O/T ART question for everyone. Right VS Wrong

I can tell you, but not specifically that art theft is so common as to be laughable. I can't tell you how many times I've used others work as a jumping off point for things I've done since I was 8 years old...like taking a pair of scissors to magazine ads and chopping/lowering, etc and regluing the Custom car on a new background....I see that kind of work here at our own art shows....
In addition, for years I've been able to identify what are touted as originals pieces of work, that given enough time, I could show you where the idea, or the now modified car came from....and this is from some of the well-known autoartists around....
There are some guys who are truly original, but I know you guys have all seen copied art...........
It's like plagarism in writing, except that most artists don't copy or recreate for resale................
It's almost like crying foul if Ford Motor Company sees a chopped Shoebox and says HEY!!! That's our car!!......
Artists ALWAYS get inspiration from other artists, or photographers, or whatever.....
You know the sick thoughts that enter your head when Carroll Shelby has another pissing match with somebody a million miles removed from the Original concept? It's ugly........
That's the long wayof saying....if you're the kind of chump who is purposely trying to claim the work of another is yours....then you have no conscience...on the other hand, anyone who knows art and is honest will admit that I drew that wheel that way because I saw it done like that ....there, and I like it!
How many photo angles and pinstriping ideas come from seeing the work of others? It's nearly impossible to seperate.......Sandpiper

 

I'll agree with ubermustang. I've taken pics from websites and even ebay and painted them. I haven't sold an original painting although I'd like to. Its usually for panel swaps or for myself. I found that pic of that beautiful '40 Chevy coupe I painted a while back. I changed a few things along with the color of the car. The guy on here from Gambino Customs kind of busted me when he said the car looked familiar. I thought I was screwed. I pm'ed him and told him where I got the pic. Come to find out it was a car they built. He wasn't PO'ed. He actually asked me if I wanted to sell it. But I couldn't because it was for a friend.
If I had gotten the pic from his website, I think I would have emailed him to make sure it was ok.
If I do make prints it might be 2-3 just for a keepsake. I don't think I would sell prints unless it was a photo I had taken myself. Then there is no worry.

Brian

 

This is too touchy to get into -too many feethers to be ruffled and shit slinged - but I think Guise Art brings up a damn good point.
If an artist references a photo to create their own original work of art, that seems a LOT more admirable, honorable, laudable, etc. than someone expecting high praise for their spot on copy of a rat fink or flying eyeball (which is typically SOLD or made for PROFIT!). I'm just saying.
If it's a vintage shot, I say go for it, but I'd try to let my OWN style show through somehwere in the subtle details (background maybe?)
Good luck - I'll be watching this one.

 

If in doubt. ASK.

 

Couldn't figure out how to kill this version, see below.

 

Hey Cooter, don't want to step on your toes, but the law ain't murky -
the observance of the laws is just inconsistant.

As to the "unwritten law"..Not true. Posting images is the same as
publishing images - all rights are retained by the artist. Period.
It's been upheld in courts many times.

The test on image use is journalism versis "marketing".
News organizations get away with it in the name of "news".
No use of any person's image or created property can be sold or
used for any promotional way without consent. No murk.

I just don't want to leave anyone the wrong info.
Painting a picture of Elvis for your garage is fine.
Selling that picture or useing it on a poster or t-shirt and
Priscilla's lawyers are on you.

I used a self-created image of Albert Einstein in a national
promotion years ago and had to recall thousands of brochures
because of a threat from the estate (heirs). Using someone's
photography, face or recognizable car (art) to profit is no different.

It sucks, but it is true. This is beyond the original question
I'm sure, but as a photographer and commercial artist, I
don't want to see my hard work stolen either.

 

Good point! I didn't really think about it at the time… Time to rethink my avatar.

I want to point out that when I do Roth related stuff that he gave me permission while he was alive, & I asked his wife after he died & it was still OK w/her.

 

I have done it before as well. i will try my hardest to locate the photographer and or the owner of the car to get permission. i try to take my own pictures as much as i can. some cars are just different and of different perspectives from the photographer. most people wont mind especially if you ask. getting inspired by something isnt a crime. and i guarantee you that you arent reinventing the wheel everything has mostly been done before. just my two cents. when in dought ask.

 

Are you in any way refering to the photos you have ask for in your earlier post?,,,HRP

 

What about the time it takes you to reproduce the photo as an "Art" image? Your selling price has to do a lot with your time and skill.

I create stuff using an image for reference. Whether I sketch it or illustrate it on the computer I always try to make it my own. I also take a lot of my own photos to use too. I also agree with guisart.

 

you can avoid a lot of trouble if you don't trace the photo in question. I consider that to be pretty weak art.. but that's just my opinion...

 

Seems like he gave a lot of people permission to do stuff.

I've lost track of the number of people
who told me that they were in his Will.

 

I do all my concept drawings from pics in magazines or the internet. I dont trace them,, there reference.. My drawings never match the background and what not, so I see it as "ok"... and if I did the background and all, and I was questioned about the reference.. I'd start in with the ol' "NO SHIT! I was there too, and took a picture in the same place.. in fact, I was waiting for you to move!"

Its a grey area.. legally,, I'm sure they could come after ya.. But thats where more people should resort to old fashion ass kickings.


Here is a good example of what your talking about..

I saw this picture in Open wheel magazine.. It was taken before I was born.



I did this drawing off of it.




The guy that took the picture is still alive.. Now, I never reproduced these. I did it ten years ago in college..

The problem with people pushing lawsuits like this is, it just opens the doors for others to take it further.. at what point does it stop?
What if you actually sat down at a car show and drew a car.. At this rate you would have to pay him for his representation of that paticular make of automobile.. Shoot me now!

Joshua Shaw

 

I've occasionally drawn pictures of others peoples cars, but never sold them.

I can only assume that some people might get pissed if I was making money from their car!! Also goes for photos I guess.... mightn't go down too well selling photos and profiting from someone else's car. Even if I take the shot, they've spent a lot of time and money building the car! It's not about owning colyright on the car, they own the car!!

On the other hand, if 25 people walk up to a car and take a similar shot.... they all post their pic on a forum or in an album somewhere on the internet, how are any of them going to prove which photo you've used to produce your art? I take as many of my own photos as I can, but I'm not heading overseas anytime soon so that would limit my scope for inspiration.

 

First off, I want to thank everyone for their input on this topic so far. I really value everyones thoughts and wisdom on the hamb.

Second, I dont directly trace or copy images for my artwork that will be sold. This is simply a question that a few friends of mine had been discussing and we wanted to hear your input.

Hotrodprimer, to answer your question, no. I have many files on my computer organized into various subjects for referance material. I use referance images to gain perspective on balance, paint, proportion and such. Files for all makes, years, tires, wheels, burnouts, motors, longroofs, coupes, etc.
I didnt have any good head on shots to gain balance of width, tire height, headlight location and so on.

This thread is just so I, and maybe some out there, can gain knowledge on what many have called a cloudy area.

Thanks

(corngrower, thats an excellent drawing!)

 

It is an ethical thing more than anything. Artwork has been appropriated for a long time now, appropriation is discussed quite a bit in the fine art world these days. It depends on what you are doing with it. Sherrie Levine takes photographs of photographs and puts her name on them. Mike and Doug Starn took photographs of Rembrandt paintings ripped them up and put them back together, finally putting their name on them. In my studies I have copied master paintings to learn from them but I never claimed they were mine and never sold them. In the end, if you arn't making some comment on the history of art or interested in the ambiguity of ownership/authorship and want to make a comment on it, painting directly from a photograph kind of takes the fun and creativity out of the work.

 

Plagiarism is a huge no-no in the art biz. How would you feel if someone was makin money off your ideas? The best thing to do is not to trace the subject but use your own skill and change it enough that it cannot ever be anything but your own creation. or buy the rights to that photo!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_(art)

 

I might suggest you order a copy of "The Graphic Artists Guild Handbook : Pricing & Ethical Guidelines" for all such questions.
Published consecutively for over 30 years, it is generally acknowledged as the best reference for such issues and has been cited in numerous court cases as it is up-to-date and reflective of current Federal Laws involving copyrights, artistic license, infringements and intellectual property rights. Not to mention it will educate you as to fair pricing, billing, collections, accounts payable and recievable etc...In short, it's like having your own legal and accounting reference all rolled into one book.

 

What Weez and Flying Solo said. Use it for reference and make your own composition. One other thing. IF it was to be used as part of the composition, say a photo stuck to a fridge in a shop or room within the composition of your painting, then I think you'd be cool. Another route is to setup your compositions in real life and take your own pictures.

 

I’ll live but… Your question got me thinking about, why did I just put my interpretation of the Thrush Muffler guy up as my Avatar without thinking about it… despite what I’ve learned about Copyright. I mean I really just did it without much thought. So I wrote a whole paper on it… but I’ll spare you all that! LOL

None of this is meant as an excuse, it’s some observations that I think are related. Because to me they are some of the reasons we’re having this discussion in the first place. Part of why I think all this stuff gets so confusing!

So what’s "Eye Bone" babbling about now?

What we do is a form of "Folk Art"… I mean the majority of the Artists I’ve met doing this stuff are self-taught. Not pushed toward academic influenced self-expressions like college trained artists can be (I’ve got nothing against that stuff). You don’t need to have a degree to get this art (Not necessarily a bad thing)! Like in folk music "Cover Songs" or the "Standard Blues Progression" A song is written and many Musicians "Cover it! In this "Kustom Kulture" art certain images come up over and over. And the thing is to do them in your own way. It’s like a "Cover Image" a language of commonly recognizable symbols. Symbols pulled from the common experience of being exposed to the same "Mass Media". That is really big in Tattoo Flash… How many different versions of "Man’s Ruin" have you seen? Who owns that image, which has become a commonly understood symbol? I did a version of it, and I put a Copyright on it… but in my mind I was only protecting my interpretation of it, and not trying to own the symbol it’s self. So when are these symbols a language for the many and not the property of one? Is the English language the property of Webster’s Dictionary Co.? Just think of all the music that wouldn’t exist if someone owned the "1, 4, 5, Standard Blues Progression"? I don’t have the answers?

 

He did! His second time around, Ed Roth encouraged Artist’s to draw "Rat Fink" etc. and build cars because he felt that kids might grow up doing that and not sit around taking drugs etc. (a long shot at best) It was part of his idea of how to fullfill his faith. It didn’t become an issue until he sold the rights to Rat Fink, and he was in an unrelated law suite. I worked freelance for him from 1990-1996 even though I'm not in any of the "Official" Roth history books. That's when he gave me permission.

 

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/

 

Please read all entries from Eyebone, Jonny-O, Weaverville...they make some very good points.

What did you want to do with the image/painting? One time sell...T-Shirts...Car Club Logo...Art Show..

It really comes down to you, do you feel that you are on the fringe of the law.
There is a law that allows a certain percentage that the orginal must be changed before it becomes yours. What that exact percentage is I have no idea(it may be in that Graphics Ethical Book), sorry.
If you can take both images, the one you painted and the reference photo, and put them together and from across the room can't tell them apart, you should contact the source. Let them discover the whole honor value. Pay your tribute and own a cool painting.

 

If I posted a pic of my cars, and somebody did a painting of it, I'd be flattered......If anybody asks.....tell 'em I said it's OK........