Using Someone Elses Photo And Reworking It

Derivative works – when do I need permission? – Robert Pugh used with permission

Copyright gives the owner the right to:

Reproduce the work
Distribute copies of the work to the public
Perform the work publicly
Display the copyrighted work publicly
Prepare derivative works based upon the work

—————————–
The right to produce derivative works is an important protection for the originator of a work as they can be a source of considerable income to the original artist – print reproductions, variations on the original, media licensing etc.

What is a Derivative work?
http://1stangel.co.uk/blog/2014/09/15/derivative-works-when-do-i-need-permission/

And keep in mind many artists do get permission.

Pick an artist who lived overseas and is now dead...sell your rework of his/her stuff at art fairs. Chances of being "caught" about zero. The world economy is based on fraud. The rich and powerful (and others)l do as they please.

"What is the opinion on using someone else's photograph and then either deconstructing it into a new work or digitally changing it and then selling it as their own work of art. I'm just wondering as there seems to be quite a few celebrity images that have been reworked but certainly are taken from someone else's photograph."

IMO, you should steer clear of using any other artists work to create your own derivative, unless you are simply practicing and will only use the derivative for your own home or personal use. You should not try and sell a derivative work of someone's original without permission of the original artist or that artist's copyright holders. Take your own photography and use that for as reference for paintings and such. Using others work is ok if your are practicing and your derivative will never be sold. Art schools have their students do it all the time, however they advise their students NOT to try and sell these derivative works because of copyright law.

IMO, selling derivatives of others originals makes the selling artist appear unprofessional and uncreative. After all, as artists, aren't we expected to come up with our own designs? That's part of what makes an artist an artist–creating their own vision of a subject. If you browse the web and FAA you will find a gluttony of copy-cat artists. Make your art ALL YOURS by starting from scratch-plan, design, create and hopefully sell. Keep it fully your own. Then have peace of mind that it's yours.

All kinds of issues come up - fair use? parody? or mis-appropriation? Look what happened to Shepard Fairey and the Hope poster.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/arts/design/13fairey.html?_r=0

In the end he ends up sharing the profits with the AP. Maybe the fame was worth the lost of the fortunes but its up the the artist decide how much of a mind field they are willing to venture into.

Then there is Richard Prince who has made an art career out of appropriation.

Ethically, maybe you should ask yourself how you would feel if you were the original artist.

An artist should have enough talent and originality to produce their own works without having to hack another artist.

Yes, some people do it and get away with it. Some don't get away with it. That's not really the point is it?

For information on copyright in the United States: www.copyright.gov. Start with the FAQ (frequently asked questions) page.

RE: Arthur's comment: One "fair use" (or situation where you can copy/make derivative works without asking for permission) is "educational purposes." That means as a general rule you can copy / make derivative works of copyrighted stuff in an art class and it's ok to do that.

Once you step outside the classroom "educational purposes" (or other fair use) arena, you have to ask the copyright holder's for permission to make derivative works. Usually, but not always, the copyright holder is the artist. Not all work is copyrighted, for example work in the public domain is not copyrighted. Again, look that up on www.copyright.gov. for more information.

Reworking photos of celebrity images: The photograph might be copyrighted, if so, the copyright holder is probably the photographer.

There is another area of law: Privacy rights. It's very inconsistent, different laws & interpretations of laws in different jurisdictions, so it's hard to tell when there's a problem and when there's not without doing the legal research. Basically, people *sometimes* have a privacy right in their own face/image. *IF* a person (celebrity or otherwise), has a privacy right in her image, you would need to ask permission before photographing or making art of that person. Rights can be waived. A "best practice" that many professional artists/photographers use is to get a written waiver or other written permission from a human subject before photographing/making art of that person. You can get waivers from people you want to photograph, etc. without going through the headache of trying to figure out whether the person actually does have a privacy right in the exact jurisdiction or circumstances -- worst case scenario you keep on file a waiver that you didn't really need.

********
Disclaimer: not legal advice

I'm not an attorney, but I played one on TV once:

My legal advice: Don't do it.

Karma, you know.

It's much more rewarding to create one's own work.

if the image was public domain you can do it. if the image was taken by someone else, and they got permission from both the actor and the original photographer on the intent of modifying it, then yes. otherwise no.

many people think that all you have to do is find it in google and then change the color of something and its theirs some how. it doesn't work like that.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

also even if the artist is dead, the family might still own the work, people from the US or overseas - can be found with an image search.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Sandra, I'm so glad you took the time to ask this question. It's one that used to be much more clearly understood in our culture than it is today - not at the least in part by how very easy it is to see/download/misappropriate other's creative works such as: computer programs, movies, music, art and photography. To really understand I think we have to understand the basics.

One way to determine what's wrong is to put yourself in the other's shoes, "How angry, hurt or financially damaged would I be if someone else treated my work like I am considering treating their work." If you found someone making money off of your copyright protected work (remember copyright is granted automatically the moment you complete the work) you would likely be furious.

There is right and wrong. Legal and illegal. Good and evil. Basic humanity over thousands of years and pretty much regardless of religion have come to the agreement that it is wrong to steal. Making money off of someone else's copyrighted artwork, photography or other creative product is flat out stealing.

I could not disagree more strongly with this particular post:
"Robert Frank Gabriel8 Hours Ago
Pick an artist who lived overseas and is now dead...sell your rework of his/her stuff at art fairs. Chances of being "caught" about zero. The world economy is based on fraud. The rich and powerful (and others)l do as they please."

Right and wrong isn't determined by if "someone else is getting away with it."
Rich and powerful do something does not equal "right."
Not getting caught doing something illegal and/or immoral does not equal "right."

Personal integrity and honor is priceless. Integrity is doing what is right whether or not anyone is watching or you will ever be caught.
Being a person of honor is more valuable to me than a painting or $ will ever be.

I've been so blessed to have grown up watching and being influenced by some amazing people of character, honesty, kindness and honor. I aspire to be and do the same for those following after me no matter what our culture may devolve into.
Audrey

Audrey,
Please recall "The financial crisis of 2007–08, also known as the global financial crisis and the 2008 financial crisis, considered by many economists to have been the worst financial crisis/fraud since the Great Depression of the 1930s."

"The financial crisis/fraud was triggered by a complex interplay of policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for subprime borrowers, overvaluation of bundled subprime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making..."

Fraud is what humans do...

Those who committed the above crimes were given bailouts and bonuses. Those who were defrauded were taxed more to pay off the financial criminals.

Audrey,

Your assessment of integrity and honor being priceless is one that is considered to be antiquated and without merit "because many believe there is nobody watching" and it is so easy to bypass our conscience these days. We're even encouraged to do so!. Why worry if you can get away with it?

This seems to be the valuation of the day. What is good and honorable has been redefined into new terms. At least, that's the bill of goods that is being sold... and purchased.

I find it more gratifying to produce from whatever resource that is given to me something that might be construed as original. However, to coin a phrase from a wise man, "There is nothing new under the sun".

With celebrity photos you have to consider there may be several parties who might like to come after you - the photographer, the celebrity themselves, the magazine or photo agency who commissioned the images, maybe the movie studio.

Especially if the image is something as iconic as Jack Nicholson blowing smoke rings. Rather easy to trace back to the original photograph. Even there is some kind of fair use or parody law that could potentially cover you, you have have to decide if its worth the $$ making your case.

Some celebrities like The Naked Cowboy have copyrighted their image and have a law firm who actively seeks copyright infringement cases to peruse.

Many choose the low road - it doesn't ever make it right. Many choose to blame every one and everything else for their own personal moral choices or don't believe in morality - it doesn't mean there will never be an accounting.

Honor. Integrity. Personal integrity. Honesty. Truthfulness. Kindness. Sorry, they never go out of style and the world is a better place when people choose to live up to their standards rather than down to the standards of the day.

Who would you personally rather do business with? The person who chooses to honor the former values or the later? A personal relationship with someone who tries to be all of the above or doesn't care about truth or lies, stealing or honesty?

I make no apologies for calling for each of us to live to a higher level

Ditto that Audrey.

Love your designs by the way. Beautiful work.

My latest blog is about this very subject, "Get Real"
http://deborahdendlersculpture.blogspot.com/2016/04/get-real.html

where did the op go?


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

RE: "What is the opinion on using someone else's photograph .....?"


As I have done many times before on this forum, I'm turning that question around to :

'What is the opinion on photographing someone else's art and claiming it to be their own.?"


Going beyond utilizing obvious copyrighted 2 dimensional artwork., I ask :

When and HOW does the EYE of the photographer dominate not only the EYE but the HAND, MIND and SWEAT of a painter of a mural and/or a creator of a sculpture, to the point that the photographic image resulting, can be justifiably credited solely as the "Art" of the one snapping the picture?

Mike savad, I see you do quite a few colourings of old 1920s portraits and whatnot - am I to assume you find these under public domain?

of course they are. 90% come from the library of congress, the rest came from flickers public domain section, anything else is family related. i only trust the source these come from, i don't get stuff from the net because they are old, because people might still own them. the LOC is also the copyright office, so they do verify if its free and mention it. otherwise they don't let you download it.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

good to know man! Do they provide you with digital copies or do you scan them?

it depends on the image. they give you a tiff, 8 or 16 bit. depending on company who supplied it, you could get a 10,000px image. the hard part is their search stinks. and despite looking at nearly ALL their images, close to a million, there are many i haven't seen yet. either because they aren't labeled well or they added something new.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Audrey...One of the most successful artists on fine art America, Mr. Savad, takes images from the internet and reworks them into his splendid art. This is perfectly legal within the boundaries of fair usage....

I would buy any image I could afford sold by anyone anywhere....Would you buy images from a serial killer? Many of the world’s most notorious murderers take up painting and sell their work.

just to be clear, i only have like 200 colorized things. the rest are my own things.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Derivative works is a dicey subject. The only black and white answer is when you have the artist's permission, or when the image is in the public domain.

Everything else is subject to interpretation. Just because the law supports the notion of fair use and derivative work doesn't mean that your work is derivative because you say it is, especially when the original artist disagrees. There have been a number of these that went to court and each case is unique. So even if you were to consult a lawyer, what you, the lawyer, and your 5 best friends think is derivative doesn't mean a court will agree.

The trouble is that in the case you are referring to we don't know if the artist(s) has the creator's permission or not.

An attorney's view: http://www.photoattorney.com/2008/11/does-derivative-work-violate-your.html

Certain artist take images created by others and modify them in some fashion, sometimes radically and sometimes very subtly. There often is a challenge to creating this type of art and it obviously takes skill. I don't find it radically different than a musician doing a remake of someone else's song. From a personal point of view I would rather write and perform my own songs but to each their own.

Artistically derivative works are a type of composite. Neither a photo or a painting. But made up often of both.

I only use PD images.

Dave
http://bridburg.com