Rights issue

[Epicurea]

In my figure drawings and paintings I often use other artists' photos for reference. What are the copyright issues involved in such a situation? Do I need to ask permission to use a photographer's work as reference photos for my art?

http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/confused.gif Bewildered,

Cassandra


------------------
*Are you wishing, or being?*

*Temet nosce.*

[oleCC]

I advise you to always ask permission to use anyone elses work for reference...photos or magazine pictures ... etc. There has been much discussion in different forums here on this subject. You can save yourself a lot of headache just by "playing it safe".. http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif Carol

[bluespade]

I think the law is vague on this. I think if you are modifying the image significantly then you are safe. If you are just "copying" it, then you are introuble, because copying by hand is no different than copying my machine. However, it is very unlikely that you would be found wrong if it is for your own edification/practice. Just either modify it or don't sell it. You can always copy for practice. I don't think you'll get in trouble for that...it would be "fair use". (Course, I'm just sorta guessing from here.)

------------------
Doug
Blue Spade Productions
http://www.bluespade.com

[CT]

Originally posted by bluespade:
I think the law is vague on this. I think if you are modifying the image significantly then you are safe. If you are just "copying" it, then you are introuble, because copying by hand is no different than copying my machine. However, it is very unlikely that you would be found wrong if it is for your own edification/practice. Just either modify it or don't sell it. You can always copy for practice. I don't think you'll get in trouble for that...it would be "fair use". (Course, I'm just sorta guessing from here.)



I think Doug's thoughts are pretty good here. If you take a famous design that is owned by a contemporary photographer and modify it slightly, then publish it as a 25,000 copy edition you might have a problem. If you paint it on canvas with any degree of painterly modifications and offer it for sale I doubt if you would have any problems.

If they wanted to, I suppose National Geographic could have a zillion Sunday painters in court whenever they please.

I've used photos from newspapers and magazines many times in collages that I sold publicly. I seriously doubt that anyone would have a problem with that. There are clauses written into the law that protect creative artists from the restrictions that apply to the general marketplace.

Of course, there is no question that it would be better for you and your art if you worked from life or took your own photos.

CT

[Epicurea]

Originally posted by bluespade:
I think if you are modifying the image significantly then you are safe. If you are just "copying" it, then you are introuble, because copying by hand is no different than copying my machine.

Hmm. Ok, here's some specifics: I'm currently working on a series of representational abstract figure paintings. The photos I'm using for reference are fine art nudes by a professional photographer, because I like the poses and lighting and he does exceptional work. The poses are exactly the same, and the lighting is almost exactly the same, but the colors are different, the backgrounds are different, and I'm not using the entire figure. Also, the art photos are black and white light studies, whereas I'm applying situations and/or emotions to the pose, the background, and the colors used in the figure.

So what do you think? Would you say that's significantly modified?


Cassandra


------------------
*Are you wishing, or being?*

*Temet nosce.*

[This message has been edited by Epicurea (edited August 31, 2000).]

[Epicurea]

Originally posted by CT:

Of course, there is no question that it would be better for you and your art if you worked from life or took your own photos.

CT

I'd love to take my own photos. Unfortunately, at present I don't have the funds to hire models, and I don't think I know anyone who would be willing to pose for reference photo nudes.

Cassandra


------------------
*Are you wishing, or being?*

*Temet nosce.*

[CT]

Originally posted by Epicurea:
Hmm. Ok, here's some specifics: I'm currently working on a series of representational abstract figure paintings. The photos I'm using for reference are fine art nudes by a professional photographer, because I like the poses and lighting and he does exceptional work. The poses are exactly the same, and the lighting is almost exactly the same, but the colors are different, the backgrounds are different, and I'm not using the entire figure. Also, the art photos are black and white light studies, whereas I'm applying situations and/or emotions to the pose, the background, and the colors used in the figure.

So what do you think? Would you say that's significantly modified?


Cassandra



Cassandra,
Judging by what you have said you are doing, I would be very surprised if you would have a problem. I have had people copy unique designs that I have used in a number of my prints. The paintings that they produced were so different from mine that I would look like a fool if I had pursued them.

As far as using models, maybe you could pick up a workshop at a local university or community center where they provide live models. Or maybe an art club or group in your area. You may not be able to photograph them, but with some practice, you can create several usable studies in a sitting. Good Luck!!

CT

[TPS]

Judging by what you described, I would be very surprised if the photographer did not have a problem with what you are doing. I would find another way to accomplish your goals without piggybacking off of someone else's creativity. You'll feel better about your work too.

[TPS]

Another idea... if you find your inspiration in the images of other artists, then you should look at old master's works, where most are in the public domain, and would thus avoid the copyright complication.

[TPS]

It's a very big no no! If Robert Rauschenberg can be sued for it, so can you.

[Epicurea]

Well, phooey. http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/frown.gif

[cassandra]

Cassandra,
You might find helpful this site on copyright info for photographers: http://www.photo.net/photo/copyright
I have no expertise in American copyright law, but if you are making a substantially similar image of the lighting and form in the photographic image, you may be infringing copyright. After all, what attracts you to the photo is the photographer's particular expression of the human form.
You should contact the photographer or whoever has copyright to ask permission, buy rights, etc. There's also the model's consent to consider. The NY Institute of Photography has a sample Model Release, for example: http://www.nyip.com/sub_idx_pgs/referidx/ref_business_idx.html
Hope this helps,
the other cassandra

[TPS]

Good advice from Cassandra; I would take it if I were in your position.

[Epicurea]

Cassandra,

I'm planning on contacting the photographer to ask permission. Thanks for the links, they are most helpful.

C


------------------
*Are you wishing, or being?*

*Temet nosce.*

[icefan13]

If you are asking the question, it seems to me that you already know you're wrong, but you are looking for someone to say you're OK. You're NOT OK! Besides, it doesn't matter how the people on this board interpret the differences between your "work" and the photographers original work. What will matter is how the JUDGE interprets it when you get to court! And fortunately, judges are siding with photographers more and more. There have been some very big cases lately, where photographers have sued artists and WON.

I personally, am in the proces of suing someone now for this very thing. Some idiot thought that by changing the number of items in the image, that that was enough of a change to make it OK. WRONG! And he will pay, and he will also never work again for the client he did it for because they are angry at him as well because he has dropped them in it.

To just say that you have to steal (which is what it is) a photographers work because you wouldn't be able to get anyone to pose is no different than someone walking into a store and shoplifting, and trying to justify it by saying, well I never could have afforded that blouse anyway, so I had to take it.

BTW, I'm sure that if you advertised in the right place, you be able to find people to pose, no matter how small your town is.

[sue ellen]

I think that it is ok to use the photographs for practice but that is where it has to stop. It is always better to work from real life. When you work from a photograph you have to realize that most of the creative work is already done for you. I have always believed that Art is in the process not in the product! By useing anothers creative expression you are only concerned with your product and you miss the Art in the process.

sue ellen

[This message has been edited by sue ellen (edited September 14, 2000).]