Paintings from your photographs.

Trappe

Trappe

Messages
3,673
Name
Rory
Edit My Images
Yes
I agreed to let an artist paint one of my landscape photographs. The result was almost a photocopy of my photo. It was in a local exhibition and won some award. The painting is now hanging in a gallery and is for sale for a considerable amount.

I did agree that the artist could paint it so commercially, I let it go.

What would you have done in a similar situation ?

ps

it's not sour grapes and good luck to the artist however I had two similar requests last week. My wife said that if I refused they would paint it anyway ;-)
 
It’s very difficult to be honest I had a request which i granted for one of my wildlife photos a Zebra from Zambia the artist was painting and then making prints , she promised me a print but it never came
I now don’t share photos on Facebook and online that are important to me it’s the only solution I think as I expect an artist could do a painting even from a low resolution Facebook image
 
I'd be happy knowing your art has helped another.

Your wife is right, they would have done it anyway, images get used as referances all the time.

But, if I'd seeked and used anothers work as a referance and gained awards and a sale, I'd at least by them a drink.
 
I have seen similar crop up and was once asked about one of my images, if it could be used as a reference image.

In Comms with the artist it became clear to me his intention was not for personal use and his use of the word 'reference' was not as I perceived it.

What IMO must be remembered:-
The photographer is the copyright holder.
Anyone creating an artwork from a photograph is creating a derivative artwork.......which without a license agreement is a breach of copyright law.

Personally, I 'value' my photography so if someone wants to license it for commercial gain I would be happy to discuss licensing it for that purpose. The one exception in regard to remuneration as part of the licensing would be if it's usage was for a charity I might support but there would still be a license agreement to avoid potential, even inadvertent, exploitation/creep of the intended usage.

As "them doing it anyway", if the photographer community does not care about copyright & the online 'everyone has a camera phone' sees anything online as free.......??? But this may become a "Hot Topic" so I will stop now.
 
Trappe said:
The result was almost a photocopy of my photo.
Click to expand...
He’s disrespectful of your work.
I my self am a painter.
I wouldn’t make a painting out somebody else’s photo if my intention is to sell it.


I usually paint using my photos as a reference. And if i paint using other peoples photos i keep the paintings for my self or just use them for practicing.

You put some time and effort to take that picture that expresses your “vision/aesthetic”. As an artist to a fellow artist i just wouldn’t do that…
 
Last edited:
artyman said:
Difficult, because of course you cannot copyright a view. Certain photographs are more than 'just the view', the same as a painting of a scene is an artists interpretation.
Click to expand...


It's not difficult at all in the UK. If a photograph is used as a 'reference work' then the work is an adaptation (derivative is the US term) and therefore without a licence is an infringement.
 
DemiLion said:
It's not difficult at all in the UK. If a photograph is used as a 'reference work' then the work is an adaptation (derivative is the US term) and therefore without a licence is an infringement.
Click to expand...
Even if it is of something everyone can see for themselves, but uses an image for future referance?

Only ask as I've been ask once before and this thread has got me thinking :)
 
Gav. said:
Even if it is of something everyone can see for themselves, but uses an image for future referance?

Only ask as I've been ask once before and this thread has got me thinking :)
Click to expand...
There was a thread a while back by a TPer who found that one of his published (calendar?) images had been used to paint a large hoarding around a building site.

I cannot recall all the details but the copyright infringers it seems got very awkward!
 
My issue wouldn't be with legality or profiteering, but with cultural integrity. In that light, a painter who wanted to derive from a photographic original, should use one of their own.

It's not about the skill in producing the painting, it's about who has originated what. To me there's an ethic involved.

Let's not be vague about it. If I was approached by a painter in the manner described, they'd get an immediate kick in the apse. For being creepy.
 
Box Brownie said:
There was a thread a while back by a TPer who found that one of his published (calendar?) images had been used to paint a large hoarding around a building site.

I cannot recall all the details but the copyright infringers it seems got very awkward!
Click to expand...


Are you talking about the photo from Barry that was painted on to a wall, supposedly paid for by the local authority?

That was an absolutely clear cut case of infringement. The sky, the waves and the framing/composure were all identical.
There's no way that an artist could have imagined that exact scene just from looking at the view in real life.


As for the infringers being awkward - they always will be because they have plagiarised someone else's intellectual property.

The case was handled badly.
 
DemiLion said:
Are you talking about the photo from Barry that was painted on to a wall, supposedly paid for by the local authority?

That was an absolutely clear cut case of infringement. The sky, the waves and the framing/composure were all identical.
There's no way that an artist could have imagined that exact scene just from looking at the view in real life.


As for the infringers being awkward - they always will be because they have plagiarised someone else's intellectual property.

The case was handled badly.
Click to expand...
As I said, I could not recall exact details but fairly sure it was a housing trust who owned the development (around which the hoarding was erected) and IIRC commissioned the 'artwork' but disowned responsibility for the copyright infringement commited by the 2 artists.

I thought Bristol but may well have been Barry ???

I tried to find the thread but my TP search did not throw it up :(

I was being polite in my post.........I have nothing but contempt for such copyright infringement and those that wilfully perpetrate it :mad::mad::mad: be they individuals or corporate bodies.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
My issue wouldn't be with legality or profiteering, but with cultural integrity. In that light, a painter who wanted to derive from a photographic original, should use one of their own.

It's not about the skill in producing the painting, it's about who has originated what. To me there's an ethic involved.

Let's not be vague about it. If I was approached by a painter in the manner described, they'd get an immediate kick in the apse. For being creepy.
Click to expand...
In the case of the OP

There was skill in the artist being able to duplicate the photographers creation.

What was, even though @Trappe agreed (in writing ?) to its use being commercial, lacking in ethics on the part of the artist was not declaring the inspiration was from said photograph!

One might argue, with good reason, that those that awarded it in the exhibition and the buyer (when sold) are not truly recognising the 'creativity' of the artist but those of the unknown photographer copyright holder.

PS I sometimes see political cartoons that are based on artwork/other known sources, that signed as "after Bloggs" i.e. naming the source of the inspiration.......thus giving a name check/credit.
 
DemiLion said:
It's not difficult at all in the UK. If a photograph is used as a 'reference work' then the work is an adaptation (derivative is the US term) and therefore without a licence is an infringement.
Click to expand...
I would say that in some instances the law is being an ass that could stifle genuine creativity. Or is there an exception for the likes of Cold War Steve's work?

Not only is this picture based on a well known painting but also uses 'found' images in it. https://www.coldwarsteve.com/2023/03/01/long-lost-classics-s***ehawks-hellscape-second-editions/
 
Two anecdotes from me about my photos being copied by "artists"; Firstly I went into a local cafe and saw two paintings on the wall, obviously copied from my postcards.I was pee'd off as you can imagine, made some enquiries and discovered that the culprit was a student in the Art Dept of the University! Don't they teach about copyright at University even?

Secondly I had a phone call from no less than Rolf Harris's agent! (This was before he went to jail). Would I give permission for Rolf to copy one of my postcards in a painting.... some people are very honoured that Rolf wants to copy their whatever. I thought I would look into it before replying. Dear Rolf's paintings were on sale on his website for four and possibly five figure sums, so thought I would make him an offer. Can't remember what it was but the answer was definitely "no".
 
Using THIS LINK might get past the sweary filter.

...But it didn't work!!!
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
I have seen similar crop up and was once asked about one of my images, if it could be used as a reference image.

In Comms with the artist it became clear to me his intention was not for personal use and his use of the word 'reference' was not as I perceived it.

What IMO must be remembered:-
The photographer is the copyright holder.
Anyone creating an artwork from a photograph is creating a derivative artwork.......which without a license agreement is a breach of copyright law.

Personally, I 'value' my photography so if someone wants to license it for commercial gain I would be happy to discuss licensing it for that purpose. The one exception in regard to remuneration as part of the licensing would be if it's usage was for a charity I might support but there would still be a license agreement to avoid potential, even inadvertent, exploitation/creep of the intended usage.

As "them doing it anyway", if the photographer community does not care about copyright & the online 'everyone has a camera phone' sees anything online as free.......??? But this may become a "Hot Topic" so I will stop now.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely right. Agree with every word you say.
 
Trappe said:
I agreed to let an artist paint one of my landscape photographs. The result was almost a photocopy of my photo. It was in a local exhibition and won some award. The painting is now hanging in a gallery and is for sale for a considerable amount.

I did agree that the artist could paint it so commercially, I let it go.

What would you have done in a similar situation ?

ps

it's not sour grapes and good luck to the artist however I had two similar requests last week. My wife said that if I refused they would paint it anyway ;-)
Click to expand...

jerry12953 said:
In reply to the original post I think I would have taken a copy of the photographic original to the gallery owner/ manager/whatever and given her/him a bit of background about the painting. They should then deal with it directly with the "artist".
Click to expand...
As none too clear whether @Trappe made a license agreement or something less formal?

But in regard to @jerry12953 post , if the arrangement was informal.........maybe a statement of credit/attribution is appropriate by the artist & gallery??? @DemiLion is there something in copyright law that mitigates this circumstance?
 
I produced one of my favourite photographs of Venice with a part painterly effect. In my teens, I used to try a bit of painting in oils (as no art at school as it was all science and maths). So when I retired, I decided to paint the Venice scene in oils and make it look similar. Not long after and evening was arranged at my Camera club when we were to bring a photograph and related piece of art. Members could vote by mobile phone for their favourite (just for fun) and my painting scored much lower than the photograph. Probably best not to read too much into this, but it suggests that photography is the best hobby for me and I am unlikely win win any competitions with paintings.

Dave
 
I can't draw the curtains, hence me using a camera!
 
jerry12953 said:
Two anecdotes from me about my photos being copied by "artists"; Firstly I went into a local cafe and saw two paintings on the wall, obviously copied from my postcards.I was pee'd off as you can imagine, made some enquiries and discovered that the culprit was a student in the Art Dept of the University! Don't they teach about copyright at University even?
Click to expand...
Did you take the matter up with the University?
Without infringing activity being 'nipped in the bud' future (ignorant?) infringements are potentially likely.

On a side note.
At one exhibition that I exhibit at, a young (student?) artist had a painting that the curator recognised as being of a well known photograph. IIRC the curator acted by (1) removing it from display and advising the artist why so (2) contacting the (well known) photographer to discuss the matter and s/he agreed (in writing as I understood it) that it could be displayed for sale.
 
Box Brownie said:
is there something in copyright law that mitigates this circumstance?
Click to expand...
Not really... which is why informal agreements should be avoided if you care at all. Such agreements can be binding, but they are about impossible to prove either way.

Having given permission to use the picture as a reference is not also permission to display a derivative copy (adaptation) in a gallery, nor permission to monetize (distribute) it.
 
Box Brownie said:
Did you take the matter up with the University?
Without infringing activity being 'nipped in the bud' future (ignorant?) infringements are potentially likely.
Click to expand...


Yes, I did. It was a long time ago and I don't remember speaking to the student, but I certainly spoke to one of her lecturers. The paintings came down straight away.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Not really... which is why informal agreements should be avoided if you care at all. Such agreements can be binding, but they are about impossible to prove either way.

Having given permission to use the picture as a reference is not also permission to display a derivative copy (adaptation) in a gallery, nor permission to monetize (distribute) it.
Click to expand...
The starting point of this thread was that the OP agreed/allowed the commercial usage.......though was surprised (?) when knowing that it won an award and was for sale.

Were this the Pro sub fora there would have been talk of "contract, contract, contract!" but whether pro or not (as I mentioned in my post #5) I place value in my photography, whether in monetary terms or not.

As such I think as a photography forum we need to maintain a strong front in regard the rights & wrongs of Copyright and it's need for protection. Afteral TP is read by an international community where folk will seek knowledge.

Though such a position may run counter to the "social media" attitude to photography........but the voice needs to be seen & heard:)
 
I get asked a few times and I even have a regular (once a year) .. they PAY ME otherwise they are copying my work (I took the picture its my work) ... The key word here is "copying"

I posted on here where a book had a drawing/sketch of a scene I had photographed and they didnt ask.. I got a very nice fee from penguin books :)

Nobody else should profit from my work .. It really is that simple :)
 
Trappe said:
I agreed to let an artist paint one of my landscape photographs. The result was almost a photocopy of my photo. It was in a local exhibition and won some award. The painting is now hanging in a gallery and is for sale for a considerable amount.

I did agree that the artist could paint it so commercially, I let it go.

What would you have done in a similar situation ?

ps

it's not sour grapes and good luck to the artist however I had two similar requests last week. My wife said that if I refused they would paint it anyway ;-)
Click to expand...
Ya know what? i do photography because I like it and if someone wanted to paint one of my photo's, more power to them. Proud they chose one of mine to do it from. If I was actually in the photo busines, no matter how good mine were, I'd fail miserably! Not much of a business man. A photo I took in Oregon ended up in a story in a major outdoor magazine and it was mentioned the shot was taken in Eastern Colorado. it wasn't, it was taken about 3 miles from my house. Wrote the magazine about it and never heard a word back about it. Pretty proud someone liked my photo enough to steal it and put it in a major magazine!
 
Don Fischer said:
Ya know what? i do photography because I like it and if someone wanted to paint one of my photo's, more power to them. Proud they chose one of mine to do it from. If I was actually in the photo busines, no matter how good mine were, I'd fail miserably! Not much of a business man. A photo I took in Oregon ended up in a story in a major outdoor magazine and it was mentioned the shot was taken in Eastern Colorado. it wasn't, it was taken about 3 miles from my house. Wrote the magazine about it and never heard a word back about it. Pretty proud someone liked my photo enough to steal it and put it in a major magazine!
Click to expand...


The key word in your post is "steal". Technically it may not be correct but it conveys the way you were treated.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I would say that in some instances the law is being an ass that could stifle genuine creativity. Or is there an exception for the likes of Cold War Steve's work?

Not only is this picture based on a well known painting but also uses 'found' images in it. https://www.coldwarsteve.com/2023/03/01/long-lost-classics-s***ehawks-hellscape-second-editions/
Click to expand...
Fair dealing allows for parody, caricature and pastiche. It also seems that, in the US at least, the law has recently been "clarified" by the supreme court in the case of Andy Warhol's work

Cue lots of rambling about UK is not the US etc.
 
sirch said:
Fair dealing allows for parody, caricature and pastiche. It also seems that, in the US at least, the law has recently been "clarified" by the supreme court in the case of Andy Warhol's work

Cue lots of rambling about UK is not the US etc.
Click to expand...
I'm with the dissenting judges! :LOL:

Now, how about another Prince. Richard Prince. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/283742 :exit:

I think copyright laws as they stand need revising. Society and art have changed since the last century.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I think copyright laws as they stand need revising. Society and art have changed since the last century.
Click to expand...

I think they are OK .. Copy my work and your in trouble... Simple enough :)
 
Trappe said:
I agreed to let an artist paint one of my landscape photographs. The result was almost a photocopy of my photo. It was in a local exhibition and won some award. The painting is now hanging in a gallery and is for sale for a considerable amount.

I did agree that the artist could paint it so commercially, I let it go.

What would you have done in a similar situation ?

ps

it's not sour grapes and good luck to the artist however I had two similar requests last week. My wife said that if I refused they would paint it anyway ;-)
Click to expand...

I would go to the gallery concerned and, as someone has already said, try to sell them prints of the painting while at the same time giving strong hints that the artist may be breaking copywrite laws and that the gallery is aiding and abetting said breakage.

But before you do that, have you actually spoken to the artist? He/she may not have thought what they were doing was at all underhand and the painting is up for sale in all innocence.

As another responder has said, I'd be quite happy for someone to use some of my pictures as I probably wouldn't be making any money from them myself, but I would absolutely INSIST that I got a credit for the work.

I have a long story relevant to this subject but it would be a digression here, suffice to say, resending my work to the illicit user with copywrite symbols all over the bottom of them resulted in said photographs being removed from their website rather quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top