Would you paint this without asking?
Many artists, particularly illustrators, will use just about anything as “reference” and “inspiration” for their paintings, including photographs. And most of the time, no-one will ever know just what photo or photos were used as a “reference” for a painting. If you think about it, whether they know it or not, artists use everything they see as reference. It’s called “experiencing life & re-creating it.” Just as writers (like myself) write what they know, so do artists with their paintbrush.
But then there’s that bold artist who paints EXACTLY (without re-creating) what he sees from a photographers’ copyright-protected photo. Is this illegal? Is it unethical? Is it just plain plagarism?
If you asked the photographer, he would most likely feel ripped off, as he may have put his life on the line to get that photo, or swam with sharks, or jumped out of an airplane, or put in years of blood sweat & tears into his craft, just to have someone copy his hard work onto canvas.
If an artist wishes to duplicate a photographer’s (c) image EXACTLY AS IT IS (without altering it in any way) they should first contact that photographer for permission and credit the photographer somewhere on their materials, website, anything connected with that painting. This is the right thing to do, it’s fair, and ethical. Anything else is, well, stealing.
There are many hotly debated blog posts on this very subject. Here’s a good debate to review on Art News Blog.On a slightly different topic: There’s a HEATED debate involving the famed photo of Obama that was re-created by artist Shepard Fairy. Apparently, the Associated Press (AP) claimed rights to the original photo that Fairy used for this artpiece. Then, in soap-opera fashion, the story took another turn when the actual PHOTOGRAPHER came out (Mannie Garcia) and claimed that HE owns the rights to the photograph. There’s a lot of money involved here, and many heated opinions. You can read some of the dribble here and also here. If you want to know what Shepard Fairy himself thinks of all this, click here.
What do you think? Should an artist get permission before copying a photo that was taken by someone else? Should art be freely shared and everyone love each other? Or is it plagarism? Give your comments below – let us know what you fine people think!
Maria “Spunk” Brophy xxoo
(Follow me on Twitter!)
Check out my other Art, Lifestyle, Inspiration Blog here.
Did you like this article? Did it make you think, laugh, or angry? Please, Share it with others!
Related posts:
About Maria Brophy
I’ve been trying for a year to get permission from news photos and celebrity photos to paint paintings from the pictures. I have not received a single yes. I don’t even get a responce. They don’t want to be bothered. I’m a realist painter and just want to paint beautiful people or very important news photos like some from the Haiti Earthquake. I’m frustrated about all of this. I even wrote the white house asking to do a paining of the family or any member of the family or anything for the country that they felt might be important. I didn’t even want money and told them so. I just wanted to do something important so it would be in my art background. Very frustrating. Art by Peni Baker
Hey Matt, great question. If in doubt, get permission from the photographer or artist before using their image. However, if you are just using it as inspiration but creating something new of your own, than that’s okay. Artists get inspiration from everything they see. What you have to be careful not to do is take someone’s photo and closely reproduce it without asking first.
Hi guys, I’m very intrigued by all your comments. I paint t-shirts and occasionally use a pic off the net as a guide, I try to find a copyright-free image as much as possible but sometimes it’s too hard to find the right one. Now my work looks nothing like the original image in all cases. Would you conider this a breach of copyright? I look forwarf to your comments.
I feel that copying the work of someone else (photography or other media), and passing it off as your own is both plagiarism and copyright infringement. As for work like Andy Warhol, it falls into the realm of commentary, such as when parody reflects the media. There is a difference between a counterfeiter profiting from pretending to be the original artist and Warhol making social commentary.
I draw from life these days because it dawned on me that copying from photographs makes one a weak artist. A copyist. I would equate it to riding the Tin Lizzies at Disneyland and considering yourself an excellent driver because the center rail kept you from driving off the pathway.
I have had my paintings copied completly. For example, I go to a surf shop on PCH by Topanga. There on the wall are three oil paint copies of three pieces of artwork that were published in Surfer mag. when I worked for Hawaiian Surf. They were framed, my name replaced by the painters name and for sale for $300.00 each. well, I asked the owner and he gave me the persons phone number. So I called and a sweet little girls voice answered, and she replied to my question, if she was the artist, yes she says. Oh, I just love your paintings, and I want to be an artist, so I copied them, also I needed some money, and I didn’t think you would care. What could I say? Go ahead darlin, and good luck.
However, other than that, copieing photos and saying that they are your own art from your own imagination, is just plain stupid. No one will care, because art is a combination of craft, and imagination, niether of which are there. But, I’d do it for enough money, so, again, what can I say?
I am wondering how you feel about an artist using part of another artists work that is copyrighted? Is this also stealing? What if it is OBVIOUS that they “took” if from another source. But the rest of the picture is different. What do you think?
maybe I am not understanding, but what about that picture(the art re creation) says that it was a direct modification of this supposed original photograph. I think it is possible someone else(that has the chance) could have taken this photo. Not just Mannie Garcia. As soon as the photo is modified (transfered to paper), and is not a photograph anymore it is not in any way owned by anyone but the artist who created it. Unless Shepard Fairy says that he directly used Mannie Garcia’s photo as a template……or someone witnessed this, this is a futile arguement.
I am a batik artist, and work from my own photos and/or do research then sketch it all out. I was once contacted by a mother of a local pro surfer who insisted that the piece in question was her son, and how much money had I been paid for the mass production. It was not him nor did I receive any money for the use of my artwork. I had won a local phone book contest, and my artwork had been chosen for the cover. Needless to say she had called looking for money. I however was flattered that she was so insistant that it was her kid. But upset that she just tracked me down to just ask for money. That… made me sick.
More recently I was inspired by a book/movie/soundtrack and used the profile/stance in a batik. But changed it to express my views. I still find inspiration each and everytime I read/watch/listen to the work that inspired me. Thought of sending it to the singer to do with what he wished… auction it off for charity or something.
As for my view on this topic, I think an “exact copy” is cheating, contact the photographer. If you change it more than 10%, and put your own spin on it…then they shouldn’t have a huge issue. Artists, myself included, are INSPIRED BY EVERYTHING around them… some “egos” should lighten up.
Everyone has an opinion. A photographer is an artist in his own right however someone who has the talent to “copy exactly” as you put it is simply practicing a style of art which is taught at every art school called Realism.
Wikipedia defines Realism in the visual arts as the depiction of subjects as they appear in everyday life, without embellishment or interpretation.
I do not have a problem with an artists who employs this style, I even think many photographers would not have a problem with this for it is a form of flattery. However if they choose to paint a picture that is copyright protected and mass produce it, money changes everything. I think what it boils down to is that people are greedy and want money. If the item is mass produced like Shepard Fairy and money is rolling in, that creates a lot of attention. Contact should be made and permission granted before the production.
The law allows artists to use copyrighted pictures if they alter it by 10%. Once altered it becomes the artists creation.
Here’s an example: You get a commission to paint a beach scene of your client’s favorite beach spot in Barbados. You look through a travel magazine and find a great photo of the spot. You paint it, exactly as you see it, on canvas and sign your name to it. Then you decide to sell prints of it. All the while, you never thought to contact the photographer, who owns the copyright to the photo.
This is what I’m talking about. It happens a lot, believe it or not!
I am a little confused are you saying they print the exact same picture and reproduce it in water color somthing like that? Do you have examples of which artists? I would like a better idea of what you mean before I sound off on this debate.
It’s funny – when I first wrote this article, it didn’t include anything about Shepard Fairy. It wasn’t about him at all – I included the debate on Shepard Fairy as an afterthought.
This article is about artists taking a photograph and copying it, on canvas, EXACTLY as it is in the photograph. Something that Shepard Fairy, to my knowledge, does not do.
After being reamed by many Shepard Fairy fans (I am a fan, too), I want to be on record as saying that I don’t feel that Shepard’s appropriation of imagery and what he does falls under “stealing” photos.
It’s the artist that takes a photograph then duplicates it EXACTLY AS IT IS, calls it his own, and sells it, that I’m addressing here.
I’m amazed at how passionate people are over this debate! I had no idea it would spark so many opinions. But I’m glad it did.
shepard’s appropriation of imagery found in the public domain is vital to his output as an artist. anyone with even a cursory sense of his work should understand this. i think of his work as being cyclical, like a revolving door: he finds his icononography in the world around him; takes it home and reworks it; then releases it back into the world as a poster, sticker, t-shirt etc. for me, he’s a very public and democratic (read: sharing) artist. comparisons to warhol are fair enough since shepard’s working directly from a POP tradition. his method is not new; duchamp, rauschenberg, lichtenstein, johns etc have all thoroughly covered this terrain decades ago. it surprises me that as a society we fail to acknowledge shepard’s work as being his own, no one else’s.
All Obey Giant.
Shepard image captures something the photo does not. And does it matter, it is Obamas face not the photographers. It has been an interesting debate, where would we be without the overload of photos and video? Some artists like Shepard and Warhol are able to see through the chaos and strip things down to its basic form, I think people need that, otherwise they might miss the most important parts. No one would have noticed the photo until Shepard got a hold of it and made it his, it made people stop and look at it. Shepard the Photographer and Obama should be stoked, after all it took all three of them to make that iconic image at the right moment of time. I love Shepards work, I hope to meet him one day.
Haha, i made that image on my board to. for me it was my first paint just practice. at one side i think that if you make money out of it its illigal but on the other side it is far more popular as an artwork and the artist deserves some credit. i dont know wat to think, i know that i wouldn’t be happy if i was the photographer.
Any artist who creates an artistic rendering of a photographic image should first get permission of the original creator (photographer) and if there’s an intention to then re-package, sell or profit off of the newly created piece, should work out a compensatory package with the original creator. There are copyright and intellectual property laws in place for a reason and even they are not strong enough at this point. By law, I believe that you only have to change an original piece of art by 10% to make it your own. So, there is the law and then there is also the right thing to do. How would you feel if someone took your art, changed slightly and profited off of the new “art”?
I believe that if you put yourself in either person’s position that you have to understand, at least a little, why they feel the way they do!
With that being said I also believe that the painter did consciously use another person’s artistic product, which has already been in the public eye and has received recognition, to create the painting. Therefore, the painting, though it may have the painters influence and style incorporated into it, is still not an original piece of art and calling it his own is a travesty that he himself should know, deep inside.
My opinion is that the painter should have gotten permission from the photographer or rightful owner of the picture before circulating prints or selling the original. How would the painter feel if a photographer took pictures of a painting he had done and started selling the prints as his own? The more I write of this the more I am convincing myself that the photographer owns the artistic right to the image.
One good example of “appropriated art” is Andy Warhol.
Sometimes you need a good photo reference, but if youre just going to copy it, then save the time and effort and just use the photo.
I agree that Art is the Artists perception of his/her life, times and beliefs.
Let me say first that I am not an artist in any form of the word…this is only my opinion on the matter. I feel that the artists rendition of the image is their own art and as such is unique. Take the Campbell Soup cans that Warhol did. Some artist created those original designs but Warhol put his own spin on the image. As he did with images of Marilyn M and others, quite famously too.
We have become a litigious society where everyone is looking for the easy route to fame and fortune. Shepard took and image and made it his own using his unique style to do so. The photographer used their medium(photography) to create the image and were happy with it. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down. It’s art in one form or another.