Painting celebrities, is it legal?

[timelady]

Painting a celebrity as an original work of art, whether referencing a photo is definitely fair use in my opinion
___

Your opinion is wrong, unfortunately. Selling or exhibiting even the original would violate the original artist/photographer's rights. You need to take some copyright classes or consult an IP lawyer for advice.

___
It's obvious who it is where it is from..
___
This is absolutely a key point in copyright law. Even if it didn't earn money it's still recognisable and the original art can sue for cessation of the use of the image in any way (exhibiting, portfolio, etc) even if they don't get monetary damages.

The "list" of images given above is interesting but complicates the discussion. A lot of those images are parody (which IS legal), collage (where things get more complicated because it's about the focus of the work), trademark (cartoon characters aren't celebrities but intellectual property in and of themselves), combining different images (similar issues to collage), and artwork done before the current copyright laws were in place (Warhol).

In each case given above there will be court examples where the derivative artist has won, and where they have lost. So I wouldn't lean on them as examples to prove any particular use is okay for sure.

Tina.

[apprentice]

Originally Posted by timelady

Painting a celebrity as an original work of art, whether referencing a photo is definitely fair use in my opinion
___

Your opinion is wrong, unfortunately. Selling or exhibiting even the original would violate the original artist/photographer's rights. You need to take some copyright classes or consult an IP lawyer for advice.

___
It's obvious who it is where it is from..
___
This is absolutely a key point in copyright law. Even if it didn't earn money it's still recognisable and the original art can sue for cessation of the use of the image in any way (exhibiting, portfolio, etc) even if they don't get monetary damages.

The "list" of images given above is interesting but complicates the discussion. A lot of those images are parody (which IS legal), collage (where things get more complicated because it's about the focus of the work), trademark (cartoon characters aren't celebrities but intellectual property in and of themselves), combining different images (similar issues to collage), and artwork done before the current copyright laws were in place (Warhol).

In each case given above there will be court examples where the derivative artist has won, and where they have lost. So I wouldn't lean on them as examples to prove any particular use is okay for sure.

Tina.

Thanks, Tina. I've definitely been known to be wrong on many occasions. That said, having browsed thru various sports art communities over time, the amount of celebrity athlete artwork produced and sold without licensing is staggering. Can't say that it's necessarily ethical, but it is what it is. There is also very little information (at least on the web) about how to go about securing licensing rights. More information and greater awareness would definitely go a long ways in helping all parties.

[Horsa]

Most celebrities have an agent or publicist. The way to secure licensing rights begins with contacting that person.

Such rights may not be cheap, and depending on whether you are known or unknown artist and what use you want to put the image too, you may well be refused.

[zunisong]

The celebrities for the most part that this person is painting are dead, except for a couple ..

What about painting public figures, Queen Elizabeth etc?

[ray7]

Just to add another thought to this, back in the late 1980s I was doing freelance photography and did some photos for a bingo hall that had live acts on. I was only paid for enlargements of any photos they liked and copyright stayed with me. The photos were taken with full permission of the acts including, to name a few, Bob Monkhouse, Frank Carson and Susan Maughan. If I was to do portraits in pastels of these people now and put them up for sale how would I stand?
I feel as the photos were taken with permission and I own the copyright I would be ok.

Ray

[Horsa]

When painting celebs what medium do you prefer?

I find spry paint works best for me. I wear a vest with large pockets, then whip out the can and presto! Another painted celeb. }:>

[Rusalka]

What about all the live painters who speed paint simple celebrity pictures as part of a performance? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2AL8x1zGnc

[timelady]

ray - as your own the copyright on the original images then you can give yourself permission to create the new images from them. So in your case you'd be fine.

[ray7]

Thanks Timelady thats what I thought but it never hurts to ask.

Ray

[slowbro]

You can paint celeb style pictures that look like celebrities - just don't mention their names. The title of each protrait should be fairly ambiguous but could relate to some personal trait of that person. You just have to be careful and very clever.

[Piscean33]

It looks as if you have prices on them and waiting to be hung in your home. If you're selling them, it's a copyrighting issue unless you get complete permission from Disney and the artist to reproduce. Even giving them away is a copyright issue, but most places won't bother with people giving away paintings to charity or painting them for their own use.

You didn't change enough in your paintings to call it original, so you have a double whammy. Not only are you using a copyrighted character, but you are also blatantly copying someone else's painting! You could get into hot water with these.

I paint and write, so I've had to do a lot of research on this. You CAN paint celebrities as long as you don't copy off of a photograph that is copyrighted. Animated characters aren't considered popular celeb, unfortunately.

[LostInWonderArt]

Whether the celebrity is long dead or not, the copyright often lands with the photographer, and I know current copyright laws in literature stand for 75 years after the death of the author (which is why you will only find one publisher of "Catcher in the Rye" but dozens of publishers of "Tale of 2 Cities").

I have seen that some are more lenient with use of images than others. I know that Star Trek allows more use of their images in artwork than, say, the estate of Elvis Presley (which I hear is very strict about licensing).

That being said, there used to be an artist who lived around here who exclusively painted rock star portraits. Many were from photos that he personally took. I know that he didn't have much trouble getting licensing from Ray Charles's estate to sell prints of his painting, but again, this was from a photo that he personally took. I could see how this might be a headache if the person was selling 30 paintings, all of different celebrities.

[Rusalka]

You generally don't need permission to do an artistic rendition of a celebrity. Copyright only applies to fixed forms of expression. A celebrity can't own a copyright on your picture of him/her. The "right of publicity" usually applies to cases where you're using the image of the celebrity to promote or sell something. Artwork is sometimes specifically excluded. The laws on right to publicity vary from state to state. Sometimes dead celebrities are fair game, also depending on state law. The "Pricing and Ethical Guidelines" has a few pages on this topic.

[roscoegino]

So just to recap. Worse possible case scenario: I base my artwork off of a picture of a celebrity with the intention of later selling that artwork. Not only would I have to ask permission from the photographer, but I may also have to deal with the celebrity herself (whether her or her estate), true?

[Rusalka]

No, in most cases you would not have to deal with the estate of the celebrity. Please check the book I mentioned above. There are several pages talking about this topic. Specific laws regarding right of publicity vary by state. Do you live in the U.S.?