| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/26/2010 09:53:54 PM · #26 |
As a painter myself, an easy rule to follow is:
If you paint from your own photograph, you're fine. The painting is yours to claim complete ownership and to sell.
If you paint from someone else's photograph, it's okay as practice. It is not yours to claim ownership and it is not yours to sell (or win contests with). That is, pure and simple, plagerism.
Try copying a Van Gogh and sell it. Or, for that matter, an Ansel Adams. I don't think so. |
|
|
|
12/26/2010 10:23:38 PM · #27 |
| Somehow I expected to see Godzilla, or villages on fire, in this thread. |
|
|
|
12/26/2010 10:43:06 PM · #28 |
âBe influenced by as many⦠artists as you can, but have the decency either to acknowledge the debt outright, or try to conceal it.â -Ezra Pound, 1918
|
|
|
|
12/27/2010 12:34:37 AM · #29 |
| As much as we disagree with the painter. I'm not sure she did anything legally wrong. What ever happened to the guy who made the "Hope" campaign posters of Obama? Did the photog ever win any damages for that? If not, we can grouse all we want about it, but the truth is something like this would be very hard to actually take any action against. |
|
|
|
12/27/2010 09:16:27 AM · #30 |
your probably right, there isn't much chance of changing anything legally especially for a painting contest in Toronto, however this is all over flickr DPchallenge and other forums. This in its own form is a warning to anybody that, plagerism and artists rights are guarded even unofficially and any immoral or unkind acts will not be tolerated when it comes to peoples hard work.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2010 11:56:38 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Lightfast:
This in its own form is a warning to anybody that, plagerism and artists rights are guarded even unofficially and any immoral or unkind acts will not be tolerated when it comes to peoples hard work. |
Well put, and especially interesting given the competition was for emerging artists. Disrespecting a chunk of the foundation of the community to which you aspire to join is not a good first step. |
|
|
|
12/27/2010 02:28:05 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As much as we disagree with the painter. I'm not sure she did anything legally wrong. What ever happened to the guy who made the "Hope" campaign posters of Obama? Did the photog ever win any damages for that? If not, we can grouse all we want about it, but the truth is something like this would be very hard to actually take any action against. |
I don't know about the poster case, but under US copyright law (*probably* very similar in Canada) the copyright covers "derivative" works as well as replicating the original. That said, infringement cases are hard to win in any case, and are probably not economically viable unless the work was previously registered so that statutory damages/fines apply.
There's a more detailed explanation in this thread: Registering your Copyright -- Why Should You? |
|
|
|
12/27/2010 05:10:30 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As much as we disagree with the painter. I'm not sure she did anything legally wrong. What ever happened to the guy who made the "Hope" campaign posters of Obama? Did the photog ever win any damages for that? If not, we can grouse all we want about it, but the truth is something like this would be very hard to actually take any action against. |
Actually, I'm very leery of enforcing copyright through legal means. The fact that she was embarrassed is probably enough. |
|
|
|
12/27/2010 09:44:23 PM · #34 |
| Okay...What if the photographer took pictures of the painting and sold little postcard versions of them? |
|
|
|
12/27/2010 09:53:06 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Okay...What if the photographer took pictures of the painting and sold little postcard versions of them? |
If someone takes a picture of an original painting and sells postcards of it without a license it is a clear violation of the copyright, which may be held by the artist or possibly the purchaser of the painting, depending on the terms of the sale. That's why stock agencies require that their submitters certify that they ownt he copyright to any image they upload, and refuse pictures containing elements known to be trademarked or protected by copyright -- see this list for some examples. |
|
|
|
12/27/2010 10:34:49 PM · #36 |
I was thinking he might take a blurry picture of it.
Message edited by author 2010-12-27 22:35:11. |
|
|
|
12/27/2010 10:38:44 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I was thinking he might take a blurry picture of it. |
...he would be well within his rights if he digitized a copy of his own image and sold it.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/27/2010 10:49:38 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I was thinking he might take a blurry picture of it. |
He might be able to make a single or limited edition "fine art print" and sell it, if placed into some context (think Warhol's soup can paintings) as opposed to a straight reproduction, but would still not be able to use it for bulk reproduction such as cards or calendars. |
|
|
|
12/27/2010 10:53:53 PM · #39 |
| No, no. I mean he might do to her painting what her painting did to his photo. I think it is called ravishing. |
|
|
|
12/28/2010 05:05:06 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I was thinking he might take a blurry picture of it. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
He might be able to make a single or limited edition "fine art print" and sell it, if placed into some context (think Warhol's soup can paintings) as opposed to a straight reproduction, but would still not be able to use it for bulk reproduction such as cards or calendars. |
Somehow, I doubt very seriously she'd have a leg to stand on if she went after him.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2010 07:28:39 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by tnun:
No, no. I mean he might do to her painting what her painting did to his photo. I think it is called ravishing. |
It's a ravishing thought darling. |
|
|
|
12/28/2010 05:24:48 PM · #42 |
|
|
|
12/28/2010 07:47:40 PM · #43 |
"Artists, by definition innocent, donât steal. But they do borrow without giving back."
--Ned Rorem
|
|
|
|
12/28/2010 10:42:25 PM · #44 |
âIâm sorry if I offended somebody â that wasnât my intention. I spent hours painting this painting.â
Hours? That's it? Oh now it's ok ... Since you spent hours on it ! Lol! Paintings take days, months, years ... No wonder ppl are ticked off - she's obviously in over her head. I almost feel sorry for her - except she won all that money for pretty much breaking the biggest rule in art.
Message edited by author 2010-12-29 09:41:06. |
|
|
|
12/29/2010 01:33:56 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Mick:
"Artists, by definition innocent, donât steal. But they do borrow without giving back."
--Ned Rorem |
Plagiarize,
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize...
Only be sure always to call it please, "research".
-Tom Lehrer, Lobachevsky (c. 1953) |
|
|
|
12/29/2010 03:15:18 AM · #46 |
| Maybe the photographer can flood the market in Toronto with postcards of his shot. I'm sure they would sell well - and he wouldn't have to acknowledge anybody except himself. One way of quietly making a point and also making some money. |
|
|
|
12/29/2010 02:04:50 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Okay...What if the photographer took pictures of the painting and sold little postcard versions of them? |
|
|
|
|
12/29/2010 03:19:41 PM · #48 |
What would happen if it was the other way around? What if a photographer where to use a painting as inspiration, and try to copy recreate it exactly? It would be considered a brilliant idea, and a work of art. Just ask Rainer Elstermann.
Old Masters Series - Rainer Elstermann
|
|
|
|
12/29/2010 03:28:11 PM · #49 |
|
|
|
12/29/2010 03:28:32 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
What would happen if it was the other way around? What if a photographer where to use a painting as inspiration, and try to copy recreate it exactly? It would be considered a brilliant idea, and a work of art. Just ask Rainer Elstermann.
Old Masters Series - Rainer Elstermann
|
copyright concerns are the same. most if not all of those artworks are public domain. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 01:32:40 AM EDT.
