"Original" Artwork...

Hazza

Hazza

Messages
2,089
Name
Harry
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

Bit of an odd one this, but as I was walking through the stalls at Flying Legends I noticed what I thought was one of my photos for sale, turns out someone has 'painted' it. I asked and he got very defensive about the originality of it until I showed him my photograph he's clearly used as 'inspiration'. Gave me a free print of it presumably to get me to sod off - Is there anything further I can pursue? It's clearly a rip off of my photo, and advertised for £1300! Prints at £60 each with a run of 50.

See pictures below.





Thanks,

Harry
 
Nothing odd at all, he stole your image and is now making large sums of money from it. small claims court for a share of the profits. it's not called copyright for nothing.
 
He has infringed your copyright by making a derivative 'artwork' for commercial gain.

AFAIK, not small claims........cannot recall but something like intellectual property court. There is more than one thread here at TP that covered such claims route. Did you take pictures of his stall and displayed prices, as records of the infringement IMO are always good!

Edit
I think may be it and it mentions "a small claims track" for that court process

https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/intellectual-property-enterprise-court

The linked page here has a donwnloadable guide to the process

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...erty-enterprise-court-a-guide-to-small-claims
 
Last edited:
He MAY now claim you accepted a limited edition print as payment? :(
 
gramps said:
Actually he accepted it as evidence ;)
Click to expand...

+1^^ to this for evidence of the derivative work infringement but as mentioned if the op has pictures of the stall with price ticket so much the better.

The question of and interpretation ("only used for inspiration guv....!') of derivative artwork does come up every so often but in the case above there is very little 'derivation', it is more like a copy.

I hope Harry can get it sorted to his satisfaction and the artist gets educated as a result of being taken to court!
 
@Hazza quick question? You found him out this time but though you say a print run of 50 are you talking limited edition prints or that the artist told you he had 50 off of it?

If the former, was he showing other type images and the latter likewise what else was he selling
??

Please do not post any links about him here because google will crawl the links and he will be able to see this discussion...... best keep him in the dark.

But I would welcome you PM'ing me the name and/or website address because I have aviation images out there and would like to check him out as your picture IMO is unlikely to be his only infringement :(
 
No chance. Yes he is a rip off merchant and a liar but he can easily claim he was at a show and drew a quick sketch, noting the colors and symbols writing etc.
 
GTG said:
No chance. Yes he is a rip off merchant and a liar but he can easily claim he was at a show and drew a quick sketch, noting the colors and symbols writing etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, he might claim "inspiration" but the similarities to the OP's image are striking to the point of being a copy!

A derivative work however it was inspired is still a derivative work and surely only a court can decide based on the legalities as appropriate and the Small Claims route in the IP court I think is not that high a cost.
 
Box Brownie said:
Yes, he might claim "inspiration" but the similarities to the OP's image are striking to the point of being a copy!

A derivative work however it was inspired is still a derivative work and surely only a court can decide based on the legalities as appropriate and the Small Claims route in the IP court I think is not that high a cost.
Click to expand...

But what if I go to madame tussauds and stand in front of a waxwork of the queen and take a photo of it and copyright mark it.

There is nothing stopping an artist standing behind me painting an accurate artwork that may well look near identical.

Then what about a group of paparazzi all in a tight cluster as they usually are. They all copyright near identical photos that are barely indistinguishable from one another because they were in the same place at the same time, photographing the same person doing the same pose.
 
GTG said:
But what if I go to madame tussauds and stand in front of a waxwork of the queen and take a photo of it and copyright mark it.

There is nothing stopping an artist standing behind me painting an accurate artwork that may well look near identical.

Then what about a group of paparazzi all in a tight cluster as they usually are. They all copyright near identical photos that are barely indistinguishable from one another because they were in the same place at the same time, photographing the same person doing the same pose.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense, you appear to have little idea about copyright; similar cases to your descriptions have occurred in the past, the courts are quite good at sorting them.

There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that the 'artist' would be believed, the idea that he cropped an identical image is laughable. Add to that, he already admitted it. Add the probability that he's also copied other photos, and a specialised court would be easily convinced of his breach.

Try this simple scenario.

Judge:
Where did you acquire the image you painted.
Artist:
I took a picture seconds after the photographer from exactly the same spot.
Judge:
Presumably you have the original image file with exif showing it was taken with your camera.

Or
Judge:
Where did you acquire the image you painted.
Artist:
I Made a sketch at the air show
Judge:
Thats remarkable, as the perspective on the photo is consistent with a telephoto lens of xxx focal length, which is different to that of the naked eye.

etc etc

Just for fun...
How do you think 'copyright' actually works?
 
Last edited:
GTG said:
But what if I go to madame tussauds and stand in front of a waxwork of the queen and take a photo of it and copyright mark it.

There is nothing stopping an artist standing behind me painting an accurate artwork that may well look near identical.

Then what about a group of paparazzi all in a tight cluster as they usually are. They all copyright near identical photos that are barely indistinguishable from one another because they were in the same place at the same time, photographing the same person doing the same pose.
Click to expand...

The devil is in the details
In the case of Tussaud's the waxworks AFAIK are copyrighted and though they may allow pictures (photography is often not allowed but if so is constrained by terms & conditions that you accept by default upon ticket purchase) or artists to draw them for personal use, you and the artist would be in breach of Tussaud's copyright should you try to make commercial gain! NB in both you and the artist ~ you have both created derivative works..........hence the breach on your part if you did so with the aim of commercial gain!

The paparazzi example is flawed because the intended usage has IMO nothing to do with the aspect of derivative works. All the togs in the scrum will be shooting for client news outlets.

The above is my understanding & opinion and I stand to be corrected.......please show me evidential links to show the copyright legal position as appropriate?
 
Last edited:
That is a shocking rip off of a very good photograph! £1300 for the original, and £60 for a print! Or have I got it wrong?

You really need proper legal advice here. There's no need to pay a solicitor at this stage. You can get very good free advice from

www.own-it.org

You register on the site and then have access to all sorts on-line advice. You can get one-to-one advice free of charge, and if necessary a face-to-face meeting with an advisor - possibly a intellectual property student (or somebody similar) for a very reasonable fee if you need it. Put this rip-off merchant in his place!
 
Hi All,

Thanks very much for all of your replies!

Yes, it did cross my mind that he could argue I had taken the print as 'payment', however I was working at the airshow and didn't have time to consider it properly at the time - It's still rolled up in it's tube as I type, and could serve as proof if he removes the painting from his collection.

I do have pictures of it as-advertised on the stall, along with screenshots from his website detailing the price for the original artwork and the print, should it be removed.

Also, you would not have been able to get that shot (or angle) without being airside and working with the aircraft operators, of which I'm one of only 3 or 4 photographers with this privilege - It's also a fairly unusual shot and something I've not seen from anyone else. I think what completely seals the deal is the pilots helmet and where he is looking, it is identical. I've laid my photo over the painting and there is no real difference!

I'm not sure that immediately taking him to court would be the best course of action, I may send an email and try and work something out amicably before burning bridges, but that is always a fall back!

Thanks again,

Harry
 
It's so close that a Google reverse image search with the 'painting' as input matches sites where you have posted the original photo.
 
Hazza said:
Hi All,

Thanks very much for all of your replies!

Yes, it did cross my mind that he could argue I had taken the print as 'payment', however I was working at the airshow and didn't have time to consider it properly at the time - It's still rolled up in it's tube as I type, and could serve as proof if he removes the painting from his collection.

I do have pictures of it as-advertised on the stall, along with screenshots from his website detailing the price for the original artwork and the print, should it be removed.

Also, you would not have been able to get that shot (or angle) without being airside and working with the aircraft operators, of which I'm one of only 3 or 4 photographers with this privilege - It's also a fairly unusual shot and something I've not seen from anyone else. I think what completely seals the deal is the pilots helmet and where he is looking, it is identical. I've laid my photo over the painting and there is no real difference!

I'm not sure that immediately taking him to court would be the best course of action, I may send an email and try and work something out amicably before burning bridges, but that is always a fall back!

Thanks again,

Harry
Click to expand...

Of course your choice to explore whether engaging with him could yield a mutually acceptable 'agreement' whereby he pays you appropriately for the privilege of using your image?

But if he is indeed a serial infringer what about other photographers that he might have infringed.......he needs educating as the rights & wrongs of derivative artwork. With the need to license the photographs he uses to create his paintings.

How would he like it if you photographed an original painting of his and creatively altered it for commercial gain! I surmise he would be far from impressed!!!
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Utter nonsense, you appear to have little idea about copyright; similar cases to your descriptions have occurred in the past, the courts are quite good at sorting them.

There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that the 'artist' would be believed, the idea that he cropped an identical image is laughable. Add to that, he already admitted it. Add the probability that he's also copied other photos, and a specialised court would be easily convinced of his breach.

Try this simple scenario.

Judge:
Where did you acquire the image you painted.
Artist:
I took a picture seconds after the photographer from exactly the same spot.
Judge:
Presumably you have the original image file with exif showing it was taken with your camera.

Or
Judge:
Where did you acquire the image you painted.
Artist:
I Made a sketch at the air show
Judge:
Thats remarkable, as the perspective on the photo is consistent with a telephoto lens of xxx focal length, which is different to that of the naked eye.

etc etc

Just for fun...
How do you think 'copyright' actually works?
Click to expand...

We will see what happens then. Lets see this artist get sorted by a British Judge.
 
GTG said:
We will see what happens then. Lets see this artist get sorted by a British Judge.
Click to expand...
You never answered my question about how copyright works; you did make a couple of odd statements earlier.
 
Phil V said:
You never answered my question about how copyright works; you did make a couple of odd statements earlier.
Click to expand...

Well I just looked this up properly and yes I was wrong.

However it we are being sharp with people then if you put a copyright mark on photos then you could at least look up the law about it yourself.
 
Court would always be a last resort but you need to know where you and he stand from a legal point of view. He's looking to massively benefit himself financially by copying your work. This is not a situation where a friendly chat might resolve things. You need the back up of legal advice before dealing from him again.
 
GTG said:
Well I just looked this up properly and yes I was wrong.

However it we are being sharp with people then if you put a copyright mark on photos then you could at least look up the law about it yourself.
Click to expand...
The OP appears to be well aware of the law and was asking advice on what was a reasonable course of action.

I'm in the camp of contacting some other photographers who's work has been appropriated by this artist, and then to start by asking for a reasonable cut from his sales.
 
GTG said:
Well I just looked this up properly and yes I was wrong.

However it we are being sharp with people then if you put a copyright mark on photos then you could at least look up the law about it yourself.
Click to expand...

This gets close to the heart of the problem - even photographers and professional artists either don't understand copyright, or think it's daft and ignore it. The general public have no idea, and when you explain it to them, they honestly think the law is ridiculous. It's often referred to as copyright 'theft' (technically wrong) but since the copyright holder hasn't actually 'lost' anything in 99% of cases (including this one) then what's the fuss about? Copyright laws are primarily to protect commercial and business interests, and that's what the courts focus on. It's not about indignant photographers.

This exact same thing happened to me, not one of my photos but by a staff photographer on a motorcycle magazine I worked on. It was a terrific shot of Carl Fogarty winning at Brands Hatch and the artist had copied every detail, including the faces of the cheering crowd behind that made a great backdrop. Then he went and advertised it in the magazine! He told me a pack of lies about how the image had been given to him by another photographer, but a) that didn't stand up to more than 10 seconds scrutiny, and b) our man was the only photographer in that position at the time. We could have hauled him through court, but what for? So, after a dressing down, I asked him for two signed and framed copies - one for the photographer and one for Carl Fogarty - and we'd call it settled.
 
Phil V said:
The OP appears to be well aware of the law and was asking advice on what was a reasonable course of action.

I'm in the camp of contacting some other photographers who's work has been appropriated by this artist, and then to start by asking for a reasonable cut from his sales.
Click to expand...

Presumably, to be charging that kind of fee for his work, he must be a fairly well known 'artist' in that scene. The matter in question is not merely financial, he should be made aware of the danger to his reputation, which long term could be worth far more. He really is in a corner and on the ropes. I had it once myself, a front cover photograph on The Field of the Eryri hunt, again because the artist had a strong reputation to try to protect, paid up a substantial sum to avoid the ignomy of going to court. Breach of copyrigt is also a criinal matter, it isn't a civil offence.
 
HoppyUK said:
This gets close to the heart of the problem - even photographers and professional artists either don't understand copyright, or think it's daft and ignore it. The general public have no idea, and when you explain it to them, they honestly think the law is ridiculous. It's often referred to as copyright 'theft' (technically wrong) but since the copyright holder hasn't actually 'lost' anything in 99% of cases (including this one) then what's the fuss about? Copyright laws are primarily to protect commercial and business interests, and that's what the courts focus on. It's not about indignant photographers.

This exact same thing happened to me, not one of my photos but by a staff photographer on a motorcycle magazine I worked on. It was a terrific shot of Carl Fogarty winning at Brands Hatch and the artist had copied every detail, including the faces of the cheering crowd behind that made a great backdrop. Then he went and advertised it in the magazine! He told me a pack of lies about how the image had been given to him by another photographer, but a) that didn't stand up to more than 10 seconds scrutiny, and b) our man was the only photographer in that position at the time. We could have hauled him through court, but what for? So, after a dressing down, I asked him for two signed and framed copies - one for the photographer and one for Carl Fogarty - and we'd call it settled.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't have been Mark Wernham at Brands would it?
 
Phil V said:
The OP appears to be well aware of the law and was asking advice on what was a reasonable course of action.

I'm in the camp of contacting some other photographers who's work has been appropriated by this artist, and then to start by asking for a reasonable cut from his sales.
Click to expand...

Why Phil? Photographs are used by artists all the time and no harm is done. From a moral point of view, claiming a cut of another guy's work in cases like this - just because he was stupid and the law says you can - is no more defensible than copying in the first place.

IMHO this is not what copyright laws are for. There was another case recently of a photo used on a T-shirt, that the photographer stumbled upon by accident and got some cash in compensation. In compensation for what exactly? Money for nothing. Morally thin ice.
 
HoppyUK said:
Why Phil? Photographs are used by artists all the time and no harm is done. From a moral point of view, claiming a cut of another guy's work in cases like this - just because he was stupid and the law says you can - is no more defensible than copying in the first place.

IMHO this is not what copyright laws are for. There was another case recently of a photo used on a T-shirt, that the photographer stumbled upon by accident and got some cash in compensation. In compensation for what exactly? Money for nothing. Morally thin ice.
Click to expand...

Not at all - it is no different to selling an image for some commercial use from a library. If the commercial user has circumvented the 'library' then they deserve everything they get. Personally, if someone wants to use an image and comes to me to make an arrangement, they get a decent and fair price. Anyone who tries it on and uses an 'unauthorised' image gets an immediate 400% loading for going behind my back. That price has never once been lost, I have got paid in full every time it has happened - more times than I am happy with.
 
HoppyUK said:
Why Phil? Photographs are used by artists all the time and no harm is done. From a moral point of view, claiming a cut of another guy's work in cases like this - just because he was stupid and the law says you can - is no more defensible than copying in the first place.

IMHO this is not what copyright laws are for. There was another case recently of a photo used on a T-shirt, that the photographer stumbled upon by accident and got some cash in compensation. In compensation for what exactly? Money for nothing. Morally thin ice.
Click to expand...
I'm not to sure, clearly the 'derivative' work is just a copy, so without the original photo the artist has no product at all. It's reasonable for any business to pay its suppliers for the components required to create their end product.
 
Phil V said:
I'm not to sure, clearly the 'derivative' work is just a copy, so without the original photo the artist has no product at all. It's reasonable for any business to pay its suppliers for the components required to create their end product.
Click to expand...

In broad principle, yes of course. But that would normally involve something being supplied and a cost incurred etc. And in the case of a illegal copyright infringement, there would be some fiscal loss to the original rights holder. That's not the case here.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, especially around these parts, but IMHO copyright laws are out of touch with modern media and practise. If laws get flouted on a regular basis by honest people (and they do - we all breach copyright, frequently, and mostly without even knowing it) then they need to change. And they will, eventually, moves are afoot.
 
Phil V said:
I'm in the camp of contacting some other photographers who's work has been appropriated by this artist, and then to start by asking for a reasonable cut from his sales.
Click to expand...

With the caveat perhaps of do in the background to save alerting the infringer due to web crawler robots "showing ones hand prematurely...."?
 
HoppyUK said:
In broad principle, yes of course. But that would normally involve something being supplied and a cost incurred etc. And in the case of a illegal copyright infringement, there would be some fiscal loss to the original rights holder. That's not the case here.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, especially around these parts, but IMHO copyright laws are out of touch with modern media and practise. If laws get flouted on a regular basis by honest people (and they do - we all breach copyright, frequently, and mostly without even knowing it) then they need to change. And they will, eventually, moves are afoot.
Click to expand...

I thought there is a loss to the copyright holder! Afteral if the infringer had asked to license the image a fee would have been paid. However he circumvented the payment and compounded the mistake by profiting from his infringement.
 
HoppyUK said:
In broad principle, yes of course. But that would normally involve something being supplied and a cost incurred etc. And in the case of a illegal copyright infringement, there would be some fiscal loss to the original rights holder. That's not the case here.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, especially around these parts, but IMHO copyright laws are out of touch with modern media and practise. If laws get flouted on a regular basis by honest people (and they do - we all breach copyright, frequently, and mostly without even knowing it) then they need to change. And they will, eventually, moves are afoot.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised at your lax attitude to other photographers work, Richard. What ever do you mean by "we all breach copyright, frequently, and mostly without even knowing it" ?

And this isn't even at that end of the spectrum. It's someone deliberately shoving an image through a software programme, coming up with a "painting", and then attempting to enrich himself to a considerable degree as a result. There HAS to be some kind of protection against that sort of thing.

Just about every thread I have seen on here about copyright theft, always degenerates into the same mess of slight misunderstandings and conflicting opinions from different photographers, and does anybody ever get anywhere? The only answer is to get legal advice, from a reliable third party, (which doesn't mean employing a solicitor) and THEN making a decision on which way to go forward.

If thieves and shysters continue to believe they can copy and steal, and get away with it, then they will continue to do it.
 
Last edited:
The way I see it, this is both a copyright infringement (derivative work/copy) and a moral rights infringement (removal of copyright notice/attribution/false attribution). But that doesn't necessarily mean that it is "valuable."
What harm/damage has been done to the photographer?
If the image was already made public, if the photographer doesn't make their income from photography, the image wasn't for sale or wasn't popular w/ reduced sales after, etc, etc; then what "value" can be placed on the image/infringement? What "damage" can be claimed? And how much has the infringer actually made from the painting that might be recouped as damages? In this type of scenario it's not likely that any sort of "speculative" penalties would be assigned IMO (i.e. potential/future losses/profits).
 
HoppyUK said:
Why Phil? Photographs are used by artists all the time and no harm is done. From a moral point of view, claiming a cut of another guy's work in cases like this - just because he was stupid and the law says you can - is no more defensible than copying in the first place.

IMHO this is not what copyright laws are for. There was another case recently of a photo used on a T-shirt, that the photographer stumbled upon by accident and got some cash in compensation. In compensation for what exactly? Money for nothing. Morally thin ice.
Click to expand...

You see, I would be inclined to side with you here, as although it is my image initially it is unlikely I would have made any money from it at all... However, the fact this gentlemen markets his work as 'original', has not asked me if he can use the image in question even as a basis for his artwork, and is basically using all the hard work and effort I have put into cultivating a relationship with the aircraft operators and airfield in question purely for his own gain sits wrong with me. It is not money for nothing, in fact I am less bothered about the money than the actual principle of what he has done - passing off my work, effort and (I use this loosely) artistic vision as his own.

EDIT - Just seen @sk66 's post - Pretty much my feelings toward this...
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
I thought there is a loss to the copyright holder! Afteral if the infringer had asked to license the image a fee would have been paid. However he circumvented the payment and compounded the mistake by profiting from his infringement.
Click to expand...
Yes, but what is the photographer's "normal licensing fee" for something like this? If he doesn't have one established (sales), then what is the "industry norm" that might be assigned? It's not completely arbitrary... you can't just say "if he had asked I would have licensed it for £500" without some viable justification.
 
Hazza said:
You see, I would be inclined to side with you here, as although it is my image initially it is unlikely I would have made any money from it at all... However, the fact this gentlemen markets his work as 'original', has not asked me if he can use the image in question even as a basis for his artwork, and is basically using all the hard work and effort I have put into cultivating a relationship with the aircraft operators and airfield in question purely for his own gain sits wrong with me. It is not money for nothing, in fact I am less bothered about the money than the actual principle of what he has done - passing off my work, effort and (I use this loosely) artistic vision as his own.

EDIT - Just seen @sk66 's post - Pretty much my feelings toward this...
Click to expand...
I think you had the right to pursue it... but now that you've accepted "compensation" your position is much weaker IMO.
 
sk66 said:
The way I see it, this is both a copyright infringement (derivative work/copy) and a moral rights infringement (removal of copyright notice/attribution/false attribution). But that doesn't necessarily mean that it is "valuable."
What harm/damage has been done to the photographer?
If the image was already made public, if the photographer doesn't make their income from photography, the image wasn't for sale or wasn't popular w/ reduced sales after, etc, etc; then what "value" can be placed on the image/infringement? What "damage" can be claimed? And how much has the infringer actually made from the painting that might be recouped as damages? In this type of scenario it's not likely that any sort of "speculative" penalties would be assigned IMO (i.e. potential/future losses/profits).
Click to expand...


The infringer is offering for sale his 'original' painting at >£1250 and an apparently limited edition prints at £60

So he has gained or is due to gain pecuniary advantage over the copyright holder.

I know not how UK law interprets what should be owed to the copyright holder photographer and surmise that needs testing in court. But as noted the infringer has his own reputation to protect and would hence be in his interest once challenged properly "make matters right...."
 
Quite a few years ago I had a phone call from the agent of a well-known and elderly tv presenter, animal lover, wobble-board player, and child molester (enough clues?) asking if I would mind if Rolf (oooops.....) copied one of my photographs. So I had a look on his website and saw the prices he was charging for his other prints, presumably some of which at least would have been copied. He stood to make a fortune if he sold them all. Was he willing to pay me for the right to copy my photograph. No waay. They thought I would be honoured that Rolf wanted to copy it!

But at least in that case at least the "artist" was intending to copy it in actual paints, rather than just put it through photoshop, as is the case here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top