has become inspired by a specific photograph. No doubt this happens often, and if the painting hangs in your house in a private collection not much harm will come from it.

However, If it is going to marketed for sale..............Or you license for a book cover.........or a poster art sold at Kohl's or Home Goods etc....

No, Thanks, I appreciate photos or paintings as its own medium no need to collaborate. I use photos as reference for my paintings but I only use my own photos because I am the only person know how I wanted my photo to interpreted into a painting.

its also nothing to be proud of, while painting it takes skill, if the original was inspired by another person and this is a photocopy of it, there isn't much gain or building as an artist.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

I give painters permission to paint my work on a fairly regular basis with the caveat of NO prints from the painting.

I do not want to compete with myself.

They only collaboration I like to see is some painters to have photographers to take professional images of their painting. I seeing far too many out of focus, bad lighting image of paintings here

I agree with Charles, never use another person's photo for painting reference without permission from the photographer. Yes, a painting will look different than a photo, but will it be different enough to satisfy a judge? It's a crapshoot.

However, my philosophy is in line with Brian's, I only paint from my own photos or from life, I want the painting to be a 100% representation of my inspiration and experience.

Charles and David I agree with you to some degree because I feel it would be wrong to copy others images without recognizing them. Yet I think the freedom of art alows for people to copy each other and learn from each other by doing so with or without permission. Artists, like dancers or musicians etc have been doing this for ages.

I think that we should have the freedom to take someone else's good idea and make money from it if we can. This happens all the time anyway in the corporate world. Ideas are stolen in fasion etc and sometimes the original artist gets little or no credit.

The fact is nothing you put up online really belongs to you. Even your facebook page images and FAA art works are in some sense the subtle property of the website which hosts them.

"derivative works" is tricky ground but as long as the new work reflects a significant degree of change, it doesn't go against copyright. Provided they don't make a direct copy and try sell this.

Anyway my point is off the main point of discussion. Its a great idea for artists to collaborate and if someone uses your image to make money I say good on them and wish them luck. Hopefully it will help draw attention to your good work rather than turn people away.

Norman Rockwell: The Photographs Behind the Art

http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1943059_2005732,00.html

"To think the old masters painted Mary and child, Cherubs or even Aphrodite without any reference photos."

No photos but they used models and sketches, sometimes hundreds of sketches and some of those sketches that survived are worth a fortune. A lot of the sketches are used in schools and have published in books teaching drawing and painting.

I often think how photography actually cripples a painter's craft by way of dependency on it. It is one artist's mind that contains all the vision they would need-- to say something unique and individual.

Painters now are using the minds of photographers way too much. If one is to achieve the title of "painter" then they, just like the title "photographer" have to distinguish themselves apart enough to collaborate their minds and thoughts first.

The film industry depends on photography but it is the mind of the author and director which results in the final product.

I have always been looking for someone to either repaint or use paint to enhance my fractals :)

I think it would be safe to say that there have been hundreds of paintings made from photographs from FAA, and no laws have been broken. But then again I am an optimist in thinking that being an artist, the person that is inspired to do a painting from a photo, is going to want to put their own creativeness to work and not just do a photo realistic copy of the image.


Look at the example by Retta Stephenson. I doubt her hubby would have a leg to stand on if he wanted to claim infringement.

"Yet I think the freedom of art alows for people to copy each other and learn from each other by doing so with or without permission. "

That may be how we would like it to be, but copyright law doesn't always agree. There are a lot of high-profile cases with regard to derivative works, it is a complex area of law and not one to be messed with lightly. (Again: IANAL.)

"I already collaborate with dead painters, less messy."

David, you need to branch out, broaden your perspective.... Start moving among the living. You have my permission to use any of my images as the bases one of your creations. And you can do what ever you want with it.

David's new line up coming soon: van Gogh, Degas, Monet, Snyder, Rembrandt, Cassatt, etc, etc,

Ya, that works for me.... :-)



Same offer to Abbie, Lee Noel and Ronald Walker.

And anyone else for that matter. And you can sell all the prints you want.

I would like to see the finish products is all. Not for final approval but just because I think it would be fun.

what a great idea, i'm open to it :-)

I've learned an important lesson from this discussion! Never check the box "Please notify me via-email when someone replies to this discussion"
All night long my phone pinged every time a new post was written. All night long!!
LOL Thank you everyone for your comments.

:) My collaboration with Tony! I love see a picture turned into a photograph, and am fine for others to sell prints as long as it is not an exact replica! If anyone wants a photo to make a painting or a drawing off of, I would be MORE than happy to supply one!

Floyd,

Very funny......but the dead never have any second thoughts.

Dave

David! I had to give it a try. lol

Floyd,

I could say neither the dead nor my future clients will ever have any second thoughts. lol

Dave

I was trying to describe to someone one day the mental process of what I, as a painter, go through when finding something to paint. How I pick a subject from beginning to its completion. This came to mind, which became one of my motto's and is on my profile....

"Imagination and creativity see what 'Can Be' from what there 'Is' "

Hence the USE of what we see with our eyes whether in real life or in a photo to create art. All artists, photographers and painters, produce their art starting with their eyes...visually with what we see, experience, or even through ideas of what we have seen.

A photographer captures what they SEE with their 'equipment' and expands on it with their imagination & creativity.
A painter captures what they SEE with their 'equipment' and expands on it with their imagination & creativity.

So, photographers ask, why the visual aid of reference photos for artists?
It's not that I need a photo in order to paint, it's just another visual source in life that I use to make into something my creativity & imagination can see.

With all that said, I do want to make this statement in regards to the age old debate of painters using photographs (I did also pose this question on the FAA forum once http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=2344347 ) :

I completely understand the business side of this whole process. Not wanting the competition on a visual masterpiece! I understand that and it is perfectly fine.
But don't tell a painter they are not a real painter if they can't produce without visual reference when that is how a photographer produces their art also. Neither of us create without capturing what we see, have seen or have experienced and imagined.

Julie, I couldn't have said it better. What you see may not be what I see and that's where our individual creativity surfaces. Even though I may look at a photo to reference it's beauty I do not copy it and I'm pretty sure most painters do not copy but create their unique vision of the shot.

Parker you have an incredible eye for catching the perfect shot. I'm a definite follower.

Very, very well said Julie Senf.

I'll be in the minority with my thoughts. Inspiration comes from everywhere. I see art that I love and look for those similar opportunities with my camera. For me 'collaboration' can become a copyright issue. I have been burned many times. I'm not the best photographer by a long shot, but because I shoot for magazines primarily, my editors want images that fill the cover so I get as close to wildlife as possible. This usually results in the kind of images wildlife painters want for reference material. I have sold many discs of reference images (with an agreement that the images are for reference only, for their individual use only, and not for print or publication) to various artists and those entering wildlife art competitions. Most have honored the agreement. Unfortunately however, I have learned that my interpretation of "reference" was very different from some artist's. Three different well known artists copied, exactly, my images. I market those images and they have been published, full page, many times, so how does that make an artist look to his clients, professionally, if he/she 'copies' my work exactly as a painting, and markets it? Their work was not 'referencing' how the crown feathers stand up on the grouse's head, or how the feathers lay along the bill of a duck, or how the bottom of a deer's foot should be sculpted, but rather they copied the entire image exactly as I shot and processed it. It actually hurt, physically, as if something I had taken so much effort, money, time and experience to capture had been stolen from me. I'm sure if I ever took photos of a painter's art piece, did a little tweaking or manipulation, and then sold them as my prints it would be considered unlawful. I am not an artist and have great respect for those who are. My white hair will tell you that long ago I learned that 'copying' is plagiarism, a copyright infringement, and just not nice. Be very careful whom you 'collaborate'.

A saying of mine: painters create something from nothing; photographers create something from everything.

Like all quips it is an oversimplification, but meant to convey the idea that painters start with a blank canvas, where photographers have to find what they are after in a huge and unlimited world. They are both important, but very different, skills.

A wonderful FAA artist once asked if they could paint my photo "Autumn's Leavings," and I told them that I'd be honored. And I was.

But when a company on Amazon uses my photo of "Early Spring" without asking, I'm a little upset! It is currently unavailable, so I suppose I should be glad. They used my name so maybe I should be flattered. http://www.amazon.com/Embellishing-HandworkGraceful-sprinchg-caitlyn-Unframed/dp/B00PIM097E

When I contacted Amazon, they didn't seem to think that I had any right to object. How did it get there? I don't know.

Maybe every photographer should check Amazon to see if their work will also be a "brand new handmade painting by trained skillfull artist." So, is this a derivative work?

The internet - you have to love it!

I will also add to my prior comment...

If a painter wants to use a photograph to duplicate or even closely represent the photo I do believe it should be with complete foreclosure, agreement and cooperation between the two. If it is to be sold by the painter this is information that should be told at the very beginning and agreed upon.

If this joint agreement has not taken place, a photograph should never be used by an artist.

I am sorry if any of the photographers here have had a bad experience giving permissions and the situation did not turn out as agreed. That would be enough to sour me also.

For you painters that are looking for photos to paint from...there are a lot of photo reference sites out there where the painter has complete rights without copyright infringement. The photographers have given full permissions to the artists, me being one of them (as photographer & painter). As I mentioned prior, paint my photo, is just one of them. I have used photographs for my paintings and also posted photographs that other artists have used.

I agree with what everyone is saying about permission. Without permission and mutual respect for each contributor's artistic contribution, it's not collaboration.

This thread started as an inquiry about collaboration, a photographer and a painter collaborating on a work of art. It's working together, as a team, and ending up with a work that neither artist would have produced without the contributions of the other.

I envision a collaborative work with a photographer going beyond the two steps: Step 1: the photographer provides a reference photo, Step 2: The painter paints it. Game over when the painting is finished to the painter's satisfaction.

I see a true collaborative work as going beyond the two-step process above, and involving the photographer more.

Photographer: I have this photograph, would you like to use it as a reference material for a painting?
Painter: Ok, what did you have in mind?
Photographer: It might look good in the style of X painting, in your profile.
Painter: What about changing the color of the subject, and raising the horizon line? Keep the shapes of the clouds?
Photographer: Ok, but we should leave that tree out, the composition would be better... we could add the bird from this other photograph...

and so on...

This would be hard, both photographers and painters usually work solo, there's no need to communicate effectively with another person during the creation process, or respect another person's sense of aesthetics.

I always thought that if you work with an artist on a commission, it was best to let the artist do what they envision after you give them the basis of what you are looking for. If you do not trust the artist and you are not familiar with with their work, why would have chosen them?

Not only that, I have worked with artist that if try to micro-manage some artist, you will end up with a canvas with a great big hole in it where your head went through.

I have never worked with an artist that I thought it was safe to tell them oh, can you make this a little greener here, or maybe change the light over there or take this tree out and put a flag pole in. I know artist that you would be safer fighting Mike Tyson in a telephone booth then to tell them how to paint.

A collaboration to me would be, here take this photo and do what every your want with it, I just want to see the finished product because I think it would be fun.

"Maybe every photographer should check Amazon to see if their work will also be a "brand new handmade painting by trained skillfull artist." So, is this a derivative work? "

Well, this may be an anti commercial to some degree, but I have been touting the benefits of attending the 2016 Art & Framing Expo in Vegas
http://pixels.com/showmessages.php?messageid=2709878

But if you do go, make sure you visit the booths of the people selling oil paintings and see all of the "collaborations" going on with these companies. The big difference is, the artist or photographers did not know they were part of the collaboration.

Are these the kind of "brand new handmade painting by trained skillfull artist." you are talking about, Caitlyn?

The photographer uses his or her skills to photograph just about anything. And often a painting or sketch is of the same.....place, object,idea, etc. And photographs are often a part of the artist's inspiration, so yep, they can collaborate with approval of course. I don't think, however, that an artist should copy EXACTLY, a photograph, unless his/her own OR with the complete permission of the photographer. If you check out Morguefile.com ? or org. ......you may find photos for your art/painting use, as long as you make some changes. Good photo resource site.

Quote: "I don't think it is that difficult to take a picture of something you want to paint "
That would very much depend on the subject. How about something that no longer exists. How about something that is extremely rare? How about something that is difficult to access? How about something that is costly to visit? I have all those things and they they have all been painted from my photos. If it were all that easy there would be no point in even having this conversation.

I have let my bird photos be used as reference for painters and carvers over the years. Sure they get their own images but trying to get certain details such as upper wing coverts can mean endless time in the field.

In one case I loaned a photo to an artist frind for reference. He was commissioned to do illustrate a book based on a now destroyed statue of a dragon. My photo ended up in the book with my name. That led to print sales. Their is a sort of cult that has grown arounf the memory of the dragon sculpture now. There are festivals and dragon boat races. Both the book and my photo continue to sell 12 years after the publication.

Because of the known synergistic effects and because I know it is not always easy to get a reference photo and as a token of out friendship and appreciation of her noticing my photos I offered someone on FAA to use one of my Roseate Spoonbill photos. No strings attached. Its not complicated, I have been licensing images for 20 years. The result was a derivative not a copy. I am honored and very pleased with the results. .