O/T ART question for everyone. Right VS Wrong

Im curious what you think, know or feel about this question.

Lets say Im surfin the HAMB (or any website), I find a picture of a really cool car I like. Someone took this picture with a camera, posted it on the internet for all to see.

Can I copy/paste it, and use it as a guide to hand paint on canvas an exact replica?? Or even trace it on paper to create a line drawing or some other form of art that exactly matches the original picture down to the numbers on the window or whatever details make it unique?

On one hand I can see where he was the person that took that pic. And he owns that original pic for sure. If he hadnt been there, and didnt take the shot, I would of never seen it.

However, Im not selling his picture, Im selling my own artwork that looks very simular, or even identical. Since he put it on the net for the world to see, I see that as sharing, and I believe I own that artwork I've created from that, whether its acrylic on canvas or any other medium.

I know I cant print out a copy of that picture and sell it, and he cant run prints of my canvas and sell it. But what about this?

Your thoughts and comments are appreciated, thanks

 

You should take your own photos to paint from then it would be yours not ours.

 

What if its vintage photos, things I wouldnt beable to capture?

 

You would probably need to research and contact if at all possible-

Gone are the days when doing something like what you are talking about was considered an honor

 

If you paint it, it's yours. If someone builds a car, can another take a picture of it? What's the difference?

 

I have seen this discussed either here or somewhere else before. the person who took the photo owns the image and you can not legally do art from it and sell it.

with that being said, unless you are drawing/painting the complete picture in cluding background and such there is reallly not a good way to tell if it is from thier picture or not.

I stole a picture of a 34 ford right out of the centerspread of Street Rodder.. no background, just the car. if I were to sell prints of that there would be no way the original photographer could tell it was from his picture

 

If you are trying to clone a car to pay homage to it I would say you are okay. To use the picture in any way to make a profit no.

 

hmmm... if it's recent, I've tried to contact both the photographer and car owner.

If it's vintage, legally I think over 7 years, it's public domain... I think.

It's always nice to gain permission, but not always possible. Besides, look how many posers cash in on things that try to look like "Big Daddy's" stuff, and "Von Dutch" stuff - that's what gets to me. Using somebody elses carshow snapshot as a guide for a painting really don't ruffle too many feathers I don't think... I may be wrong.

Let's see.

 

Ok cool, and Ive done that before as well, alter the colors, have it face the other way, change backgrounds.
Mac the yankee, youre right. I guess I never thought of it that way, but since I like the pic so much that Id paint it, it would be a form of honor.

 

Exactly, LETS SEE!! Im very curious as to what EVERYONE thinks. Im sure everyone has an opinion on this

 

the difference is that a car does not have a copyright on it in most cases.... maybe something like Gary Meadors 32 sedan or Cadzilla would, but for us regular people it's just a car.

the picture is a copyrighted image and can't legally be used by others

 

It’s very risky from a legal point of view. If you copy another persons photo outright w/out written permission from photographer you are clearly violating their copyright. Any piece of art that is created is automatically copyrighted to that creator at the moment of its creation, weather they register it w/the Library of Congress or not. But they can’t collect monetary damages if the don’t register it. But they can make you "cease and desist" use it even if they don’t. If it's an old photo it might be public domain… but how do you research that? The "Next of Kin" or some that legally purchased the copyright could still come out of the woodwork any time.

Taking your own photos & working from them is legally the least risky. But you might be surprised, if you ask first you just might get written permission, with little or no prob.

 

I sell my photography and if you copied it and sold it I would not consider it an honor. I would consider it copyright infringement.

 

Look at Tim Frederick art, who is my favorite and i own some of his art. All his car paintings are from someones pics i would think.

 

Tell a lawyer that you painted it first, and that the photograph is an unlicensed copy. Then file a cease and desist order. You can't have people running amock taking pictures of things other people painted.

 

tricky question. not only about the photograph but the car owner too.

most people wouldn't care either way, but perhaps you should ask - or try to ask at least. but you're taking a risk that they come back later and take back their verbal permission?

the only two real answers i can see is that you draw your cars from your mind, not a photo. take parts of cars you like and make a unique picture.

..or take your own photos. I remember once seeing the original photos that Tom Fritz stages to start his art from.

 

It is illegal. It's not a matter of opinion.

 

I find that any photo that is remarkable enough to catch your eye and inspire you to copy it, probably also caught the eye of others. Thus,"Hey, that drawing looks just like that photo in last month's R&C." It is so easily avoided by using your own reference, or different sources pieced together. But you have to know how to change angles and adjust perspective, so you don't get the "Seven old cars at an abandoned gas station that have all different pespectives" effect. lots of times mag photos are fisheyed a little, so they wont look good in a wider shot.
I use referance to check details, get colors of paint right, etc. but I almost always redraw the car at the angle I want it. Part of the joy of art is that you are creating something you haven't seen before, even if it's a combination of known things. If in doubt, just change enough things to make it different enough that the original photographer wouldn't be miffed.

 

I don't believe you would have any trouble if you are producing a sketch or painting from a photo as long as you leave no doubt where your inspiration came from. Art is after all an interpretation of reality. In this case the reality is a photo. It is much the same as writing a book and including exerpts from another publcation. Footnotes will set you free of the plagarism label. "My painting inspired by a photo of John Doe's ride". No problem.

 

I use pictures for references and ideas all the time. I was actually encouraged to do this in art school. I see nothing wrong with taking ideas from photos and creating your own art. The only exception may be if it is the EXACT photograph that you are illustrating. Then I would look for permission.

My .02

 

I've been in the ad business for 30 years. We are always running into issues on this. Strictly legals: ownership of an image created via photography (or any artistic method) is retained by the photographer (or artist) unless specifically transfered by permission and by specific uses (for one time, for all time, for certain uses, etc.). Used to be, guys were flatered by using their cars in ads - now they want free parts or just don't like to commercialize their cars (I can understand that).

Plus, even the photographer does not have the rights to sell an image of another person, private property or art created by another person (sculpture, buildings, movie stills, or a guy's custom car). If you read the registration fine-print on most shows and events, the enterant forfits the rights to images of his car while at the event to the promoters.

Hell, Ford and GM are even busting t-shirt artists for using "trademarked design imagery" of their cars on for-sale shirts!!

It all comes down to money. Half the guys on this site "borrow" images from each other and some use images from professionals photographers who post on here. But they're not selling them (I hope).

There have been many "reuse" lawsuits where the judgement was, "could a reasonable person determine that the artist (copier) made a financial gain from the works of another (the source photographer or artist).

To the guy that said change it up so the photographer can't tell - If the photo is a money maker or is licensed by a publisher or "stock photo house", they'll figure it out, trust me on that.

When you see artist like Yongblood or Fritz selling historical or re-enactment paintings you can be sure they have an agreement with the owners of those cars or their heirs.

Now, all that said, a generic painting of '29 roadster on the salt without numbers or names is from your own imagination even if you might use "reference" photos. And when you become rich and famous, some ass will sue you because he's sure that '29 was his and you owe him money :- /

Oh, and good luck!

 

That is freakin funny

 

Painting captures the soul, not photography as once believed.

Flatman

 

Take your avatar for instance - do you owe anyone for that? Not trying to be a smartass, but everyone knows that bird, and what company has it for a logo - or has it been "changed" enough not to matter?

 

It's like anything else in this life:
it depends on who you are,who likes you,and who doesn't like you.

If you stand to gain off someone else's labor,
you might be considered smart,or a thief.

 

It's a hard call, I think most of us amature photographers would be highly honored of someone asked to use one of our photos then again the pros in the bunch may feel that their work and livelyhood is being infringed upon.
I also believe that 95% of the HAMB membership is honored to see a photo of their car, truck, bike or project in the forum or in a magazine when someone else took the photo. Most of us pick up a magazine with coverage of an event we attended with the hope that our rig was picked for at least one shot in the coverage.
Now, I do realize and have witnessed a few of those who feel that they should be paid for images of their vehicle to be in a magazine and expect you to beg permission to take a photo of said vehicle when it is on display. They usually pack up their gold chains and Rolex and go on to some other venue after a season or two of showing their designer built car and paying the expenses of their "support crew".

 

The law in this area is really mirky. A person doesn't need to express a claim to copyright in order to have a copyright of their work. That said, if you post a picture on the web, a kind of unwritten law says that you are making it available to anyone to copy or use as they desire. The photographer could ask you to stop using their image, but they'd be hard pressed to force you to stop using it, legally.

Printing the picture and selling it is much different from drawing it or painting it. In that case, the photographer can claim no ownership of an image that someone else has reinterpreted through drawing or painting, etc. Painters have been doing this since the invention of photography.

Sure, the owner of the car may be pissed when an unauthorized person takes a picture of their car or creates a drawing of it and then profits from that image, but the car owner has no legal claim to the image either. This is exactly what celebrities have been fighting about in regards to photographers taking their photos (without their consent and earning a profit from those images). The celebrities don't like it, but once they step out into the public sphere (or the car owner drives onto a public highway) the image of that person/ car becomes public property.

 

Cut through all the bullshit:

What if someone shot a picture of your painting and sold full-scale prints of it without your knowledge?

 

I've created a few paintings with references from photographs that were not mine. I ended up changing, adding, or omitting a few things and made it my own. There should be no problem doing that or selling the original painting. However, there may be a problem if you want to make and sell prints. For that, you really should use your own photos just in case. Cooter does have a point, though. Famous painters have reinterpreted other's works in the past