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

[blackrose89]

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.

This is true too. And what makes it such a grey area. How much do you have to copy a photo to infringe on copyright? Is just copying a model enough or do you have to copy the background, DOF and such.

 

[Derrel]

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

Well-put. I agree. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

[Josh66]

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

I found what I was looking for. The Copyright Office's website sucks. Their search is almost as good as ours.


(I deleted the post you were replying to because I thought it was soon enough that maybe nobody saw it, and since I found what I was looking for and added it to the post I made right after that.)

 

[Dominantly]

Can you copy dof?That would be awesome to truly nail it.

 

[Derrel]

HERE is a very good case that illustrates the idea of "Poses" being eligible for copyright protection...

starbulletin.com | News | /2006/11/03/

 

[photo guy]

As long as they don't sell them there really isn't much to be done about it as it technically isn't really a regular copy

 

[Josh66]

HERE is a very good case that illustrates the idea of "Poses" being eligible for copyright protection...

starbulletin.com | News | /2006/11/03/

What ever came about with that? At the time of the writing of the article, it had not been to court yet.

I think calling them "identical", which they do multiple times, is pretty far fetched...

 

[Kerbouchard]

As long as they don't sell them there really isn't much to be done about it as it technically isn't really a regular copy

Actually, in the U.S., just creating the work in the first place is illegal.

If you flip the coin, recently a photographer took a bunch of photos of paintings. He posted them on flickr with open rights to them. He got sued and taken to the cleaners.

Just the action of creating a derivative work without permission is copyright infringement and is actionable by the copyright holder. It has nothing to do with whether or not the derivative work is being sold or not.

Law aside, my personal feelings are that doing it for practice for one's own self fulfilment is fine. Displaying it as an 'example' of one's work is immoral. Either way, it's still illegal.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Can you copy dof?That would be awesome to truly nail it.

Sure, why not? I mean, yes you can draw blurry.

 

[unpopular]

It's certainly legal. Art students do it all the time. But I don't think that it fits well with contemporary ideas about art, and I don't think it would be very impressive if using them to apply for art school.

In an academic sense, I feel in today's world this is similar to plagiarism if the original isn't at least cited.

As for DOF:

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/photorealism-amazing-4.jpg?w=500&h=357

from the article

http://thechive.com/2011/12/15/these-photos-are-paintings-no-really-25-photos/

though I am not 100% sure why anyone would do this being that we have cameras. maybe it's an attention thing.

 

[Kerbouchard]

No, it certainly is not. Just because something is done every day does not make it legal. Creating a derivative work without permission is a copyright violation. Period.

It's certainly legal. Art students do it all the time. But I don't think that it fits well with contemporary ideas about art, and I don't think it would be very impressive if using them to apply for art school.

In an academic sense, I feel in today's world this is similar to plagiarism if the original isn't at least cited.

 

[unpopular]

I won't give you the cliffnotes version.

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

I am 100% certain that a few studies placed on a personal website with no implication of commercial use would constitute fair use especially if the model were cited and the work not claimed to be an original, and most CERTAINLY in classroom studies definitely do.

 

[unpopular]

However, since this case, courts have begun to emphasize the first fair use factor—assessing whether the alleged infringement has transformativeuse as described by the Hon. Judge Pierre N. Leval.[SUP][5][/SUP] More recently, Koons was involved in a similar case with commercial photographer Andrea Blanch,[SUP][6][/SUP] regarding his use of her photograph for a painting, whereby he appropriated a central portion of an advertisement she had been commissioned to shoot for a magazine. In this case, Koons won; the case sets a favourable precedent for appropriation art where the use is deemed transformative.

Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In United States copyright law, transformation is a possible justification that use of a copyrighted work may qualify as fair use, i.e., that a certain use of a work does not infringe its holder's copyright due to the public interest in the usage. Transformation is an important issue in deciding whether a use meets the first factor of the fair-use test, and is generally critical for determining whether a use is in fact fair, although no one factor is dispositive.
In United States patent law the term also refers to the test set in In re Bilski: that a patent-eligible invention must “transform a particular article into a different state or thing.”

Transformation (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd cite Blacks (as permitted under fair use) except that it's currently behind the xmas tree

 

[Kerbouchard]

I won't give you the cliffnotes version.

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

I am 100% certain that a few studies placed on a personal website with no implication of commercial use would constitute fair use especially if the model were cited and the work not claimed to be an original, and most CERTAINLY in classroom studies definitely do.

I don't need the Cliff's notes version. I've read it many times.

Duplicating an original copyrighted work is not fair use. The phrase for scholarship is ill-defined. Yes, you can project any copyrighted image to discuss it's value, it's merit, etc for educational or editorial use. That doesn't mean you can recreate your own copies of it and use it for self-promotion.

Regarding the teacher/student thing, it also specifically says, "reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a
lesson" is fair use. Not recreating the entire thing.

Furthermore, it also says, "Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission." which completly discounts the last sentence of your post.

This entire argument is nauseating and tiresome. The specific link that you reference says specifically that everything about that statute is open for interpretation. Heck, it specifically says, "The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined."

Not so great of an article by the U.S. Copyright Office regarding fair use. Even they don't know how to define it. It also goes on to say, "The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material."

The article and statute are basically worthless.

Here are the Cliff's Notes version of the article: "You can get sued. You may or may not win. Good luck and hope you have a good lawyer."

 

[Josh66]

I kind of agree with both of you, lol. For one, if you're going to cite something, Wikipedia is pretty much worthless considering that anybody can edit it. Cite the actual US Code.

I also agree that the Copyright Office is pretty worthless too. Their website also needs an overhaul.

LOL, I don't often agree with Kerbouchard - but I think his "cliff notes" sum it up pretty nicely.