Sheila Smart

I agree with Famousbelgian. If you were an amateur when you used the old 35mm lenses, you rarely, if ever, enlarged them anything above 5 x 7. These days, images are enlarged to such an extent that any failings such as lack of sharpness (or SoLD) would become immediately apparent. When I "went digital" in 2001, I tried using my old Canon lenses and ended up flogging them on eBay.

When a charity asks me to donate my work, I ask them if anyone else is donating their time. I rarely get an answer! A good friend who worked for a large international charity a few years ago always flew business class on international flights (from Australia) and stayed in 5 star hotels. Nuff said! Sheila

Fees like $10.00 are the reason why I have placed restrictions editorial>editorial website on ALL of my work. I suggest others do likewise! Sheila

Not if its a large US manufacturer which shelled out $8,000 for one of my images illegally appearing on their FB page! The discussion was in sterling so I deduce it was in the UK. To the best of my knowledge there is no precedent for that level of damages here. More's the pity!

Now my two cents...There should NEVER be an offer of a retro license to an infringer unless Alamy firstly seeks the permission from the photographer, who, after all, is the owner of the image, not Alamy (which Alamy seemingly forgets on occasion). The photographer should have the right to decline the retro license and take action against the infringer if they wish.

Not if its a large US manufacturer which shelled out $8,000 for one of my images illegally appearing on their FB page!

I have just realised, after doing some research via Google, how easy it is to transfer a photograph on to canvas. All one has to do is arrange the copying of a photograph on to clear plastic and place it in a projector, overhead or otherwise. Voila!

In my particular case, Bill, the artist also asked (for two images out of the six he used) but then conveniently forgot about the condition of non-commercial use.

Thanks Olivier. He certainly is photogenic. Sheila

Meet Cedric, aboriginal busker and street performer. A stranger when I took the pic a few years back and now model released!

What I do not understand is why galleries knowingly exhibit "painters" work which are clearly derivatives of photographs and do not question the "painter" if he or she has the written permission from the photographer and morally they should also request an attribution for each piece. But they apparently do not. It would be an interesting exercise to research if they are also guilty of copyright infringement by hanging the derivatives. But that is for another post!

Without naming the person Sheila, it is very annoying seeing how smug he is posing next to HIS paintings. I also noticed he copies some very distinctive pictures of celebrities, and the people who commission or take those images are big enough to destroy him. I did warn him in my email that he could find that some photographers would not offer him a reasonable retro license and instead pursue him for copyright infringement which he would find very expensive. I think that is why he took his website down entirely rather than just remove derivatives of my work.

As soon as I see a particular image of mine being used illegally in the US more than say a dozen times, I then register it for future infringements. I cannot claim for past infringements but the future claims certainly make it worthwhile. I am indeed forever grateful to Photoattorney Carolyn Wright who suggested a few years back to register a particular image. It has been one of my better investments!! Sheila

In my case, he did ask (on two images out of the six he used) but conveniently forgot my expressed written condition that it must not be for commercial use but he still flogged them off his site for up to 2 thousand quid each. A couple of days ago, I took one of his "paintings" into Photoshop and placed my photograph as a layer and lo and behold, it fitted perfectly - every hair on his beard and wrinkle on his face matched mine even down to the number of beads around the neck. For him to assert he paints freehand is nonsense as for him to get the proportions exact is highly unlikely and nea

Unfortunately, he is no Van Gogh!