Fine Art America - Art - Prints - Canvas Prints - Framed Prints - Metal Prints - Acrylic Prints

Every purchase includes a money-back guarantee.








Fine Art Discussions

Keyword Search  | Main Menu

Search Discussions


I Still Dont Understand How People Can Sell Photos Here That Arent Theirs And Paintings Here That Are Not Theirs

Posted by: Arthur Robins on 12/10/2012 - 7:27 PM

i mean, aside from this site, ISNT IT ILLEGAL????


Oldest Reply

Posted by: Jeffrey Campbell on 12/10/2012 - 7:28 PM

Have you reported it to Management? That is the proper recourse and the correct way to handle the situation.


Posted by: Jeff Kolker on 12/10/2012 - 7:30 PM

Licensing, public domain, etc. Unless the photo is stolen and protected under current copyright laws, then that is illegal

Hasn't this been asked and answered many times already? Ad nauseum?


Posted by: Arthur Robins on 12/10/2012 - 7:38 PM

i DID report one guy to management--i asked several times about it--still no answer-and the guy has hundreds of paintings that he didnt do on this site---today i saw a photo of the Album cover Abbey Road sold here-now how can THAT be?


Posted by: Jeffrey Campbell on 12/10/2012 - 7:41 PM

I understand your frustration, and you should report your concerns, again. Beth always looks into the ones I report.


Posted by: Arthur Robins on 12/10/2012 - 7:45 PM

so Jeffrey--after they ''look into them'''--what happens???


Posted by: Jeff Kolker on 12/10/2012 - 7:48 PM

They investigate, talk to the account holder about the offending images, and if necessary, they have removed images and closed accounts.

They generally allow the account holder time to respond and remove the images themselves, or prove they have "rights" to do what they are doing.


Posted by: Bradley Clay on 12/10/2012 - 7:49 PM

In past cases, they have had to investigate and give due process.

If violations are truly found, the items get removed, and the artist gets booted


Posted by: Arthur Robins on 12/10/2012 - 7:50 PM

and how long do you think that normally takes, or should take?


Posted by: Glenn McCarthy Art and Photography on 12/10/2012 - 7:52 PM


This is nothing new. The subject has been re-canned and examined a million times over on FAA. Who owns Abbey Road? They need to step up and protect themselves. Or perhaps there ought to be a disclaimer signed for every celebrity figure used for "each image" at the inception of the upload to FAA by every artist or photographer. A guarantee of rights to use by permission... with a cyber sig! But who for? For the fine artists here that are grumbling about the system and clamoring for some kind of purity?

Don't expect it to happen. Celebrity figures bring in lots of revenue. And as long as FAA ownership is comfortable with the system and guarantees already in place there is no need to change. They have left it in the breadbasket of the posters. An honor system of sorts.


Posted by: Arthur Robins on 12/10/2012 - 7:53 PM

Bradley--sounds like you know this for a fact...but you said past cases-assuming they still do this--as long as i am not spinning my wheels.....


Posted by: Mike Savad on 12/10/2012 - 7:55 PM

do make sure that he wasn't the one that shot it. i saw one guy selling rock stars, but it seems he did take those pictures they were his.

if you report the person they should do something but you'll have to provide some kind of link where they came from. from there the other person has to claim ownership. if you can find the original people who made the images and contact them, if they complain to the site the account will probably be removed.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 12/10/2012 - 7:58 PM

As I said in private. The person you are talking about (we do not mention names in public) was selling public domain images in the main.

As for Abbey Rd, I have passed it on


Posted by: Jeff Kolker on 12/10/2012 - 7:59 PM

After you point it out to management, what more do you want? I have pointed out a couple, and after that management can do what it wants. If they wish to allow it or not, it is up to them.


Posted by: Bradley Clay on 12/10/2012 - 8:04 PM

about a month ago there was someone selling an album cover that wasnt theirs.

they were reported, and shut down.

There has to be due process. Maybe somebody did buy or pay for rights. You can't just shut somebody down on speculation.

As Ive seen here in the last 2 months things get handled in a professional behind the scenes manner.


Posted by: Gregory Scott on 12/10/2012 - 8:44 PM

When you join FAA you do not sign an agreement to prove you have licenses for all the images you use. Somebody selling Marilyn Monroe may in fact be doing so legally.
So FAA has not way to tell which ones are legal, and which ones arent.
If you publicly "name and shame" a vendor, you open yourself a slander lawsuit.
The faa policy, which is the only practical one, is to respond individually to complaints as they are made.
An accusation, however, is not proof, in itself, so FAA has to investigate such claims, which I am sure is more than enough work.
Sure, most of the Marilyn Monroe and Elvis photos and paintings are probably copyright violations, but how can you demonstrate that they are?
Usually, the copyright owner complains, providing documentation of his copyright.
In obvious cases, FAA will act without a high degree of proof, I think.
I've seen image thieves lose their FAA identity as a result of demonstrable violations.

In short, make a specific complaint about a specific vendor and a specific image to FAA, which will check it out.


Posted by: Glenn McCarthy Art and Photography on 12/10/2012 - 9:09 PM

Why even make any kind of complaint about images at all unless it is your image that was stolen? What's the purpose? Is a complaint made because the poor owner of Beatles images is a personal friend? I don't get the obsession with it.


Posted by: Vivian ANDERSON on 12/10/2012 - 9:27 PM

Glenn, I think the point is that, being here at faa one is 'grouped' with the other artists as faa-artists, perhaps........and if somebody thieves images and is allowed, and a viewer knows the images don't belong to the artist here, then, we are tarred with the same brush........mud sticks.


Posted by: Glenn McCarthy Art and Photography on 12/10/2012 - 9:46 PM

I realize what the point is. It has been beat to death for the three years I have been here. There are lots of other issues that "tar and feather" much more than that one. The fact that everyone here is "grouped together" is a good one to tackle all by itself.

If someone does not want to be affiliated with FAA artists, there are many reasons to choose from that are a dime a dozen. Mud can be recognized all over the place if someone chooses to look for it. I contacted an artist who copied an album cover to tell her I thought it was a good rendition ( and it was well done ) of someone else's work and encouraged her to give the original artist a little recognition for his creation. She didn't even mention him in her description. Brash? Maybe... but hey, I liked the group and was a little miffed that she was pawning it off as her own creation. She got the money for the sale though.


Posted by: Arthur Robins on 12/10/2012 - 10:42 PM

Glenn-you are criticizing me because i CARE about things that you dont care about. WHY i care is none of your business because you really DONT care. I care about things you probably never ever even thought about---but the world is changed ony by peopke wh CARE not by people who dont. And REAL ART is only made by people who care, not by people who dont.


Posted by: Mark James Perry on 12/10/2012 - 10:46 PM

Well said Arthur


Posted by: Glenn McCarthy Art and Photography on 12/10/2012 - 11:13 PM

You are mistaken. In fact, I was very complimentary to you on your work.

I do care and I have watched for the three years while FAA members complain about the same issue. You have been a member here since last year and all of a sudden this bothers you? You'll have to excuse me that I have not elevated to your realm of consciousness Arthur. Still waiting to find out what your view of what "the purpose" of art was supposed to be from the last question you asked, but then abruptly stepped out of the conversation.

Criticizing? No Arther, just pointing out that this conversation gets brought up every two weeks or so... at least. Don't care? Read my last post carefully sir and you will find that I do care about people taking credit for something that they shouldn't. I cared enough to go straight to the source.


Posted by: Arthur Robins on 12/10/2012 - 11:30 PM

Good Glenn- i am GLAD you care. As for me not telling you and everyone else what the PURPOSE of art IS, i had good reasons not to. As for me ASKING WHY such and such is happening here , and its been discussed before, well you just have to forgive me for asking such a redundant question---i am new here---but then why did you even bother commenting if the subject bores you? As for you being complimentary on my work, if you were, i am sorry that i dont recall that. You can refresh my memory if you wish.


Posted by: Glenn McCarthy Art and Photography on 12/10/2012 - 11:54 PM

I guess for me Arthur it boils down to decisions made by the ownership of FAA regarding the entrance of Public domain items, public figure items, and copyright laws etc. I don't know how many times I have seen "The Most Interesting Man In The World" sold here. Or even Marilyn Monroe, or the before mentioned Abbey Road album cover. I think that we would agree that it is a shame to copy someone else's work, or to allow Fine Art to be labeled that way when all that needs to be done is to pull it from public domain and tweak it a hair ( or not at all ) to somehow make it your own. Hey, a wonderful old picture of a former President sold today! Public domain.

But what is lost is that FAA makes a boatload of money from these images. They litter the sold pages every day. Since they do, and have, then the over concern about it is futile as long as FAA continues to allow them to be sold without putting forth more energy to stop infringements, or change their policy with regards to public domain. Is this a criticism of FAA? No, it is a "realization" that our standard of looking at it may not be in sync with FAA. I know, I've crossed into another area of the same train of thought, but the bottom line here on this collective site is different than yours or mine as individual artisans.

I'm not saying who is right or wrong concerning how it is handled here. The motivations seem to be different between the artist and the ownership of the site and what should be affiliated with it. That's all.


Posted by: Arthur Robins on 12/11/2012 - 12:01 AM

ok Glenn---but my REAL concern was NOT that they are ripping off anyone-my first concern was DOES FAA CARE OR NOT. Because i wasnt sure based on my first experience reporting it. I want to know what kind of site this is. I wanted to know if THEY care or not. THATS what i was really asking Beth has assured me that they do. If they care fine. If they dont, they are gonna have a much harder time getting real artists here, as few as there may be in the world. I just get tired of seeing so much ripped off stuff here. If they do care i will report it. if they dont or if they claim its public domain, i wont anymore....very simple.


Posted by: Glenn McCarthy Art and Photography on 12/11/2012 - 12:18 AM

Arthur, I think part of my response at 9:46 PM above was to Vivian's interpretation of what she thought you were saying.

But with 140,000 artists here, and then publishing companies, etc, I cannot see much of a change in the way that things are represented here with regards to public domain work. There are numerous images from the sleeves of Beatles work that get sold here. The "Let It Be" album images sell all the time. It would be exhausting and demotivating for anyone (unless they have a boatload of time) to police that kind of thing... unless they get paid to do so. I know that there have been some times where someone was called on these things, and even of some times where accounts were terminated. But 5 seem to take their place because people are desperate to make a buck.


Posted by: Christine Till on 12/11/2012 - 1:39 AM

Arthur, all emotions aside ... do you REALLY expect that you get an answer from the administration such as "we give a rat's a@@"? What else can they say but "Yes, we care"?
So I don't really see the point of your thread, but I know how you feel.

If an image in doubt is found then the one who feels offended has to report it. And the reports are handled in the order they were received.
All un-reported images (and accounts) remain untouched. It's as simple as that.


Posted by: EricaMaxine Price on 12/11/2012 - 2:04 AM

I recently found a picture that I thought was a copy. I still don't know. But the answer I got from admin was so right! How does anyone know who did the copying? Granted there are certain things that everyone knows who the artist is but you can't assume on everything.
I thought that was a clever answer and I dropped the subject. You guys will never resolve this to everyone's satisfaction so why keep arguing about it.
In the time it takes you to write a complaint, you could have another picture done.
Have a good night all.


Posted by: Nop Briex on 12/11/2012 - 2:40 AM

Paintings that are made 100 years ago or earlier are copyright free and so public domain.


Posted by: Zeana Romanovna on 12/11/2012 - 2:48 AM


Posted by: Barbara Moignard on 12/11/2012 - 5:00 AM

I recently reported a similar thing where the 'artist' has numerous images which are not her own, many of which are not of older works. I know that Beth is looking into it but I suppose it may take time.


Posted by: Michael Peychich on 12/11/2012 - 9:16 AM

Arthur, you stated ďAnd REAL ART is only made by people who care, not by people who dont.Ē What does the artist need to care about? Is it just the things you care about? I am sure you do not care about everything so if I only care about the thing you donít care about, am I considered an artist?


Posted by: Arthur Robins on 12/11/2012 - 11:29 AM

Michael- if you only care about the things that i dont care about then NO Michael, you are NOT an artist--happy now???--but regardless of what someone cares about or doesnt-- what makes someone an artist is way more than that. What that is i am not saying. But while millions of people think they are artists, in reality , they are not. Regardless of what they ''care' about.


This discussion is closed.