PDA

View Full Version : Question of Morality


P.Albert
04-24-2006, 09:46 AM
Recent events here in WC have called into question many ideals about the ethics of art, specifically when it comes to copyright, and using copyrighted references.
My question, is when IS it okay to use copyrighted material? The old school of thought, or at least, what my teacher used to say is that if you modify the copyrighted image, it's still allowable. Change the color, rearrange the composition, if you're doing a person, change the shape and style of the shirt.
However, now I'm not so comfortable with that. I think if a person took one of my paintings and digitally altered it to change the coloring before printing it up for packaging material, etc. I would still consider it theft. Mind you, this was my highschool art teacher, speaking in terms of what was allowable to enter in competitions.

Here's my current dilema. I want to paint another picture of the Swan River Daisy. I know I'm a glutton for punishment, but that's besides the point. My origonal inspiration came from a published horticulture book, but after I saw that photo, I drew my own flowers from imagination and didn't look at a reference at all while painting. Not a great idea in my case.

So for the next one, I'd like to find an image I can truely use. I found a photo I really like, but it states clearly on the photo that it may not be reproduced. I only want to use a tiny section. There are three flowers in the photo, spaced quite a bit apart. I only want to use the center flower, and since it will be a macro, I only want to use 2/3's of that flower.

The only way to contact the photographer is through the forum, which it appears, he hasn't been to in two years. I went ahead and left a message, but I don't expect a reply.

I probably won't use it, but I find it very tempting. Especially if I flipped the image and then rotated it, it would be an entirely different image. But would it even be okay to modify another persons photo simply so I could use it?

Am I being overly cautious? Am I wrong to even consider it? I know that some of us have covered this in a different thread, but as it is a serious issue with us, I'd like to hear your all opinions on when is it immoral to use copyrighted works as a reference and when is it okay? Are there any hard and fast rules set down by law?

juneto
04-24-2006, 11:01 AM
You will have no problem with it . If you change one or two things and don't plan on publishing it, it's yours .
June

Faafil
04-24-2006, 11:26 AM
I have the same dilemma... I posted this in Deb's thread, but perhaps I should ask here too:

"All this discussion has me wondering about a painting I did from Barcelona. I *was* in Barcelona, and I took dozens of photos of the bench at Park Guell, but the painting I did is from a postcard that had a better composition. Am I infringing on copyright?

The painting is hanging in my living room, and is NFS, but I was going to enter it into a show. Now I have doubts on whether or not to enter it.

What are your opinions ???

(actually, I just realized it's in my sig line)"

NodakerDeb
04-24-2006, 11:33 AM
I agree with June. If you don't plan on gaining from your painting in a monetary way, or enter the painting in a show you should be fine.

Deb

Faafil
04-24-2006, 11:34 AM
Whoo hoo, I found the postcard, and the photographer's name. Did a google search, and the photo is copyright free !! He charges if you are going to use it for commercial purposes, but, I'm not !! Whew, I feel much better now.... :) :D

NodakerDeb
04-24-2006, 11:42 AM
You will have no problem with it . If you change one or two things and don't plan on publishing it, it's yours .
June

June, your statement has given me some more pause for thought. Now I'm questioning if I should even feature some of my paintings on my website even though they are clearly marked NFS. They are only up there to show a part of my body of work -- not to profit from monetarily, nor to be entered into art shows. When you say 'publish' does that also mean inclusion on a personal website?

Questions, questions, questions.:confused:

Deb

P.Albert
04-24-2006, 11:45 AM
Thanks for the replies, I actually do intend to try and market the painting if it's good enough. I think to be safe, I should just leave it alone. I'll keep looking for a photo that's copyright free.

Mary Lou, I'm glad you found your solution!

juneto
04-24-2006, 12:45 PM
Deb ,
A Professional Artist I studied with for many, many years who did Life magazine covers and other things you've seen all your life, told me that if you change ,one thing, color or line or anything in a picture ,it 's yours, because it is completely disputable and you've made it yours, with your changes .
All I can tell you about it, so I always make large changes to any copy I use .
June

juneto
04-24-2006, 12:46 PM
I would have to see the Original and what you did with it , Deb .
June

FriendCarol
04-24-2006, 12:51 PM
A decent rule of thumb, it seems to me (and also a very safe rule!) is, if someone looked at the photo, and looked at your painting, would they resemble one another? I mean, if the two were sitting in the same room, or even framed on the same wall, would a viewer suddenly say, 'Hey, that same exact daisy in this photo is in that painting!' (So, is that daisy in some way distinctive, or could it be a daisy from anyone's photo, found almost anywhere?)

This is a reasonable test because it is really asks something like what the law is getting at -- did you 'steal' something distinctive? So even a winning composition (a colorful abstract, perhaps) that is reused (as a largely green 'landscape'?) could be an obvious theft!

A notorious case I recall was someone who won a prize (which had to be returned) with an unusual painting of a Native American portrait from a photo. The resemblance was unmistakable, even though the painting was in an unusual and distinctive style (can't remember the details now, but it may have been pointillist).

Often I look at many different pictures of a place (including some paintings), or a flower, or an animal, before drawing one. As long as I can look back at my references and not see a striking similarity, I feel I have used them for informational purposes; certainly I haven't stolen anything. Anyway, if a jury (comprising 'reasonable people') couldn't see a close resemblance, there's nothing to worry about, right?

Bob(2)
04-24-2006, 05:01 PM
This sure is an interesting thread. I see books in book stores that state artist reference for ..say.. wild life, yet the images are copyrighted. I think it is so you can get the feathers right, or eye color, etc..

Paint a picture of Mickey Mouse in a pose never before published and try to sell it! Disney would be after you in a heart beat! That includes the Magic Kingdom Castle too!

I believe I read somewhere the 10% rule, which is a matter of opinion as to what 10% is...

What about the Travel Channel, images sketched from a travel log show? Since many of us may never see those images in person, I guess we are just stuck! Or, even better, stop action on a DVD movie of a scene that you would like to paint?

It all gets confusing, but I believe we are connected through international law. But as I understand it many countries have not signed up to that body of law!

I'm going to go search here and see if there anything on W/C, and I'll bring back the thread on the topic...

Europa
04-24-2006, 05:26 PM
You might find this site of interest - I found it when looking through the 'Legal Corner' of WC which has many things on copyright.

http://www.artcc.org/home.html

Seems the above site have done a list of copyright infringements - even where the colour or title has been changed is seen as copyright infringement.

Pat

giddy up
04-24-2006, 06:01 PM
I have directly copied three works in oil from found photos from a famous
photographer. I would NEVER dream of selling them. I just loved the images and they look great hanging in our home. I wanted to practice getting the light and the complex surfaces correct. They were for learning purposes only.
OTHERWISE I always use my own photos and always will. I would never want to be put in that strange position over who owns what.

painterbear
04-24-2006, 06:04 PM
Lots of people use that line: If you change the color or some other element, then it is OK to use a copyrighted image.Wrong, it is still copyright infringement.

If someone who is familiar with the orginal photo or painting can look at yours and say something like "That reminds me of .....'s photo or painting" it is clearly copyright infringement even if the dress is a different color or the rose is yellow instead of red, the hair is blond instead of red, etc.

However, in the case you describe about a photo with three flowers and you are going to only use a part of one flower so that no one could look at your painting and think it reminds them of the original photo, then it would seem you are using it as a reference only and not copying it.

I think your putting yourself in the other person's place is something we all should emulate when debating about using a magazine image or photo from the web, or any other image we aren't sure of.
I think if a person took one of my paintings and digitally altered it to change the coloring before printing it up for packaging material, etc. I would still consider it theft.

This is a very good way to decide whether or not you should use someone else's work without permission. Walk a mile in his or her moccasins, as they saying goes. :D

Sylvia

P.Albert
04-24-2006, 06:22 PM
Pat, that is a very interesting link! Thanks for sharing it. The Santa infringement was sort of scary because I never would have guessed that it came from that ref. Guess you can't be too careful, can you?

Looks like it's time for me to get out my camera and head off for the gardens to take my own pictures.

Hey, is it infringement if I do a painting of someone elses flower even if I took the photo myself? Just kidding!!!

D'Lady
04-24-2006, 06:36 PM
If someone who is familiar with the orginal photo or painting can look at yours and say something like "That reminds me of .....'s photo or painting" it is clearly copyright infringement even if the dress is a different color or the rose is yellow instead of red, the hair is blond instead of red, etc.

Sorry...but I think that's just silly.

I was in a store yesterday & found the cutest stuffed flamingo. It 'reminded' me of all the plastic flamingoes people used to put on their lawns. That 'reminded' me I used to have a pair of flamingo earrings....

Now, that could've gone on and on and added up to a lot of infringement for one little stuffed bird!

Common sense has to apply. A deer is a deer, and they are similiar enough that they are universally recognized on sight by even the youngest children. They simply don't have a huge variety of colors, shapes, or even sizes. Unless an artist has a room full of reference photos that he's taken himself, he can't draw or paint anything that's entirely original. His mental images are distilled from countless photos, movies, paintings and (maybe) a relatively tiny number of personal encounters.

You simply cannot draw a 'shnoozle' because you've never seen one. And if all you've seen are photos or movies, your personal drawing must be an infringement. If changing it or rearranging it doesn't count, then we are all guilty. We've all infringed, and the only way to prevent infringing again is to throw away the art supplies. :(

Starsprite
04-24-2006, 06:37 PM
Hey, is it infringement if I do a painting of someone elses flower even if I took the photo myself? Just kidding!!!

LOL Destany!!! Makes you wonder though! I felt the same way about the Santa infringement. It didn't look that similar to me to be infringement. That site scared me too. I'm glad I got a new camera! Now I just need some airplane tickets to Italy and France!

NodakerDeb
04-24-2006, 06:47 PM
You simply cannot draw a 'shnoozle' because you've never seen one. And if all you've seen are photos or movies, your personal drawing must be an infringement. If changing it or rearranging it doesn't count, then we are all guilty. We've all infringed, and the only way to prevent infringing again is to throw away the art supplies. :(

I'm beginning to think the only way to be safe is to put a paperbag over ones head and paint like you are whacking a pinata. :( Certainly, whatever you manage to get on the paper or canvas will be original. :)

Pat, that site was interesting. Although I think the Santa a stretch.

Interesting topic. I've learned a lot -- lots more to learn.

Deb

D'Lady
04-24-2006, 07:01 PM
Although I think the Santa a stretch.

A BIG stretch!

Similiarities:

1) They are both Santa. We know this as a result of being inundated with thousands of individual artistic renderings -all with striking similiarities (white mustache & beard, overweight, ruddy cheeks, stocking cap, red clothing, bagfull of toys).

2)Uhmm...well, I don't think there is a 2.

Differences:

Different pose
Different environment
Different clothes
Different hat & bag
Different artistic style


Now, if I draw Santa someday, will I be infringing on this image if I include any of the classic Santa icons? Can I even pretend to claim that my brief viewing of these two pieces won't -in some way- influence my future mental image of Santa? Can I even claim that any drawing I might make won't infringe somewhere and somehow? I certainly can't claim I drew it from life!

And, where does it end?

I painted a picture of some perfume bottles I own. Was it an infringement? I own the bottles; but I don't own the copyright on the bottles! And I didn't write to the manufacturer for permission to paint the bottle, either. If someone should pay me or my heirs for the painting, will that make me a villian? Do I have to put my work in the bin to avoid prison or losing my house to pay for "damages"?

Help! Is there a lawyer in the house? :(

RogerPf
04-24-2006, 08:51 PM
... Now I just need some airplane tickets to Italy and France!Patty ... Do feel free to rummage in my ref photos for WC'ers (see my sig) given where I start from, the plane tickets are so much cheaper. :)


I painted a picture of some perfume bottles I own. Was it an infringement? I own the bottles; but I don't own the copyright on the bottles! And I didn't write to the manufacturer for permission to paint the bottle, either. If someone should pay me or my heirs for the painting, will that make me a villian? Do I have to put my work in the bin to avoid prison or losing my house to pay for "damages"?

Help! Is there a lawyer in the house? :(If there was, I doubt they would dare to speak as one. :)

But your question does have an answer, and I think we can get to it. I AM NOT A LAWER.

First remember that (where ever you are the law is only what the courts currently say it is, so pray for good and honest judges). ALSO this post is NOT about the moral issue despite the name of the thread. :)

First let's put aside recent legislation to deal with modern new offences of criminal piracy of DVDs and computer software. These laws while they affect intellectual property rights do not come into play in this area.

Modern copyright law - enshrined in the Bern Convention is based on Anglo Saxon common law concepts of property and ownership and control there of. The US and the UK share this legal heritage so it is possible to talk about the common legal framework.

Other than the recent exceptions stated above we need to note that, Copyright infringement IS NOT A CRIME. It is a civil wrong. In England these are called torts and if you want redress you have to sue. You cannot report copyright infringement to the police and expect them to investigate and prosecute. It is not a crime. It is like slander and libel, if you want redress you have to sue.

Now we come to a key legal concept of civil wrongs - YOU HAVE TO SHOW DAMAGE - to get redress. This is why there is no problem if you paint a famous copyright image and keep it a home. It is realistically impossible for the copyright owner to succesfully claim they have been damaged.

Civil wrongs can only be righted by money payments and not (for example) by being sent to jail. (O.J Simpson had to pay to remedy the civil wrong he was deemed to have caused but was found 'not guilty' of the criminal charge.)

So to successufully sue a copyright infringer you have to show that
(a) they have infringed your copyright
(b) you have been caused a loss
(c) they have no allowed use provision, e.g. 'fair use for education', critical review etc.

For (a) there is no magic rule of 'change it so much and it is OK' - if the court decides it was copied then it was copied (even if you didn't). I remember a case in the early days of the Beatles when an unknown Spanish song writer claimed the Beatles had stolen a sequence of cords from one of his songs. He sued, the Beatles lost and had to pay. English judges in the mid 1960s may have been a bit biased. :)

A key issue is (b) showing you have been caused a loss.

In the case of copying photographs as ref. the normal thing is to say that you would have charged a fee for the use of that photo. So if you want to sell a Jimmy Hendrix painting better make sure it does NOT resemble any existing copyright photo. And quite honestly even if you do that you will be sued because the copyright owners want to discourage others. :)

There are other ways of showing that you have been injured. If someone else was to claim your work as theirs then you could claim that they have injured YOUR reputation by implying the you "stole" from them. Either way to get restitution you have to claim an amount of money that would rectify your loss.

Now at last we are in a position to answer the question asked about the scent bottles. Is there any way that copying the scent bottles in the painting could be said to cause the owner of the copyright of the bottles harm?

I am going to leave you all, as a potential jury, to decide on an answer. :) :) :)

--
Roger

laudesan
04-24-2006, 09:13 PM
But.....................

What happens when you die.........?? Your family may not know that is a copyright image and it could get very tricky.

I would absolutely hate for my daughter to be put through copyright theft issues because I copied someone else's artwork.

It is not your art if your copy no matter how you look at it or change the required 10%.

Would you want it done to you?? Your hard work composing that painting palette design/comp etc.

Easy answer to this question is don't do it.:)

Follow your heart and your conscience.. :)

D'Lady
04-25-2006, 12:02 AM
What happens when you die.........?? Your family may not know that is a copyright image and it could get very tricky.

That's a good question.

If someone does become a famous artist, and their sketchbooks and practise pieces are published, tracking down original sources might be a real problem.

I just covered two pages with sketches of giraffes. I copied different elements from several different photos -most copyrighted- just for learning the proper proportions and shapes of giraffes.

If I ever make a "real" painting of a giraffe, I'll either choose an image I have permission to use, or I will simply draw it from memory of all these elements I've learned. If I draw it entirely from memory, I might be infringing -there will be no denying I used various photos to learn to draw them.

Maybe I should annotate all my drawings with sources and copyright information if I have it? Maybe I should not even make practise drawings without proper authorizations?

And for that purpose...I've saved an awful lot of images; and now don't even know where they came from. Maybe that's a mistake?

D'Lady
04-25-2006, 12:10 AM
Patty ... Do feel free to rummage in my ref photos for WC'ers (see my sig) given where I start from, the plane tickets are so much cheaper. :)


If there was, I doubt they would dare to speak as one. :)

But your question does have an answer, and I think we can get to it. I AM NOT A LAWER.

First remember that (where ever you are the law is only what the courts currently say it is, so pray for good and honest judges). ALSO this post is NOT about the moral issue despite the name of the thread. :)

First let's put aside recent legislation to deal with modern new offences of criminal piracy of DVDs and computer software. These laws while they affect intellectual property rights do not come into play in this area.

Modern copyright law - enshrined in the Bern Convention is based on Anglo Saxon common law concepts of property and ownership and control there of. The US and the UK share this legal heritage so it is possible to talk about the common legal framework.

Other than the recent exceptions stated above we need to note that, Copyright infringement IS NOT A CRIME. It is a civil wrong. In England these are called torts and if you want redress you have to sue. You cannot report copyright infringement to the police and expect them to investigate and prosecute. It is not a crime. It is like slander and libel, if you want redress you have to sue.

Now we come to a key legal concept of civil wrongs - YOU HAVE TO SHOW DAMAGE - to get redress. This is why there is no problem if you paint a famous copyright image and keep it a home. It is realistically impossible for the copyright owner to succesfully claim they have been damaged.

Civil wrongs can only be righted by money payments and not (for example) by being sent to jail. (O.J Simpson had to pay to remedy the civil wrong he was deemed to have caused but was found 'not guilty' of the criminal charge.)

So to successufully sue a copyright infringer you have to show that
(a) they have infringed your copyright
(b) you have been caused a loss
(c) they have no allowed use provision, e.g. 'fair use for education', critical review etc.

For (a) there is no magic rule of 'change it so much and it is OK' - if the court decides it was copied then it was copied (even if you didn't). I remember a case in the early days of the Beatles when an unknown Spanish song writer claimed the Beatles had stolen a sequence of cords from one of his songs. He sued, the Beatles lost and had to pay. English judges in the mid 1960s may have been a bit biased. :)

A key issue is (b) showing you have been caused a loss.

In the case of copying photographs as ref. the normal thing is to say that you would have charged a fee for the use of that photo. So if you want to sell a Jimmy Hendrix painting better make sure it does NOT resemble any existing copyright photo. And quite honestly even if you do that you will be sued because the copyright owners want to discourage others. :)

There are other ways of showing that you have been injured. If someone else was to claim your work as theirs then you could claim that they have injured YOUR reputation by implying the you "stole" from them. Either way to get restitution you have to claim an amount of money that would rectify your loss.

Now at last we are in a position to answer the question asked about the scent bottles. Is there any way that copying the scent bottles in the painting could be said to cause the owner of the copyright of the bottles harm?

I am going to leave you all, as a potential jury, to decide on an answer. :) :) :)

--
Roger

Thank-you, Roger! :thumbsup: That really helps sort it out a bit. :)

It's still scary, though. I'd hate to have to defend myself against any of this. :eek:

laudesan
04-25-2006, 02:32 AM
Maybe I should annotate all my drawings with sources and copyright information if I have it? Maybe I should not even make practise drawings without proper authorizations?
Now there is an excellent idea I think we all should do that!!

And for that purpose...I've saved an awful lot of images; and now don't even know where they came from. Maybe that's a mistake?
I too have photos' from the wc library that I didn't write the name of the author on and I am deleting them as I come across them unless I find them again in the RIL.

Did you know that at exhibitions and shows the judge can ask you about your ref source. If it is not your own or from an approved source they will disqualify you. This is written in most of the fine print on the entry forms..

Copyright is so serious..

How would you feel if that masterpiece that you always dreamed of painting came from a copyrighted source and you could show no-one.

Don't think that folks wont find out, because they will one-day, they will..:)

I really, really value my reputation as an artist..:)

D'Lady
04-25-2006, 10:42 AM
I really, really value my reputation as an artist..:)

I don't have a reputation as an artist to worry about. But I value the example I set for my children. If I don't do the right thing, how can I expect them to?

What I think I'll do is go through and put all the images in folders, with numbers. In each folder, I'll put in a text document with the numbers, showing where I got each one, and who owns the copyright if I know. :)

Otherwise, I just need to delete them. It will be painful, as I've built quite a collection. :( But at least I'll be able to sleep at night. :o

Faafil
04-25-2006, 11:53 AM
I too have photos' from the wc library that I didn't write the name of the author on and I am deleting them as I come across them unless I find them again in the RIL.

:)

I've also saved quite a few pics from the RIL, and have finally got into the habit of saving the filename with the person's name and wc so I know where I got it, i.e., "sample - RPFwc.jpg".

That way I can credit the person who took the photograph that inspired me to paint it... :D

FriendCarol
04-25-2006, 02:25 PM
From handprint.com page titled "signing, documenting and copyright."
We're left with the issue of copyright. Nothing can replace informing yourself about the intricacies of copyright law. There are excellent general copyright resources available at the Stanford University (http://fairuse.stanford.edu) and [url=http://www.library.yale.edu/~okerson/copyproj.html]Yale University web sites, and a resource specific to visual arts at the [url=http://http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/CopyVis.htm]Franklin Law Center. These link to many other resources.
...
For most created works there are actually two different and distinct types of rights in play: authorship rights and copyright.

Both types of rights are created as soon as an original artistic effort has been started in a tangible medium -- whether paper, clay, sand or a computer file. If proof that you created the work is required, then your method of documenting the work is usually sufficient proof.

The term original is a helpful point to distinguish between authorship and copyright: you do not hold the copyright to a work that you have made based on another copyrighted work. If you make an original painted copy of a work by a living painter, you can claim authorship of your painting, but you cannot publicly display or sell the work without the permission of the artist who painted the painting you copied. This applies to paintings of photographs, photographs of paintings, sculptures of photographs, and so on. You are the author, but you don't have the copyright.Now, with regard to still-life paintings that include wine bottles (even wine bottle labels!), or perfume bottles, the painting is not OF the wine bottle label, but merely includes a copy of part of it within a work of art. I am NOT a lawyer, but it's probably silly to worry about 'copying' any item within (as a small part of) something like a still-life. The law does reference common sense, in the phrase 'reasonable man' [sic]. If you were blowing it in glass, could be a problem. But to copy the shape within a painting of something larger, there's clearly no intent here to take that copyrighted shape. (So my guess is it's okay to paint old Coke bottles. :rolleyes: )

The title on that last website page is Copyright in Visual Arts, and here's the visible link, for those who might want to read all about it later:
http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/CopyVis.htm

FriendCarol
04-25-2006, 02:45 PM
This is taken from the site I just cited, scrolling down to the section on infringement:The legal test of infringement is "substantial similarity" -- which translates (roughly) into whether an ordinary observer would recognize a work as copied in whole or in part from an earlier one.

In a similar vein, artists occasionally ask if it is OK to base a painting on, for example, a magazine photograph -- even though most appreciate that turning a photograph (or some part of it) into postcards would infringe copyright. Such questions are not easy to answer. First, an artist is unlikely to be sued for using a relatively small element from another work -- particularly if it used only for reference and is not copied in detail. (One who photographs a tropical scene does not get exclusive rights to all palm trees that might vaguely resemble those depicted there.)

Lynn Quinn
04-25-2006, 04:41 PM
We have an excellent local artist near here who has painted many realistic paintings of old vehicles. They are depicted in a landscape, but are an important part of the subject. I have heard that one of the major North American car manufacturers is making life very difficult for him. I am having trouble imagining in just what way his depictions of vehicles made by them could cause them any damage, but apparently they think so!

mmcaloon
04-25-2006, 05:02 PM
As one "artist" stated ...."start with the lawyers". They will do or try any maniplulation of word or law to line their pockets. Tis the nature of the beast.

RogerPf
04-25-2006, 05:45 PM
We have an excellent local artist near here who has painted many realistic paintings of old vehicles. They are depicted in a landscape, but are an important part of the subject. I have heard that one of the major North American car manufacturers is making life very difficult for him. I am having trouble imagining in just what way his depictions of vehicles made by them could cause them any damage, but apparently they think so!They probably do not want to loose control of the images of the old vehicles in the corporate collection from which they may make an income? Postcards etc.
--
Roger

St Ives
04-25-2006, 07:05 PM
There are a number of threads in the Legal Forum about this very issue. The first thread I opened just happened to be about work taken from Wet Canvas and used on a California school web site.:lol:

Obviously there is a lot of confusion about copyright law. Someone earlier made reference to the fact that the general public seems to feel 'if it is on the internet' it is copyrite free and I think that is very true. Take a look at Ebay...auctions get taken down daily because of various copyrite infringements - and those are just the ones that get reported - Ebay doesn't police autions, so far more stay up than get taken down (or so Ebay members say, anyway). Take a look at so much coming out of China (on Ebay)...the fine art is a real problem. There are a ton of personal art blogs on the internet, and one I was reading last night showed "quick" sketches done from photos in the UK Sunday paper. Is this copyrite infringement? I doubt it...no profit and I would guess her sketches wouldn't even be recognized by the original photographer. But I personally wouldn't have published them on the web.

The fact that art societies insist on proof of ownership of reference indicates to me that some society, somewhere, got burned on the copyrite issue and all now are protecting themselves.

I find MLQ's post quite interesting. DH belongs to a nationwide sportscar club that meets all over the country and in England. There are artists at these shows who specialize in this particular brand and sell their originals and prints both at the shows and through the mail. Have these artists gotten permission from GM to paint these cars? Haven't a clue and it didn't occur to us to ask when we bought several originals. I don't think the buying public would ever think to ask such a question.

Lots of questions but no clear answers!:lol: