Have a legal question regarding painting from magazine

[cliff.kachinske]

Showing –
To me there is a big difference between Facebook sharing for fun vs “SHOWING” in an art show of some sort..

Facebook doesn’t see it that way. Quoting their terms of service,

You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law. We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement or our policies. If you repeatedly infringe other people’s intellectual property rights, we will disable your account when appropriate.”

And the copyright holder still has the right to pursue you for damages, regardless of your intent. And there are some professionals who will take action

This is Facebook’s page of copyright answers: https://www.facebook.com/help/1020633957973118

A painting is never really done as long as I can get my hands on it.

[tiago.dagostini]

One way to easily avoid that is.. avoid the depressive current trend of ärtist based on copy of photos”. Use photografies. whatever one you want as references, not as source to be copied. No one can copyright a pose for example.

Art where you only copy a picture is so restrictive that I cannot understand why it draws so much attention.

Change the picture! Draw someone else on that pose, change the clothing! Change the lighting! That is ORIGINAL art and no one can use you for that.

You can even draw a humanoid mouse with large ears singing happy birthday to you in a tight pink dress a like marlin Monroe and as long as it is NOT mickey mouse you will NOT be sued.

"no no! You are doing it all wrong, in the internet we are supposed to be stubborn, inflexible and arrogant. One cannot simply be suddenly reasonable and reflexive in the internet, that breaks years of internet tradition as a medium of anger, arrogance, bigotry and self entitlement. Damm these internet newcomers being nice to to others!!!"

"If brute force does not solve your problem, then you are not using enough!"

[cliff.kachinske]

One way to easily avoid that is.. avoid the depressive current trend of ärtist based on copy of photos”. Use photografies. whatever one you want as references, not as source to be copied. No one can copyright a pose for example.

Art where you only copy a picture is so restrictive that I cannot understand why it draws so much attention.

Change the picture! Draw someone else on that pose, change the clothing! Change the lighting! That is ORIGINAL art and no one can use you for that.

You can even draw a humanoid mouse with large ears singing happy birthday to you in a tight pink dress a like marlin Monroe and as long as it is NOT mickey mouse you will NOT be sued.

Totally agree.

A painting is never really done as long as I can get my hands on it.

[GarnerArt]

Copying any photo for your own learning comes within the terms of Fair Use, so that’s OK. Sharing the resulting copy via an exhibition, social media, a website etc is copyright infringement, unless you have the copyright holder’s permission. Profit doesn’t come into it.
UK residents may find this website useful for all things copyright https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/%5B/URL%5D

Jackie Garner
Author of The Wildlife Artist's Handbook
http://www.jackiegarner.co.uk

[bongo]

I’ve noticed thousands – tens of thousands of images on Deviant Art and elsewhere that are clear copyright violations. The courts must be log-jammed!

http://s3.amazonaws.com/wetcanvas-hdc/Community/images/18-Sep-2019/1999899-sigsmall.jpg
STUDIOBONGO

[cliff.kachinske]

I’ve noticed thousands – tens of thousands of images on Deviant Art and elsewhere that are clear copyright violations. The courts must be log-jammed!

Wouldn’t need to be. Take-down notices are not that hard to file.

A painting is never really done as long as I can get my hands on it.

[bongo]

Wouldn’t need to be. Take-down notices are not that hard to file.

but they’re still up – more added every day.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/wetcanvas-hdc/Community/images/18-Sep-2019/1999899-sigsmall.jpg
STUDIOBONGO

[Attalus]

Somebody did, didn’t he? Nobody thought George Harrison’s ‘My Sweet Lord’ infringed on the Shirelles ‘He’s So Fine,’ either. A jury found otherwise, though.

You are quite right, he was:

YES. Andy Warhol WAS sued – at least three times that I know of during his lifetime, all during the 1960s, by photographers Patricia Caulfield, Fred Ward, and Charles Moore, for unauthorized use of their photographs.

Each time, he settled the claims out of court, and afterwards started asking for permission before incorporating works by others into his own creations.

https://www.quora.com/Was-Andy-Warhol-ever-sued-for-his-depictions-of-art

Bill was a long time valued member of our community who passed away after a lengthy illness. We will miss him. Rest in peace.

"Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea."- John Ciardi

My dA page:http://attalus.deviantart.com/

[Eraethil]

A minor point, but important. Your own photos do have a copyright on them. The good thing is that you own it. This is not true in all countries, but many.

and use your own or photos that have no copyright on them.

[FONT=Century Gothic] [FONT=Century Gothic]Comments and critique actively sought and much appreciated! [/SIZE][/B]
Rick. . . [/COLOR][/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. .[/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic] . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . . [/COLOR]pigment storm fine art[FONT=Century Gothic] . . . watch the paint flow![/SIZE]

[Eraethil]

There has to be some value in defending copyright for the holder to undertake the time and expense to do so. Many cases are not even noticed by the copyright holders.

but they’re still up – more added every day.

[FONT=Century Gothic] [FONT=Century Gothic]Comments and critique actively sought and much appreciated! [/SIZE][/B]
Rick. . . [/COLOR][/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. .[/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic] . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . . [/COLOR]pigment storm fine art[FONT=Century Gothic] . . . watch the paint flow![/SIZE]

[bongo]

There has to be some value in defending copyright for the holder to undertake the time and expense to do so. Many cases are not even noticed by the copyright holders.

Exactly.

An interesting case comes with collage. If you buy a magazine, you own it. You can not make copies of it, but you can re-sell it, you can burn it, you can cut it up and paste it to a piece of paper. You can sell that cut-up magazine pasted to a piece of paper(in other words a collage) as original art. But you cannot make prints of it (legally). In fact you cannot (legally) reproduce it in anyway – including “reproducing” it as digital media to show it on your website. In short you can do anything you want with the physical magazine, but once you copy it in any fashion it is (technically) a copyright violation.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/wetcanvas-hdc/Community/images/18-Sep-2019/1999899-sigsmall.jpg
STUDIOBONGO

[Eraethil]

Not exactly. You have to make enough of a change to the composition that the copyright holder believes your work is a new piece of art to ensure that they don’t sue you for infringement. And if sued, the judge needs to be convinced of the same.

If you cut it up and paste it back together on a piece of paper without enough of a change of content, context, and form, you have just copied the composition on the magazine page.

The hardest part is figuring out what “enough” is. That’s why many of us advocate using our own photographs.

An interesting case comes with collage. You can sell that cut-up magazine pasted to a piece of paper(in other words a collage) as original art. […] In short you can do anything you want with the physical magazine, but once you copy it in any fashion it is (technically) a copyright violation.

[FONT=Century Gothic] [FONT=Century Gothic]Comments and critique actively sought and much appreciated! [/SIZE][/B]
Rick. . . [/COLOR][/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. .[/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic] . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . . [/COLOR][FONT=Century Gothic]. . . [/COLOR]pigment storm fine art[FONT=Century Gothic] . . . watch the paint flow![/SIZE]

[bongo]

If you cut it up and paste it back together on a piece of paper without enough of a change of content, context, and form, you have just copied the composition on the magazine page

No copying. No copyright infringement. The Actual physical pages from a magazine. You could make NO changes and sell the magazine for $xxxx. You can also cut it up and sell it for $xxxx. The key is you can not make any copies, including photographing it to advertise it for sale on your webpage.
[/QUOTE]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/wetcanvas-hdc/Community/images/18-Sep-2019/1999899-sigsmall.jpg
STUDIOBONGO

[cliff.kachinske]

No copying. No copyright infringement. The Actual physical pages from a magazine. You could make NO changes and sell the magazine for $xxxx. You can also cut it up and sell it for $xxxx. The key is you can not make any copies, including photographing it to advertise it for sale on your webpage.

[/QUOTE]

I think this is the correct interpretation. However, defending this position in court might prove to be expensive. You would hope it would not go to the jury because they can be unpredictable.

You may also be in trouble if the copyright holder made a claim against moral rights.

A painting is never really done as long as I can get my hands on it.

[bongo]

cliff.kach I think this is the correct interpretation. However, defending this position in court might prove to be expensive… You may also be in trouble if the copyright holder made a claim against moral rights

People vs. Arty Artfinkle. Copyright infringement.

Prosecutor: The people contend that Arty Artfinkle willfully and with prior intent cut-up pages from a magazine and glued them to a piece of paper.

Judge: Show me the copies.

Prosecutor: There are no copies your Honor.

Judge: are you aware of the penalties for frivolous lawsuits? No copies, no copyright infringement. Case dismissed.

Prosecutor: But your honor,, what about the inhumanity, the moral repugnancy of cutting and pasting pages from a magazine!

Judge: This is a court of law, we do not judicate morality.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/wetcanvas-hdc/Community/images/18-Sep-2019/1999899-sigsmall.jpg
STUDIOBONGO

[Author]

Posts