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

[Josh66]

The part you skipped over was the title of that paragraph that you quoted:

"How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?"

When did she say she wanted to claim copyright on the drawings?

I didn't skip over it. Only the original copyright holder can authorize a duplicate of their work, regardless of the medium used. It doesn't matter whether it is a painter, a sculpter, or a photographer.

You can't reproduce other people's work.

The whole paragraph you quoted was about claiming copyright on someone else's work, which the OP is not trying to do - so it doesn't apply.

Show me a link to the title & section of the USC that backs up what you're saying.

 

[Kerbouchard]

The world just isn't that black and white:

Docket No.

And if you want to battle appropriate sources, this can actually be used in court as a primary source if it's pertaining.

Your example regards Collages, which many interpret to be a transformative art and fair use. We aren't talking about collages. We are talking about somebody painting a photo.

In any case, a collage, by definition, incorporates a very small piece into a larger whole. It is transformative.

Although, I disagree with the premise, and think that the artist should create the work on his own, the 'artist' in your link clearly took an existing work and transformed it into something completely different.

Painting a photograph is a completely different scenario.

Hmm. Maybe. I would say that a drawing of a photograph is intrinsically transformative while a photograph of a painting is not - though that isn't legally proven, afaik. But that does not mean that anyone has any right to any image so long as it's drawn, either.

Here is an article from the J. of Intellectual Property

http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1346&context=fac_artchop&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dfolsom v. marsh%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26ved%3D0CDMQFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.law.uga.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1346%26context%3Dfac_artchop%26ei%3DCDD0TsraKILE2wW0x7G7Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNFvBxYuled1KhQi64OYddM4_AjbBw%26sig2%3DP7B89n897xtjI60RdvyrMw#search="folsom v. marsh"

Though I have not yet read it, it deals with a significant case law that formed the 1976 copyright act, and the transformative theory. At least that is what wikipedia sez.

And now we get to the crux of the matter. The fact is, the statutes are ill-defined. Whereas we used to be a society who knew what was legal and what was not, we are now encouraged, or demanded, to turn to attorneys. This stuff didn't used to be that complicated. Now it is.

In any case, I can think of several examples where a painter reproduced a photograph and got sued and lost. I can also think of several cases where a painter produced a similar image as a photograph and won.

I still refer back to my Cliff's Notes. Yes, you can get sued. Yes, you might win. Also, you may lose. It all depends on the circumstances and your attorney.

When the freaking copyright office can't publish a cut and dried explanation on what constitutes fair use, but instead has to include things like, 'you should probably get permission', or 'you should consult legal advice' or 'the legislation is not clear', you should probably be a bit concerned about reproducing other people's work.

 

[unpopular]

You can't reproduce other people's work.

Unless it is within fair use.

---

To tell you the truth, I'd *love* to see a scumbag, self important photographer try to sue a student who used a properly cited photograph as a study. And I'd love to see that photographer get counter sued.

 

[Kerbouchard]

You can't reproduce other people's work.

Unless it is within fair use.

And not under copyright, which usually expires several decades after the original creators's death.

This is actually a pretty decent article that fully explains this...
Artist's Copyright FAQ -- May You Make a Painting of a Photograph

I'll source something more official if needed. It's a bit late.

 

[Josh66]

Well guys, I would love to continue this debate, but I'm out of beer and it's too late to go buy more... I'm going to bed, lol.

Good night, and try not to get the thread locked by morning.

 

[unpopular]

Again. That is dealing with commercial works, not academic studies. So no.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Again. That is dealing with commercial works, not academic studies. So no.

I've listed several links that have said the only person who is eligible to authorize a new version of their work in a different medium is the original copyright holder.

You don't seem to accept that, even though it is from .gov sources.

So, instead, how about you show me an official link that says somebody can reproduce a copyrighted work in a different medium without permission from the copyright holder...

You won't find it. You will find that they can produce a small portion of the copyrighted work. You can find that they can use it in editorial purposes. You can find that it can be used in news. You will find that a small portion can be used as a teaching tool.

What you won't find is that a copyrighted work can be reproduced via a different medium and that it is okay. If you could find something like that, we wouldn't be on post 67.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Oh, and since 'findllaw' was described as a reputable source by somebody who was disagreeing with me(unpopular), I'll source this, also.
From Find Law...

Copyright Law

A copyright owner has five exclusive rights in the copyrighted work:
Reproduction Right. The reproduction right is the right to copy, duplicate, transcribe, or imitate the work in fixed form.

Modification Right. The modification right (also known as the derivative works right) is the right to modify the work to create a new work. A new work that is based on a preexisting work is known as a "derivative work."

Notice it says the copyright holder has the 'exclusive right'...

Every bit of law that I can find in the U.S. says somebody can't, legally, duplicate a whole, copyrighted work, regardless of medium, for the intents of creating art work. Again, I've provided the references, the links, etc. Heck, I've even used the references that were spouted as being contradictory to my posts.

What more do you want?

 

[bentcountershaft]

When I was in high school, either freshman or sophmore year, we had an art project to duplicate a photograph using pencil and the grid system. I used a portrait of Alex Lifeson from the liner notes of the Rush album "Presto" that was taken by Andrew MacNaughton. I'm sorry. Please don't hate me.

 

[L8ZRD]

Here's how I see it...

Those who do, do that probably aren't the best artists yet and you don't have much to worry about.

The artists you should worry about probably know what they're doing and use free stock image sites.

 

[Canuk]

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.

Personally, I wouldn't have problem with it. Legally it seems there are both arguments for both sides of the issue.
I don't consider myself an arteest, but would rather consider it flattering to have someone think that one of my photos inspired them to take it to a different medium. Being cited could possibly lead to more interest in my work from other sources.
I honestly think a lot of people, are way too full of themselves and need to get over it. Your original question was very straight forward, and didn't ask for legalities, but some people just like to fight.
Just a thought.

 

[ghache]

Ive seen this very often, Painters, giving courses and using magazines and pictures and have the students paint it to practice.

 

[MLeeK]

Instead of this incredible debate just CYA. If you are going to draw a photograph in it's entirety just ask. If you are going to use it for pieces and parts of a totally different work? Then I'd say you are fine.
For the drawing I did of Dex-I'd consider it a copy of his work and I'd have to ask permission. If I took his eyes and put them into something totally different? Then it's not a reproduction of his photo.

 

[DiskoJoe]

if its not being sold then i doubt it would cause real issues. But I have seen this happen where painters actually do use photographs that are copyrighted to use as the base for their own work. This can be a legal and ethical issue and not to mention just kind of a jerk move.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Even if you separate the legal aspect from the moral aspect, you are still violating somebody else's rights to their intellectual property, which is, IMO, immoral. The person who created the work should have the sole right to determine how, who, and in what medium their work is reproduced.

In any case, you end up with the same answer. It is illegal and it is immoral.

The OP is asking us whether we think it is okay for somebody to blatantly copy somebody else's intellectual work and to post it for their portfolio without permission from the person who actually created the original work to start with.

I can't imagine why anybody would morally, or legally, think that sort of activity is okay.