copyrigth and copying.....

[heloman1]

I recently started a painting using a photo from a magazine as the basis, then yesteda I read an article in 'The Artist' on copyright and the use/copying of original material.

Initailly had not intended selling the work but our local art society has a summer showing at which memebrs are encouraged to sell their work. A portion of the sale goes to bolster the society funds. Having not previously exhibited I an anxeous to show my work, whether my work will sell is another matter, plus the subject matter may be a little esoteric, it's a moribike rider at this years Isle of Man TT.

I Googled the photographer this am to see if I could ask for permission, all be it a little late to use the image. I found nothing, not a mention of him. The question is, do I go ahead and exhibit with the chance of selling or do I hold the painting back?

Comments' suggestions and guidance appreciated.

Colin on the Africa Station

[ErikB]

Well, I don't know if you're infringing on any copyright if you sell a painting which used a photograph as basis... Anyhow, chances are that there were probably more than 10 people around the bloke which made the photo who just might have made a(n almost) similar pic. Would be hard to prove which photo it was. And since you made 1 painting which you'd like to sell it's hard to believe you're profiteering. I mean, when I'm taking pictures of a race I have my camera on "Continuous"; 7 frames per second. I pick the best, do some afterwork in Lightroom and voilá, a nice photo. Your frame rate is what? One frame per 2 weeks? Although copyright laws have nothing to do with getting rich or not when infringing copyright, and we must take them seriously, I really don't think you'll get a letter from a lawfirm ordering you to pay up! But just my , and pertaining to your particular case. So I'm not trying to win people over to just copy photos, books, decals, resin parts, paintings or anything else...

Any chance we can see a pic of your painting? I love motorcycles!!!

Cheers,

Erik.

[seadog]

Yes, show us! Don't think you should worry either.

[pigsty]

Numbers of people taking similar images and numbers of copies are immaterial. So is the very slim chance that anyone who might be affected wil find out. Legally speaking, what matters for copyright purposes is whether you're appropriating the original and doing it for gain.

If you sell your painting, the second of those is easy - you are.

But unless your painting is a direct photo-realist rendition of the original photo, it's unlikely to count as a copy. Merely using the same composition and broad colouring isn't usually enough. Essentially, the law recognises that one medium is different from another. Taking photographic copies of the original and selling them as your own work would be seen as passing off someone else's photography as yours. Basing a painting on a photograph is acknowledged to be a different work of art and so isn't trying to make out that you're the one who has the right to sell the photo.

Two small caveats:

1 You're not in the UK. Local law may differ slightly (although South African law is still quite close).

2 If you saw the photo in a magazine, the magazine may hold the copyright, not the photographer. If so, as a fully commercial entity they may take a rather different view, and it might be worth speaking to them first.

[bootneck]

I remember, back in the '70s, a neighbour who painted a stunning picture of HMS Ark Royal IV as a commission for someone. I noticed, while he was doing the painting, that he was actually using a photo to base the picture on (he admitted he had never actually seen HMS Ark Royal for real). When I questioned the use of a photo for copying he told me that all he had to do was change a few things; such as cloud formations, sea state, move/remove one aircraft and then it stops being a copy. As he was a professional artist I presume he would have researched those laws so everything was legit.

Mike

[seadog]

When I was working as an illustrator I had to do a quickie book cover which included Amy Johnson. This was before the internet - a frantic search of the local library came up with pics of her and her Gypsy moth. I extrapolated...U/sing one source is plagiarism, using two is research, someone said. If you were to do a painting of Titanic you could either build a model and work from that or dig up old pics. Photo reference is, IMHO okay, just don't, as has been said here, recreate the photo.

[heloman1]

Hi Guys, many thanks for the replies and advice, I was really not wanting to step on anyones toes. I remeber somewhere that if the copy deviated from the original by 10% it was deemed not to infringe copyright,. so maybe with my interpretation of the original image I should safely be within the limits. I've styalised all the sponsors logos so maybe that alone gives me enough of a gap.

Then all I need to find soemone who wants to buy it!!!!!

I'll check with the mag too, as I have an idea to raise some sponsorship for young South Africa starting out in Moto3, Brad Binder.

Colin on the Africa Station

[Andrew March]

I am a bit late to this, so apologies but I have been on the receiving end having someone use my art and claim it as thier own. The problem you see is the difference between intellectual property and copyright material.

Let's say I paint or create an original piece of art but the image is of a subject easily recognised, let's say for arguments sake an F-15.

Can I as the artist claim copyright, of course not, can someone then take my art and create another image from it without any comeback, technically yes, ethically, no.

I have you see released the image onto the internet, an image which I can claim no copyright to, only intelectual property of the work involved in creating the image. the internet is widely regarded as public domain, so in a sense I have released into an arena over which the law is such a grey area it would take millions of pounds trying to recover the rights to my image only to find that Boeing might sue me for earning from their copyright material.

See the dilemma.