28 January, 2005

This is becoming ABSURD!



Another (different) member contacted my privately by e-mail a few moments ago. They shared the fact that this SAME image AGAIN was also taken without permission, and is also for sale. They said was top rated a few days ago. A similar problem existed yesterday as well.

What is going on??



Christina Toews 28 Jan 2005

This one is artwork based on your photograph... it is a watercolor. If it is for sale, and they didn't ask your permission, then this is a HUGE issue. Would you have given her permission had she asked? And why couldn't this person just use it as a portfolio image and NOT sell it? I understand seeing a person's photography and loving it so much they want to paint it, but come on people... ASK PERMISSION!

Vincent Tylor 28 Jan 2005

Christina, I have granted permission for many other artists to use my originals for paintings. However, because I do this for a living, there are several questions I ask first. Will it be sold for a profit or used strictly for personal reasons. If it will be sold, will it be just in one location, at an art fair, in many locations etc. I never allow usage IF the image is to be sold off of the web, or if they wish to make giclee or prints and sell in quantity.

Perhaps bogus number one gave permission to this one. I have e-mailed to find out. Either way, I do not want this image listed for sale on this site!

Pete Miller 28 Jan 2005

So what you essentially saying is if I paint something I see in a photograph and I didnt take the photoI have to hunt down the photographer and ask if I can use it?

Call me the aish-ohe here but I dont see anything wrong with painting from a photographI have done it zillions of times ...Heck even in school we got material to paint from magazines and books, I feel that photographs are very good subject matter for painters. ...thats just my opinion..

Vincent Tylor 28 Jan 2005

Well Pete, IF you wish to SELL that painting of someone else's copyrighted image, you are breaking the law pal. Sorry.

It is also why I have to get a model release if I wish to profit off an image of you.

It is also why most artists with any integrity take the time and ask for permission!

Vincent Tylor 28 Jan 2005

Richard (guy who is no longer with us for doing the same thing) says that he did not grant permission to anybody.

I would appreciate if ARTWANTED would handle this matter. I do not have the time to continue doing this. I simply want that image no longer available for sale. Once again I will contact the artist and get her side of the issue. I have always been reasonable with letting others use my work. This here -again- is not reasonable.

From artwanted selling terms of agreement: 6. Artist makes the following representations and warranties that his/her artwork: (I) is Artist's unique work-product; (II) is solely owned by Artist, neither borrowed or stolen from, nor owned in part or in full by, any other party; (III) is free and clear of all security interests, liens and other claims; and (IV) Artist has full rights and powers of sale and transfer, there is no judgment outstanding against Artist.

N. Michael Bryant 28 Jan 2005

We were taught the same thing in school, Pete. My question to Vincent is, had the artist manipulated the image more than she had done, would there still be an issue with it? Personally, I've seen alot of work including my own, that was manipulated a great deal, in regards to people. It's a great source to get references from. As far as your image goes I hope a resolution arises for you.

Vincent Tylor 28 Jan 2005

The last thing I want to do is to make a mark in the forums. I've never posted my work over here and have not gone *looking* for trouble. Others have contacted me. Let's be fair here. IF you or anybody decides to paint on canvass something that already belongs to another person, then at the very least you ask the original owner for permission. If you plan to SELL that same piece of art that was copied from another, then you MUST gain permission from the artist by law. It's really not that difficult to understand why. This particular artist has indeed posted this for sale and has not requested permission to do so. The next step is very simple, it must no longer be allowed for sale to the public. And depending on the situation, the artists attitude, explanation etc, may have to be removed from the site. Although that is less likely from my perspective.

ALL artists that wish to sell copied work must get permission from the original artist BEFORE beginning such a project. This situation here should make it clear what can happen. I am not trying to be hard-nosed here. But laws and principles have been broken.

Fine Michael, if she wishes to paint a Bird of paradise, good for her. Just don't make it a practice to paint someone else's image. Just last weekend I received a request for one of my Hawaiian Sea Turtle images. Here is the request and my exact reply:

1-20-05 "Vince, I live on Maui and enjoy oil painting. May I have your permission to use the image of the turtle on the beach as a model for an oil painting?

The finished painting would resemble your image but would be altered by " artistic license" .

(name deleted) Aloha,"

My reply:Aloha ...,

I appreciate your asking permission to paint my Sea Turtle image. In this day and age one does not always get that type of honest communication. The answer would depend mainly on what and how will you use it? IF it will go in your own house, a friends home, gift etc, then no problem. If you sell your work in a gallery then please tell me which gallery or how many galleries. If you plan to sell in galleries AND make limited edition prints/giclee then that would be a problem since it would compete with exactly what we do. So if you do not mind sharing a few extra details with me, I'd be happy to get back to you promptly. Hope this helps. Thanks again for asking.

All the best,


PS- I never heard back from him by the way.

Mark Peterson 28 Jan 2005

There is an important distinction between an artist's work and the ideas behind that work. Copyright law protects only the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.

Therefore, while artist B may not copy a work by artist A, artist B certainly can be inspired by artist A's work. Artist B is also allowed to incorporate those concepts in his or her own fashion into new works. Therefore under copyright law, artist A has no complaint if artist B steals not only the idea, but the expression of the idea.

The ( taking ) doesn't have to be literal meaning, the work doesn't have to be a perfect match. However it has to be close enough that if the two images were held up in court, the judge looking at them could believe that one was copied from the other, not merely inspired by the other. ( Im seeing Inspiration not theft ) and the sale of such work is non comparable to the first issue you had with the direct copy of your photo.

About Fair Use: Developed by judges in the 19th century, the notion of fair use was incorporated into the 1976 copyright law. Specifically it provides for the fair use of copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. However a common mistake among many artist is thinking that they are safe if they include an attribution. An attribution itself does not prevent a work from being a copyright infringement. ( The piece in question is far from a simple attribution added )

The artist in question was obviously inspired by your photography and I can see no harm in painting from a photo. After seeing your photo directly copied and your rights violated I can understand your continuing concerns, but according to copyright legalities I dont see this one holding up because it is not a direct copy of your work. This is an original painting by an artist who was merely inspired by your work and as far as I can tell this practice in the art world has always been legal. Your image is very beautiful and I can see why many artist would be inspired and since it is not a direct violation or infringement on your copyrights I would think you would be honored that the artist did such a wonderful job. I think the point your aiming to make is that it is up for sale, but the fact is the artist is not trying to sell your photograph&.the artist is trying to sell their painting. Many views can be seen on matters such as this and Im quite sure you and the artist will come to a solution in solving your differing opinions.

Melissa Bond 28 Jan 2005

Copyright is such a confusing area for both the copyright holder and the one 'copying'. During my class in the subject itself, we were told for academic studies, others works such as photographs, masters works, etc. could be used to demonstrate and practice skills and techniques. However, it is to be used only as such, not for commercial uses eg. being sold for profit. Credit is to be given as well.

A rule of thumb our professor told us, is if you use any piece that is copyrighted for inspiration for commercial use. If you can compare it to the piece you borrowed for inspiration and be able to tell that it was definitely based off of that piece in question....it's copyright infringement. The only way this artist can get away with this is if she had taken the exact same photograph and can prove it with the negative or slide (which in this instance this happens only very very rarely) or she eliminates the commercial use of it by selling it and gives credit for the artist and states it is used only for study purposes. Even then, if the photographer requests it be removed, she must keep it in her private collection.

Vincent Tylor 28 Jan 2005

Sorry Mark, you are incorrect and I am not buying it! This painting is NOT based on inspiration here pal. This is a COPY of my photograph. Try as you might to throw your *subjective* opinion in there. The composition is identical, exact placement of stems, background everything for that matter. The ONLY difference is in the hues, because even the colors are basically the same. If a judge saw the two side by side like this, he'd be blind to not recognize the painting was a copy of the photograph. You can't be serious. Perhaps you just need to have your biases looked at! And I can assure you, if it needs to get to that point where a judge looks at it, to get that the image removed from this site, it shall.

Thank you Melissa. My patience is running out however...

Pete Miller 28 Jan 2005

Very confusing stuff to me...if i dont phsyically use your image and I paint my interpretation of your image isnt the painting then MY image?....

Like I said before stealing an image is one thing but using a photograph as subject matter in my opinion is an entirely different thing

I am all about integrity giving credit where it is due...but this just seems a little outside the box to me...or maybe I just dont get the whole thing...So if the painter did not sell this painting there wouldnt be an issue? It would be ok?

Mark Peterson 28 Jan 2005

Sorry to have upset you sir, I meant no disrespect in any way. I was merely trying to point out that different viewpoints will come into this and that perhaps yours is not the absolute. My opinion is but one of many and it is quite clear many of us have been taught different things about copyright. I thought my imformation posted might be helpful, but I will stand clear and let others discuss this with you.

Have a good evening.

Patrick Miller 28 Jan 2005

This thread is finally living up to its title.

Vincent Tylor 28 Jan 2005

Mark, when you share the fact that a painting copied from a photograph is copyright infringement, but then also share your public opinion that this is not a copy, but an inspiration, then at least prepare to recieve a strong reply countering that claim. After-all, if this were your photograph, I'd suppose you'd feel quite differently. This is a copy, plain and quite simple. Here are portions side by side. Now I'd like to hear one person speak up and say that this painting is not a copy of my photograph. That being the case, the image should be removed promptly.

"if i dont phsyically use your image and I paint my interpretation of your image isnt the painting then MY image?".... Pete.M.

I'd like to know what part of THIS image in question was interpreted??

If you copy my image, then you are breaking international copyright laws. Done. The artist here is also selling the image. What more can I do or ask to make my point??

Patrick Miller 28 Jan 2005

Machines copy....people interpret. Human hands are incapable of 'copying'.

Vincent Tylor 28 Jan 2005

Based on that type of foolish reasoning, there should not even be copyright laws for any artist, because they'd never be able to copy anything at all. Now does that make sense??

This image is a close to a copy as is humanly possible and under copyright laws IS indeed a copy!

Lucas Seven 28 Jan 2005

...there's no control over this... you know you're not going to fight it in the highest court, so why bother... Karma won't let them make a dime off it... as far as asking permission... HA! That's a joke... artists rely on photographs for reference, all the time... it's not going to stop... Here's an example, which I didn't ask permission, but the painting is all me...freehand drawing, and painting... so where does that leave the rest of the Art World?...

Vincent Tylor 28 Jan 2005

If you are selling a copy of someone else's work Lucas, it will come back to haunt you. Count on it. Just ask Nancy and Richard.

Your casual attitude about the matter is pretty pathetic actually. Perhaps if it was your work, I bet you'd sing an entirely different tune.

stan jones 28 Jan 2005

i think its time to put this to bed the image in question has been removed and the person in question is a good person so lets all let it rest

but on finishing i think we should all be careful of our work in the future or get your work watermarked to save this Confusion about copyright or not

ps vincent now that your a memeber of aw how about putting up some of your works you never know you may even get to like us here at aw we arent all bad

stan jones 28 Jan 2005

i think its time to put this to bed the image in question has been removed and the person in question is a good person so lets all let it rest

but on finishing i think we should all be careful of our work in the future or get your work watermarked to save this Confusion about copyright or not

ps vincent now that your a memeber of aw how about putting up some of your works you never know you may even get to like us here at aw we arent all bad

This discussion continues on the next page...