"Original" Artwork...

[Box Brownie]

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.

I was under impression that all such licensing should be based on intended usage

1) if the artist wants it purely and only for hanging on their lounge wall ~ then possibly free or token payment but with the explicit written agreement that its use is under those terms.

2) if the artist wants it to produce, as in this instance, to make sales then the fee should reflect based on his intended sales (not actual sales ~ as success or failure is his risk) I.e. licensed and charge based on the planned 'distribution'.

In either case the artist should behave with honesty & integrity for a mutually beneficial outcome.

 

[sk66]

I was under impression that all such licensing should be based on intended usage

1) if the artist wants it purely and only for hanging on their lounge wall ~ then possibly free or token payment but with the explicit written agreement that its use is under those terms.

2) if the artist wants it to produce, as in this instance, to make sales then the fee should reflect based on his intended sales (not actual sales ~ as success or failure is his risk) I.e. licensed and charge based on the planned 'distribution'.

In either case the artist should behave with honesty & integrity for a mutually beneficial outcome.

Yes, if agreed to in advance, but that didn't happen. So the next question is "what should I ask," or as I was discussing, "what would a court likely award?" In reality, those numbers probably shouldn't be that far apart...

 

[DemiLion]

Yes, if agreed to in advance, but that didn't happen. So the next question is "what should I ask," or as I was discussing, "what would a court likely award?" In reality, those numbers probably shouldn't be that far apart...

Well they could be, depending on whether you opt for a calculated licence price or on a 'account for profit' basis.

 

[sk66]

Well they could be, depending on whether you opt for a calculated licence price or on a 'account for profit' basis.

I'm guessing that there aren't significant profits to account for... I got the impression that it is a small time "art fair" type of operation.
But it does bring up another point... one approach requires you to determine/prove damages, the other doesn't.

 

[HoppyUK]

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" ?

I know we have different opinions on this Jerry, we'll just have to agree to differ. But I will also say that with someone in your personal business position, from the little that I know about it, I would probably take a very different view. If something similar happened to you, you may well be able to prove a significant loss of business and potential income, in which case you should absolutely be protected and compensated. But in most copyright infringements like this, that's simply not the case. The law is a very blunt instrument.

A couple of common copyright infringements that most of us are guilty of: copying music, illegal downloads or making tapes for the car etc - this is a serious one, in that it's pretty much destroyed the music industry (but hasn't 'killed music' as claimed by record companies). Ditto pirate videos, including those you've bought or watched without knowing they're illegal. Using a photocopier commonly involves copyright infringement, mostly unwittingly. And some of the avatars used by members on here - makes me smile when we're discussing copyright issues Along the same lines, nobody ever bought a fake handbag? You sure that Rolex/Cartier is real?!

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.

Why? If there's no harm at all, done to anyone? It can be a very grey area indeed, and each case on its merits, but I don't think it's automatically a crime. And sooner or later, I don't think it will be - the legal wheels are grinding slowly in that direction, because a) it's so common, b) many honest people don't see it the problem, and c) it's impossible to control. As I said earlier, if you publish stuff, in whatever form, there is always the risk of copyright infringement and that's always been true, it's just that digital media makes copying 100x easier.

I worked on Practical Photography magazine for many years and readers would regularly send us fake copies of the magazine picked up on holiday in India - they'd just been mass photocopied (badly), stapled and trimmed and sold like the real thing. I wasn't best pleased, and clearly there was both a loss of business (tiny) and damage to reputation etc, but nothing we could really do about it. That kind of thing is a bit like shoplifting - it's part of business life and has to be costed into your business model. Would have been a different matter if it was in the UK - worry about the serious stuff, not the time-wasting and insignificant.

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.

No. We just go round in circles

 

[GeeJay57]

Another option might be to work with the artist for some future income and look on this one as a lost leader...

You're clearly a talented photographer with good access for interesting shots. He's clearly quite handy with a paint brush. Yin-yang situation there IMHO.

 

[Byker28i]

Another option might be to work with the artist for some future income and look on this one as a lost leader...

You're clearly a talented photographer with good access for interesting shots. He's clearly quite handy with a paint brush. Yin-yang situation there IMHO.

He is indeed a talented artist, a google image search on either the painting or the photo reveals who he is. A lot of the other images have a certificate of authenticy numbered print of 50 - this image doesn't. Oversight, new image, or intended to print more?

Although it does say at the top of the page,
All our prints are A2 in size on the highest quality 330gram thick paper. The prints are signed by M*** and numbered to a maximum print run of only 50 worldwide making them highly collectable. The certificates are bespoke to each print design, also signed and numbered to reflect each print to create the perfect print package.

 

[woof woof]

What a cad that artist is. In days gone the photographer would have demanded satisfaction and run him through at dawn, if the cad hadn't had the decency to retire to his study with a revolver.

Harry, without getting into the legal issues and what's possible I do think that the artist has acted badly and is probably a serial offender and I do think something should be done. At the least I'd want the artist to stop lying and clearly label what he's selling as a reproduction from an original photograph by me and with contact details too (should you wish them to be included.) I do also think that a payment should be made.

If he'd come to you, asked nicely to use your picture and got permission then that would be different but to presumably trawl the net, select your picture, copy it and present the work as original is just (IMO) lying and liars shouldn't get away with it.

Lovely original photo though and I hope you can get satisfaction

 

[GeeJay57]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oaVEGgsvM7o

 

[Hazza]

Another option might be to work with the artist for some future income and look on this one as a lost leader...

You're clearly a talented photographer with good access for interesting shots. He's clearly quite handy with a paint brush. Yin-yang situation there IMHO.

This is what I am probably going to aim for in honesty, but we shall see!

He is indeed a talented artist, a google image search on either the painting or the photo reveals who he is. A lot of the other images have a certificate of authenticy numbered print of 50 - this image doesn't. Oversight, new image, or intended to print more?

Although it does say at the top of the page,
All our prints are A2 in size on the highest quality 330gram thick paper. The prints are signed by M*** and numbered to a maximum print run of only 50 worldwide making them highly collectable. The certificates are bespoke to each print design, also signed and numbered to reflect each print to create the perfect print package.

This painting is no different, it is a limited run of 50 prints and I have a certificate or authenticity with the print I was given.

 

[HoppyUK]

I'd like some more clarity on how 'artworks' like this are actually produced and sold - not this guy in particular, but in general. It seems to be very common.

Jerry12953 is suggesting that there's no artist's craftwork involved - no paints and brushes etc - but the images are just copied and run through image manipulation software. No actual painting exists - and that would also explain the extreme similarities, including detail that surely no real painter would want in there. And WoofWoof has raised the possibility that the whole operation may be a fraudulent con, quite apart from lifting the original photo.

 

[GeeJay57]

In this case, the two images aren't identical (well from what I can see). But you've raised a good point.

 

[stupar]

I'd like some more clarity on how 'artworks' like this are actually produced and sold - not this guy in particular, but in general. It seems to be very common.

Jerry12953 is suggesting that there's no artist's craftwork involved - no paints and brushes etc - but the images are just copied and run through image manipulation software. No actual painting exists - and that would also explain the extreme similarities, including detail that surely no real painter would want in there. And WoofWoof has raised the possibility that the whole operation may be a fraudulent con, quite apart from lifting the original photo.

A chap I work with is a painter in his spare time.
His workflow is to produce the original on canvas - have the canvas scanned in to computer - do giclee printing for his print runs.

I would hazzard a guess that this is the process that most follow but maybe with the exception of one or two varying methods.

In this particular case it looks as though the artist has painted from the same photo but with slight changes (subtle differences in foliage bottom right amongst others).
As for their print run method it is probably similar to above.

 

[Ed Sutton]

To copy a photo onto canvas (or other surface) a print can be made and squared up to scale it, or a tracing made and that transferred if the size is the same. Then the paint is applied. Any details to be altered are easily done - there are a few in this case. In the past slides were projected on to canvas for tracing.

In this day and age I guess a canvas print could be made of the original photo then 'coloured in' if the painter is really crap!

Then this is what painters I know do:

A chap I work with is a painter in his spare time.
His workflow is to produce the original on canvas - have the canvas scanned in to computer - do giclee printing for his print runs.

I would hazzard a guess that this is the process that most follow but maybe with the exception of one or two varying methods.

In this particular case it looks as though the artist has painted from the same photo but with slight changes (subtle differences in foliage bottom right amongst others).
As for their print run method it is probably similar to above.