Interesting but Annoying Question

[Imparatus]

Hi

In practicing portraiture, one of the tactics I've employed was to do paintings/drawings from reference photos of celebrities. I felt that I could more easily see where the likeness was missed or was present, and they were fun to do because they were portraits of folks I admired. However, I soon began to get lots of comments from family and friends that they loved my portraits, but that I should devote my efforts more fully to things that I could actually display! Thus, the question. When you do a portrait from a stock photo of a celebrity (no matter who it is), what do you do with them? Do you hang them in your home? Do you give them away? As far as I can see from reading copyright law (and this is by no means the final word) I don't belive that one can display the work in any way publicly...and certianly one cannot do a commission using a studio reference photo to which one does not hold the rights.

Just curious if anyone else has had that sort of chiding from well-meaning members of the family or the friend crowd??

Here are a couple of my portraits of celebs just for grins....Walter Cronkite is Pastel on Stonehenge, Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn is Pencil/Charcoal on Bristol Plate, and Katie Jackson (the little hobbit child) is graphite on bristol plate, Harrison Ford as Indy is Colored Pencil on Renewal. Oh, and the KerryKin.....er...that's pumpkin on pumpkin.....

Note that these were taken at various stages in the development of the portrait and don't represent the end product....but I couldn't find those....:)

Mark

[Dana Design]

Well done portraits!! But why not paint your friends and family? I'll bet they'd eagerly sit for you. Then your problem about posting well know figures won't be in the equation.

[Imparatus]

In fact I do...and have....I guess I was referring to those who, like me, worked on well known folks first. Thanks for the complement tho!!!!

Mark

[jhercilia]

Wow! Aragon is superb! Do your family now for a change. Don't be intimidated. If you don't like them, don't show them. But I am sure you will like them and they will too.

[scotta821]

Choose a subject that you enjoy. I have found that if I don't enjoy the subject matter, it makes it very difficult to have a great finished piece.

Scott

[Troy Rochford]

I think celeb portraits serve as good learning tools for the reason that you mentioned, but beyond that they are rather pointless, as you are pretty much just copying the vision of the photographer and saying little if anything new. If you can get friends or family to model for you, then so much the better. You can get the same benefit of knowing pretty quickly whether your likeness is correct, plus it is work that you can presumably display.

[bronzeo]

First of all the copyright would be with the photographer, and they do nearly always exist. As far as their considerations for infringement, unless you recieve high compensation for them, you would probably not be questioned. If you had taken the photo yourself, the model, if publicly appearing is fair game for rendering into whatever artwork you choose as long as you are not defaming them....... I have a good friend who was at the brunt end of the first known lawsuit of this type and won it. It involved Elvis, Col. Parker and himself. There are a few other considerations such as "fair use" clauses, but unually they will not fly unless they are done for education or the like.