Authorization for painting

[ernest]

Have received a message from someone who is asking my permission to paint one of my Flickr images. Any comment ?

[spacecadet]

You can offer a paid or unpaid licence, it's up to you. But if you give permission you don't want it ending up as a print unless that's the basis of your fee.

At least he asked- have a look at Sheila Smart's thread about soneone who didn't ask

[Robert M Estall]

on first reflections, these requests feel like compliments, but too often end in tears. I have had some very bad experiences. Yes, check out Sheila's recent saga on another post. Once the genie is out of the bottle you have no way of stuffing it back in. Just say, thanks for your kind interest and POLITELY DECLINE!

 

My wife is an accomplished artist. Neither she nor any of her fellow painters work from even their own photographs as reference. The cruel fact of the matter is, your enquiring artist CAN'T DRAW. But maybe they can copy.........

 

Emest, I just had a peek at a couple of pages of  your Alamy portfolio; those painted faces and lip plates are exactly the kind of thing  which have caused me grief! I would be hearing loud warning bells.

[ann]

I wouldn't give a stranger permission for free to paint one of my photos, especially because Personal and/or Private Use can so easily morph into Commercial and/or Public Use. Artist using Flickr for inspiration can be anyone, honest or not.

[An oil painter appropriated my best-licensed landscape photo - one I've exhibited in art museum, and licensed for use on tourism sites... - and posted photo of her painting, with continent & time of day altered in description, on homepage. When viewed online the photo of 'award winning oil' looked exactly like my original photo.]

BTW, I looked at ernest's port, and is the person any chance same person as who asked Sheila for permission?

[spacecadet]

On reflection, I still might offer a paid licence, quite an expensive one, and thereafter keep a very close eye on the painter and my image, The same would apply, of course, if I declined. Or if he did.

[mickfly]

I'd have the same question as others... is it the same artist who is asking?

[NYCat]

Have received a message from someone who is asking my permission to paint one of my Flickr images. Any comment ?

 

I would check out that person's work. I have an artist friend who sometimes works from my images with my permission. The final print does not actually look at all like my photo. She does not do "realistic" work. I don't feel like her work ends up competing with mine. Of course, she is a close friend and I don't mind letting her "use" my images. She doesn't pay me but has sometimes given a piece of her work to me for free. I have a couple hanging on my wall -- though not ones where she started with a photo of mine.

 

Paulette

[Martin P Wilson]

As Paulette suggests there is a big difference between painting a copy of a photograph and creating a new work where the photograph is used as a reference.

 

For example Michael Turner is a well known painter of motor racing pictures and as he is/was an avid photographer I would be very surprised if he does not use photographs as a reference, probably many . Some to get the topography of the track and corner right and the others to get the details of the cars correct especially the livery. Many buyers of his pictures will often be very knowledgeable and will pick up all mistakes e.g.. Such and such a company was not a sponsor of so and so at that round it was the following round where their logo appeared on the car or even down to very small bodywork details. As far as I can tell none of his pictures are a direct copy of a single photograph - indeed many are from a view point where it would not have been possible to get a phoptograph, especially during the featured race.

[John Mitchell]

My father was a Sunday painter, and a very good one. He couldn't afford to travel (thanks to me), so he often used photos of landscapes for reference. The results seldom looked anything like the photographs, so I wouldn't really call them copies. Poets and novelists also sometimes get inspiration from other works of art. This has been going on for a very long time. John Keats' "Ode on a Grecian Urn" comes to mind.

 

Of course, if someone wants to make an exact copy of a photo, it's another story.

[Rick Lewis]

A while back I too received the same type of request.  I inquired as to final use and never got a reply.  I think the lack of reply answered my question.

[Betty LaRue]

I used to paint watercolor. Often dreamed up what I would paint. I started in oils, the first was only an exercise to learn how to do brush strokes and I painted a picture from a how to art book. Not for sale.

Then I took a photograph of an old barn in Oklahoma and painted using that as a reference. It turned out well. It looked very different than the photo. My last oil. I then went straight to watercolors and sometimes painted from my own photos.

The paintings were always more beautiful than the photo and somewhat different. Because I could leave out the things in the photo that didn't enhance the painting.

I would never paint from someone else's photo unless maybe my husband's which thrilled him when I did it once.

I have turned down requests from artists who wanted to use my FFA work to paint from.

These days, shooting digital for art purposes, we can crop, we can remove distracting bits, we can use textures, painting programs and do many things to our photos, rendering them into works of art.

That is MY work, and I don't care for some unimaginative so-called artist to take the easy way out by basically copying from something I put the originality and work into.

Even though their work may be different from mine, I was the one who perhaps spent money making the trip to get the photo, conceived the viewpoint, all the decisions we, as photographers, make every time we point our camera. If I used textures, then I bought and paid for them. If I used an expensive painting program, it was one I bought and paid for. I have thousands invested in my cameras, lenses and software.

They, on the other hand, troll through others' work, find something they like, and never leave the comfort of their home. Smells bad to me.

Betty

[Robert M Estall]

well said. just say NO, but politely, otherwise they'll  just take offence and take a liberty

[Sheila Smart]

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 near impossible.  He was most indignant when I suggested to him in an email that he was using filters or projecting my work onto some form of media and it became a paint by numbers project!

 

So to Ernest - beware.  You could have a battle on your hands if the person is as unscrupulous as mine.

 

Sheila

[mickfly]

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 near impossible.  He was most indignant when I suggested to him in an email that he was using filters or projecting my work onto some form of media and it became a paint by numbers project!

 

So to Ernest - beware.  You could have a battle on your hands if the person is as unscrupulous as mine.

 

Sheila

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.

[Sheila Smart]

 

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 near impossible.  He was most indignant when I suggested to him in an email that he was using filters or projecting my work onto some form of media and it became a paint by numbers project!

 

So to Ernest - beware.  You could have a battle on your hands if the person is as unscrupulous as mine.

 

Sheila

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.   

[Martin P Wilson]

If he is selling painting for four figure sums I would go after him for the infirngement in any case.

[vpics]

Was it George W Bush?

[Dyn Llun]

Copying, in any medium, is a clear breach of the copyright act. I discovered that someone had produced a painting from one of my landscapes about twenty years ago and exhibited it. I'm lucky that the galleries and dealers that handle my work have access to and use great legal eagles. I spotted it but they immediately took over and pursued it. They clobbered this guy for several thousands for me, plus they recouped their legal fees from him. Bet he never did it again! There's no place for 'being nice' with cases like this I'm afraid. Theft is theft whether it's an actual property or intellectual property. 

[Martin P Wilson]

Copying, in any medium, is a clear breach of the copyright act. I discovered that someone had produced a painting from one of my landscapes about twenty years ago and exhibited it. I'm lucky that the galleries and dealers that handle my work have access to and use great legal eagles. I spotted it but they immediately took over and pursued it. They clobbered this guy for several thousands for me, plus they recouped their legal fees from him. Bet he never did it again! There's no place for 'being nice' with cases like this I'm afraid. Theft is theft whether it's an actual property or intellectual property. 

 

Absolutely agree and I wish the police would treat it the way they treat (some) physical property theft - especially as it is so easy to prove! The Intellectual Property Office in the UK may great play that it is a criminal offence but wwhen did anyone hear of it being pursued as such. We always have to pursue it as a contract matter - even when we have no contract, or even prior contact, with the criminal concerned.

 

A few high profile criminal cases would slow down the infringement rate significantly.

[spacecadet]

It is pursued, against bootleggers with a house full of fakes or copied DVDs, but the Crown usually goes with counterfeiting charges rather than copyright.

It has to be pretty blatant to be a criminal offence, done with malice aforethought and all that. To be honest I'm not sure I'd want some twit copying one of my images to be prosecuted. The cases we're talking about just don't warrant it. Besides we now have a small claims remedy.

[Martin P Wilson]

It is pursued, against bootleggers with a house full of fakes or copied DVDs, but the Crown usually goes with counterfeiting charges rather than copyright.

It has to be pretty blatant to be a criminal offence, done with malice aforethought and all that. To be honest I'm not sure I'd want some twit copying one of my images to be prosecuted. The cases we're talking about just don't warrant it. Besides we now have a small claims remedy.

Not as a matter of course perhaps, police don't pursue too many opther bigger matters. But a few high profile cases such as Sheila's or one I had recently where they stole them after being told they weren't free and remobved all the copyright notices.

 

In my view deliberately copying someone else's work is absolutely no different from picking up goods in a supermarket and walking out without paying. It is criminal activity as it deprives me of the bnenfits of my property.

 

Pursuing it ourselves is time consuming and stressful. I don't want to spend my time dealing with the criminal classes. A few editors, painters and bloggers with criminal records would discourage a lot of others and would raise the awareness of what copyright is someone's property just like their car, their jewelery or the cash in their wallet.

[Dyn Llun]

spacecadet, on 16 Jan 2015 - 10:28 AM, said:

"To be honest I'm not sure I'd want some twit copying one of my images to be prosecuted." 

I would, and have. In exactly the same way that I would prosecute, or have prosecuted, 'some twit' who burgled my home and stole from me.

 

I agree with Martin, it is time-consuming and stressful. I'm very lucky to be supported by galleries and dealers who are protective of my work. However, I think it is important for all photographers to protect their own work and take steps against those who would seek to 'steal' it. Not just for their own sake but as Martin points out, as a powerful deterrent. If those who would seek to 'steal' work think that photographers and other artists don't care enough about their work to bother when it is stolen, then they are entitled to believe that it's 'open house'. Just like leaving your home unlocked and the window open.  Shrugging one's shoulders and declaring that 'it's not worth the bother' or, 'it's too much hassle', only serves to encourage further copyright theft and yet further reductions in income for those who rely on sales of their work in an already difficult 'market'. We all have to take a stand for the sake of everyone. 

[spacecadet]

replaced

[spacecadet]

 

 Shrugging one's shoulders and declaring that 'it's not worth the bother' or, 'it's too much hassle', only serves to encourage further copyright theft

 

 I have acted and collected. But not in circumstances where you could say it was remotely criminal. That's not to say there aren't such circumstances and removing copyright notices is one.

And I've been burgled and thought dark thoughts about the burglar.

[Martin P Wilson]

If somebody uses my pictures without my permission they are behaving criminally whether they are aware of it or not. Just as if they pick  up an apple and eat it while shopping. Ignorance (or stupidity) is no defence in law.

 

If they are using you pics without permission it IS ALWAYS criminal, perhaps not serious in the greater scheme of things but it is not accidental. Did it get in the publication on its own, did they creep on to their web site without them noticing? If they don't understand copyright more fool them. I will go after them whenever health and energy permits (statute of limitations gives me plenty of time to batch them up).