Your stance on artists re-creating photos without permission, but not selling?

blackrose89 · Dec 22, 2011

What are your thoughts on artists (painters, sketch artists etc) who IE google photos and draw them without permission BUT don't sell them? Just a personal gallery or portfolio?

I'm not really looking for legal technicalities, but more personal opinion/belief.

Railphotog · Dec 22, 2011

I'm not concerned with anything that I can't do anything about.

MLeeK · Dec 22, 2011

I probably would NOT be happy to find one of my images being drawn and used on someone else's website or portfolio without permission. If someone asked me? I'd probably gladly let them draw it AND use it. Courtesy goes a LONG way.

Natalie · Dec 22, 2011

^This. I've let my photos be published on websites and in books without asking for anything in return other than credit for the image. But if someone used one of my photos (to publish, sketch, or whatever) without my permission and/or without giving me credit, I wouldn't be a happy camper either.

KmH · Dec 22, 2011

blackrose89 said:
I'm not really looking for legal technicalities, but more personal opinion/belief.

IMO, it would be unethical, and morally corupt if you didn't first get permission from the copyright owner.

Josh66 · Dec 22, 2011

I think it would be a little unethical. Not sure if it would be legal or not...

Would that be considered a derivative work? Or just a 're-imagining' of an idea (you can't copyright an idea)?

(I am interested in knowing the legal technicalities of it, since it seems like a grey area to me.)

IMO, I would appreciate being asked first, but probably wouldn't be too offended if I wasn't asked. Unless it's illegal. Then I would be pissed. :lol:

Overread · Dec 22, 2011

If you take a photo and redraw it yourself for your own personal use and never sell nor promote youself with that work then chances are I couldn't care less (I'd honestly prefer to be asked of course, but I honstly wouldn't mind). Now if you start promoting yourself (ie distribution - eg posting on the net) or even going as far as to make sales from the derivitive work then I would be far more offended. If one goes as far as to try and profit from it I'd probably seek the full legal protections that are possible.

In the end asking takes moments and most of us are likely to say yes (since most of us on this site are hobbyists) - we won't mind if you draw for your own entertainment and probably won't mind if you post it up to show people your artistic skills (though courtesy would require a linkback to our own version of the works).

KmH · Dec 22, 2011

Visit - www.copyright.gov and click on the FAQ's.

U.S. Copyright Office - Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine? (FAQ)

By the way. Selling just means a copyright infringer can face federal criminal, as well as federal civil, legal actions. Federal criminal copyright law is USC 18, civil copyright law is USC 17.

Infringers that do not sell only have exposure to federal civil suit.

rexbobcat · Dec 22, 2011

I don't care. There's nothing I can do about it.

blackrose89 · Dec 22, 2011

O|||||||O said:
I think it would be a little unethical. Not sure if it would be legal or not...

Would that be considered a derivative work? Or just a 're-imagining' of an idea (you can't copyright an idea)?

I mean directly copying a photo. Poses, ideas are fair use. For example my avatar is a drawing of a young girl holding a dragon.

The woman in the photo (Although I got it from a free to use stock site so even if I directly copied it, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it just go with it) was a reference for porportional purposes only.

The woman in the photo was holding a cat, asian, was wearing a purple sweater and jeans and was super skinny with her black hair up. I took the photo and made her a caucasian young woman, wearing black tank top, long light brown hair that's down, jeans, a slightly bigger weight, completely different face and expression, features, and she is now holding a dragon. Even though I used the photo as a guide for porportion I in no way copied the photo.

Dominantly · Dec 22, 2011

What are we talking about here? Are you asking if it would be cool for you to draw/ paint an image I took of a public place/sight/item?I wouldn't care, I mean if you have the skill to be able to transfer the intricacies of a good photograph to another hand drawn/ painted medium, then go for it.I would be interested to see how one would do with copying the dof.I would find it hard to believe there could be any recourse for a photographer who's had their photograph (let's say of a lake) copied by a painter. Unless they could check the exif on the painting to see when it was captured of course.

Josh66 · Dec 22, 2011

blackrose89 said:
O|||||||O said:

I think it would be a little unethical. Not sure if it would be legal or not...

Would that be considered a derivative work? Or just a 're-imagining' of an idea (you can't copyright an idea)?

Click to expand...

I mean directly copying a photo.

I know. I'm just not sure it that would meet the requirements to be called a derivative work... Trying to look it up now...

edit
OK, per Title 17 USC, Section 101 - I think it would be a derivative work. So, yeah - you better ask first. :lol:

KmH · Dec 22, 2011

Don't give up so easy. Keep looking over the web site.

Now go explore the Circulars, Brochures, and Factsheets.

Better yet, just go ahead and read all of USC 17. It's not all that long.

Ah, I see your edit... :thumbup:

rexbobcat · Dec 22, 2011

Dominantly said:
What are we talking about here? Are you asking if it would be cool for you to draw/ paint an image I took of a public place/sight/item?I wouldn't care, I mean if you have the skill to be able to transfer the intricacies of a good photograph to another hand drawn/ painted medium, then go for it.I would be interested to see how one would do with copying the dof.I would find it hard to believe there could be any recourse for a photographer who's had their photograph (let's say of a lake) copied by a painter. Unless they could check the exif on the painting to see when it was captured of course.

That's what I'm saying. I mean, if an artist has enough skill to effectively recreate a photo that I took, I highly doubt that they need a photo to copy from in the first place. And what if a photographer recreated the work of a painter? Would that be unethical as well?

So many questions.

Overread · Dec 22, 2011

Blackrose, in your example I don't think you've made a derivative work so much as used the photo for reference only. Using photos for reference is a big thing for many artists - though often they'll use multiple references and then draw out the vision they want to create using those references (for example to get proportions, details and textures correct).