'ARTIST' STOLE my work...

[sjackson]

Read the full story here if you care about your photography.

If you feel what she did was wrong, please leave a comment. You can sign as Guest if you are shy. We MUST make this world stand up and respect us as artists.

A fellow 'artist' stole my image, painted it, portrayed it as hers and tried to sell it for $900. I've had her site shut down but now I'm in "name and shame" mode so she'll be too afraid to do it again.

http://www.pbase.com/sjackson/heidiknutson

[trinko]

i can't tell from the small photo. when you said she painted your photo did she do an original in oils or watercolors or did she just photoshop your photo?

in the latter case i fully agree with you. in the former i'm not so sure. in the former case i wonder about all of the photos of buildings or stained glass windows or even people walking on the street. are we photographers stealing from the architect or the one who made the stained glass window? are we stealing if we take a photo of someone wearing a costume?

i have to admit i was bothered when the folks in carmel copyrighted their famous tree so that you can't sell a picture of it without their permission. After all it is out in the open, it's not like it's a museum. If we start saying that if someone sees one of our photos and then makes an original painting based on it they're stealing then we open ourselves to attacks whenever we take a photo of something other than wildlife.

i do agree that in any case the person should have at least contacted you before doing whatever it is they did. i wouldn't take a photo of something, even if i had a right to in my mind, if someone objected--barring news related photos of course.

[artguer]

i can't tell from the small photo. when you said she painted your photo did she do an original in oils or watercolors or did she just photoshop your photo?

in the latter case i fully agree with you. in the former i'm not so sure. in the former case i wonder about all of the photos of buildings or stained glass windows or even people walking on the street. are we photographers stealing from the architect or the one who made the stained glass window? are we stealing if we take a photo of someone wearing a costume?

i have to admit i was bothered when the folks in carmel copyrighted their famous tree so that you can't sell a picture of it without their permission. After all it is out in the open, it's not like it's a museum. If we start saying that if someone sees one of our photos and then makes an original painting based on it they're stealing then we open ourselves to attacks whenever we take a photo of something other than wildlife.

i do agree that in any case the person should have at least contacted you before doing whatever it is they did. i wouldn't take a photo of something, even if i had a right to in my mind, if someone objected--barring news related photos of course.

I'm interested to know too how the picture was done.

[moffetb]

in the latter case i fully agree with you. in the former i'm not so sure.

Look up derivative work. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#derivative

While a line drawing of the photo might be considered appropriate, a painting is not. (As I understand it)

Brian

[trinko]

thanks for the reference. as far as i can tell and i'm no lawyer a painting would be considered a derivative work and hence copyrightable on its own if it had unique new content. i'd have to say that making a painting--i think drawing is intended to include painting in this context--adds significantly to the photograph--good or bad is irrelevent in this context. So based on your reference i'd have to say that if the painting is an original painting not a digital manipulation then it wasn't "stolen". of course i fully sympathise with the feeling of someone whose photo is used this way, some coordination should have been done by the painter.

in the latter case i fully agree with you. in the former i'm not so sure.

Look up derivative work. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#derivative

While a line drawing of the photo might be considered appropriate, a painting is not. (As I understand it)

Brian

[migieske]

I have the double duty of being both a person who is a photographer and a painter. I am in no way a professional at either one of those things. you can judge my photography for yourself if you wish since it is posted here and you could also judge my paintings which have a gallery here. that however is not the point.

As a painter I get ideas of what to paint from photos people have taken. I have contacted pbase members more than once to ask them if It would be ok for me to attempt to do a painting of their photographs. Luckily for me the members I have asked did not mind at all and seamed flattered that I admired them that much.

I understand that it would be wrong to sell paintings based on someone elses photography without telling them and without giving them credit for the original photo. However I view photography and painting in two completely separate categories. For me both are hobbys right now. but in terms of art for a wall to be paid money for photos and paintings tend to appear separately in two different types of homes or rooms anyway. I think that the market is fairly separate for the two things. someone who would have loved to buy the swan painting may not have been into the swan photo and viceversa.

I have given away paintings that were based on photos I saw as gifts. I also donated a couple of paintings to a silent auction fund raiser ( they didn't make much) but eventually I will run out of places to put my paintings and will want to try to sell them. I would hope that the photographic artists I have asked for permission would be satisfied by credit being given to them for the photograph in a note on the back of the painting. (In some cases I'm not even sure a photographer would want their name associated with my finished painting) but I would be unable to paint very much at all without photographs. I am not one of those people who can go to a place and set up outside and paint a scene that is infront of me. it takes me a long time to do a painting and I need to have the picture there that never changes with the time of day or the season. My imagination and memory for a scene just arent good enough.

Photographs are also my downfall as a painter. I see the photo and I can NEVER no matter what I do achieve the perfection in clarity and crispness that is there. My paintings are rarely satisfactory to me for that reason. that is why other people always like them better than I do.

As a photographer (once again amature) I would be thrilled to death if someone actually liked my photos well enough to want to paint them. Honestly if they sold the paintings I would never know. but it would be nice if on the back somewhere there was a little note that said something like this painting is based on a photograph taken by (my name here) if you are interested buying a photograph please go to this website (if that actually pertained to me which it doesn't)

I would however be annoyed if someone printed out copies of my photos and started selling them or using them in advertisements or something like that. That is completely different. A painting takes alot of time and effort. No matter what you do it can never be a photo. or even equal a photo in crispness, clarity, etc... and a photo can never be a painting (well I guess you can make it look like one digitally now days) it is just not the same thing.

I guess I am babbling on here and everyone probalby stopped reading this along time ago but my point is I would hope that as artists in different mediums we could cooperate to a point. I could not afford to pay someone to paint a picture of a photograph. canvas and paints and brushes are expensive enough as it is. I appreciate the photos and would want to give credit where credit is due but monetarily If someone was going to charge me for a photo I would just paint something else I suppose.

I keep any copies of the photos I have asked permission to paint and haven't gotten around to yet on my computer. If for some reason I managed to paint one well enough that I was paid alot of money for it I would like to think that I would let the photographer know. I would be wary though if I thought the photographer was going to get upset and demand most of my money. I ask for photos with the understanding that I have no intention of trying to sell the work and also with the understanding that I may never get around to painting the photo.


If you have made it this far Please tell me What do you think is a fair amount to pay someone for a photo if it has made you a profit as a painting. is there a percentage that it would be nice but not insulting or over the top that is a reasonable fair value (this is for a photo that has only been painted ONCE not copied over many times or made from a painting into a print.)

thanks for reading all my babble
comments welcome:)

[dougj]

thanks for the reference. as far as i can tell and i'm no lawyer a painting would be considered a derivative work and hence copyrightable on its own if it had unique new content. i'd have to say that making a painting--i think drawing is intended to include painting in this context--adds significantly to the photograph--good or bad is irrelevent in this context. So based on your reference i'd have to say that if the painting is an original painting not a digital manipulation then it wasn't "stolen". of course i fully sympathise with the feeling of someone whose photo is used this way, some coordination should have been done by the painter.

I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know how Canadian law applies. The US copyright law contains some key text that provides additional guidelines for derivative works. The following makes it clear that copies of an original work do not circumvent the existing author’s copyright. This is from the same section in the US Copyright law as referenced by moffetb.

"Who May Prepare a Derivative Work?

Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work……"

Some additional information:
[i]“…the unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted photograph whether [by another photo] or any other medium is an infringing copy…â€

[sjackson]

Our laws are explicit with regards to who is allowed to do what with a photograph. Our law mirrors the US law in the fact that no one is allowed to copy this if she "repeats or imitates the main design of the work". While you are entitled to your own interpretation of the law, there is no getting around it. You cannot paint the work of another without permission. Plain and simple. You cannot SELL that painting of the work of another without permission.

The minute someone makes a copy of my image in manner manner whatsoever (Photoshopped, painted, sketched), in my country, I immediately become the owner of that painting as if it were my own property. My copyright is still in it, and the courts will return any copies to me. In the US, the copies are ordered destroyed.

Please read the applicable sections in my Notice of Copyright Infringement posted on my site. You will see for yourself what the law states. Thank you.