well as a photographer, if I had to paint anything I would have no problems avoiding copyright, the painting would not look like anything like the original.
My uncle who is an artist told me about an artist that won a contest with a considerable cash prize using a photograph without permission. The photographer found out and the prize was taken back and the award taken away as well. As a photographer I can say it isn't just snapping a picture. It's usually thousands of dollars in equipment and countless hours of hiking and waiting in the case of wildlife photography and many more hours in post process editing and learning how to do it. I actually got into photography because I wanted to create my own compositions to paint.
One aspect of copyright law you haven't touched on is that the copyright remains with the 1st work only (the reference photo) and any derivative works created from that photograph are not automatically covered under copyright law. You must apply for copyright on derivative works and you must be able to show "transformational changes" from the original work and that you have expressed your own personal style and personality into the new work. If it is just a copy of the original photo then it is just a copy, not an original and not protected.
Thanks Lisa for talking about this very important subject. I am always surprised how many artist are not aware they are stealing. Try taking your own photos people! You might surprise your self. Great vlog today! Thanks again for sharing. Brenda
Lisa, This is great information. I think it is so so so important that the artist or photographer understand these rules. We all appreciate your explanation of the copyright as it applies to painting another painting or photo. In reading some of the comments about how a photographer at a horse show had their photos used without their permission with the excuse that it was the horse of the person who used the photo. Just like you, I am not a lawyer, but when I was checking on submitting some of my photos to stock photo outlets I found out that there are many restrictions if "model releases" were not available. This not only applies to people, but also to pets and things that can be recognized. Caution!. If doing a photo or painting of someones pet, animal, or thing, make sure you get a model release to allow you to use the image in your photo or painting. Now this has nothing to do with copyright violation when someone uses your work without your permission, but it may eliminate problems in the future. Again, Lisa, thanks for the great vlog.
Etsy amongst a few other sites have artists selling paintings/prints of many Disney, DC, Marvel, etc. even if it's a silhouette of the character. Given a lot of those aren't showing details of the face or it'll be just a watercolored silhouette of a character, it's still CLEARLY "Ariel," "Batman," and so on (and most times the product has the character in the title). lol I'm all for artists getting their art out there via the web and even being inspired by famous characters but when the painting is more than "just inspired" then I start to lose respect for that artist. I've worked hard to teach myself art and have been drawing since a kid and enjoy seeing others who have worked just as hard (self-taught or went to school) as well as sites/youtube channels like this who share the knowledge. I just came across your channel today and I love your videos and tips. Thank you for taking the time to post them.
Muse Ology That is one of the things I really dislike about etsy. It is full of copyrighted material. Ebay pulls that stuff pretty fast. Etsy doesn't care at all :(
China is VERY bad at following copyright. In general if the image / painting / etc is on the net they think it is OK to copy and sell - the number of times I have seen my paintings copied on ebay :(
yeah same here. ive had paintings, signs and photos copied often....but i think they know im in a far away country with practically not much time or money to chase them down. it annoys me but theres no use me stressing over it if i cant do anything about it ;-)
Jason Morgan - Wildlife Art wow -- if I google myself I see my images online, but so far have seen no copies or any knowledge they are being used copied or sold (or "shared"). For years, nothing I painted was recognizable at all, but now that I paint much better......Andy Warhol, according to one biography, paid a fortune for using a photo of four flowers that he found in a newspaper. He used photos from newspapers all the time, and celebrities, not to mention the Campbells's soup cans, which if any of those he had permission for, I don't know. I would be flattered, but if some company in China or someplace else was making a fortune using my stuff on a calendar for example, I would be very upset to think someone is making a cheap profit from an expensive work that I haven't been able to sell here for a fair price. I believe you can get legal copyrights of your work, fill out a form for each image, not sure what it costs. Once there is a written copyright, it is easier to go after someone using your work. Otherwise it runs into time and money to go into the whole process having to start from a position to prove you created it in the first place. As my work gets better, I begin to think it might be worth the investment.
I am very glad you posted this! I have a huge problem as an amateur equine photographer with people stealing my pictures because their horse is in it. I actually had to stop photographing for a local horse show circuit because when I would post pictures from shows for leopke to purchase, they would just steal them. The only money I made from this was from prints that were purchased. I put in countless hours of time and effort and never was played a cent, yet somehow my pictures were showing up everywhere! Unfortunately I couldn't afford Photoshop and didn't know about gimp to water mark them. People assumed because their horse was in it, they could use it. Wrong. Several years later I still see my pictures as profile pics on Facebook or as horse add pictures on craigslist. It was overall a very bad experience, and one I won't be doing again. People need to realize it is indeed stealing!
Yep, people do that same thing with dog show photographers as well. So many believe that if their dog is in the photo, then they own it. Nope, you own the dog, not the photo!. I recently had someone who hired me to paint their dog allow my painting to be used in a tattoo. She seemed to think that her owning the photo gave her the right to do so. Nope! And in that case, it was actually the tattoo artist at fault. He legally was required to get written permission from the original artist (me) before he started the tattoo. The really annoying part was when I saw the photos of this tattoo all over facebook and the person was giving credit and links to the tattoo artist but none to me as the actual creator of the work in the first place!
This is super helpful! I've been drawing since I was in kindergarten but I've never been able to create my own work I recreate (and I mean try to create exact replicas of those works) for my art. I've never been good with imagining my own ideas. I'm definitely going to start using my own ideas from now!
Good job explaining how to use references safely, unless you have authority to copy something exactly, references are for the general understanding, such as your aspen tree example, don't copy everything, just the general concepts. I generally use references to understand for example: what a quarter face lit looks like, what a dragon looks like, what dragon eyes look cool, what about their horns look like, what a sunset looks like, etc. Unless I'm doing fan art, I make sure that it looks original from my references. If someone wants to use my work as references, I personally would be flattered, just so long as they made it different, even if all they changed was the background. It would be cruel of my to go after that person.
thank you thank you thank you this is perfect, I have been trying to explain to some people the basics of copyright and this would have come in so handy. It can very country to country, but most copyright laws are the same as they are talked about here.
This is how I paint & draw. I look a like 20 different photos, and I use my own creative though process to to converge everything that I've seen into one. Reiterating things that I like and leaving things that I don't like. You can't even look at my art and say "oh that's from that." Is completely unrecognizable and that's what's important. And can be inspire by someone's art but don't take it and claim it as your own. I love putting the original artist's name on my work. I have no problem with that.
Based on this, I could not draw a picture of my own face using my yearbook picture, because the photo in the yearbook is copyrighted to the company that the school hired to take the photographs. Isn't that nice?
Did you pay for that photo? Yes? Then, it might be considered a work for hire, and the copyright transferred to who ever payed for it. Do your own research (your local law library is a good place to start).
I liked it, and I just happened to have painted a shelf today from learning from you.... You know, the skull and butterfly I put on fb, WHEW! I'm glad you don't mind. Thanks for the great knowledge you bring .
This is why I copyright my work before publishing it on social media or releasing it anywhere else. Also, if you don't copyright your work you won't be able to take it to court. Learned this the hard way, Lisa I love your videos you are very informative ☆
This is incorrect. "Copyright" is not a verb, there is no act of copyrighting. Copyrights exist the moment a unique creative work is created. Registering a copyright with a government is simply a useful way to prove whether you have copyrights for a work and can be used as evidence in court. Just because you haven't registered a copyright doesn't mean you can't protect your rights in court, it is simply more difficult to prove whether you are a copyright holder of a particular work if you have not registered your copyright.
In my experience mrhappy I had to "physically prove" my work with images and videos when working on my art which helped a lot when taking my work to court. Now, unfortunately it's not that easy to claim that your very own material is yours these days especially if it was featured for a company that did not ask for permission nor a release form. But thank you for your input
Hey Lachri, I was just wondering if im breaking copyright law if I took a screen shot of a celebrity in a music video and then composited it in photoshop by changing values and adding things like smoke to it, can I draw that composited image into a painting and then sell it as print?
+Hair I don't think so. She stated that no percent of changing a copyrighted image would allow it to be legal. And the frame of video is an image, and thus copyrighted.
Thank you for that info it is nice to know that. All of my art is original, (all 18 paintings so far) its not much but I was worried about copyrighting my work. I'm almost done with my Orca's and will be sending it to you someday soon. Intertwined has turned into a wheres waldo as I mentioned before, with so much going on in it. I've been working on it over a month now so, I hope you like it as much as I do. My son said to me its weird how something so beautiful can be so sad at the same time. It's surreal looking at the world for what it is, and it forces us to think. All of my art is meant to make you think, I just wish I was as good as you. DrQ'in I Love your stuff.
Thank you this has been so informative!! The art I have been creating would probably be classed as 'fan art' but understanding all this really encourages me to be more original and take my own photos! As a keen film maker I hope to steer clear of any issues in the future, especially as I'm learning the ukulele to make my own music:) I've had trouble in the past with people removing my credits to my art/ photos, attempting to claim as their own which is frustrating. Copyright is horrible in the way that everything seems protected and it's difficult to avoid, but good when you yourself have sweated over a piece only for someone to steal it :(
Very informative. Thank you. I often see paintings of celebrities for sale - everyone from John Lennon to Dolly Parton - and I wonder how those are able to make it to the mainstream. I can't believe everyone who's painted those has received permission.
Once you buy a photo from whatever website . Will they continue selling the same picture to other people? If so, what if two or more people make a painting of it?
That was an awesome vid. I don't sell copyrighted work on my etsy I hate when ppl do that! I make polymer clay charms and there are sooooo many copycats on that site! I do have a question though, I can post fanart on deviantart just to show it off right? I definitely won't sell prints, that's not ok.
Usually you can without issue, make sure to label it as fan art. Legally it is still copyright but many of us do it, and like I mentioned in the video many companies actually encourage it. Some however will demand it be removed. It depends on the company.
Ok I’m late to the party here but I have to say I THat this is very well done and well said. I intend to make sure a lot of my artist pals see this. This is why I shoot as much of my own reference as possible. Plus it’s fun to collect costumes and props!
Another thing to keep in mind, read your job contracts, even for jobs that seem unrelated to your art! Some job contracts (certain schools, for example) say that they (the job) can claim copyrights to anything you create while you work there, even works you made at home and for reasons unrelated to your job. If the contract says anything about copyrights, have a lawyer read through it before you sign it. If you are in a 'creator' field (ie artist, writer, film creator, etc), try to learn what you can about copyright law. Consider taking a copyright law course on Coursera or Edx (they are free). Just make sure you take a course in your country as copyright law varies from country to country.
YES!!! thank you! I try to take my own photos for referense, or else I'll google for general info (let's say I want to draw someone playing a violin but I have no idea how to hold a violin..I look up lots of photos or play a video, make stic-figures and sketches to get a feel for the movements, and then work from them) Or I go to deviantart and see what people put up there in stock images ad read their terms of use and give credit etc etc.
There are too many factors to answer yes or no, but I can say that if you did not take the photo then you do not have rights to use it. If you did take the photo I believe the law varies by state as to whether or not you can use it without that persons permission. You would need to talk to a copyright lawyer for the last part.
It is confusing. Here's a bunch of scenarios. I'm not a lawyer but here's some perspective on each: Situation (A): Let's say you're a big fan of Justin Timberlake (JT) and you've studied him and watched him for years. So, you can pretty much draw a picture or paint a painting of JT in any position doing anything. So, you do a portrait of JT from your imagination and post it online or stick it in a gallery to sell it. In this case, you're probably okay. Situation (B): Now let's say you do a portrait of JT every day and start to sell them and let's assume you're successful (I mean...you're selling hundreds of JT portraits a year). Situation (C): You're paintings are SO good, you are contacted by a t-shirt company and they want to put the image on t-shirts and sell them. Situation (D): You are a photographer and you bump into JT on the street and you take his photo and sell it to a tabloid. Situation (E): You are a photographer and you bump into JT on the street and you take his photo and sell it to a t-shirt company to use on t-shirts that they will sell. Again, I ain't no lawyer, but: A famous person has the right to control how their face is used, in the same way that we all have a right to privacy. But, US courts have determined that if someone is a celebrity, then that makes them a PUBLIC FIGURE, and public figures have lost a certain amount of that control. So... Situation A is probably not going to get you into trouble. JT is a public figure and that is reason enough, legally, for you to do a portrait of him and sell it. And let's say JT saw the painting and HATED it and wanted to take it down. Well...he could take you to court but he would probably lose, unless he could show that the image you painted was damaging to him and, at the same time, without merit. Situation B also probably would not get you into trouble, but situation C probably would. Why? Well...b/c, as a public figure--an entertainment figure--there's a good chance JT has licensed (sold) permission to use his face on t-shirts to a company. If YOU are then selling his image on t-shirts, you're infringing on his ability to earn income as an entertainer. it wouldn't matter that your image is a painting. You'd be just as liable in court as situation E. Situation D, however, you'd be safe. Why? B/c as a public figure, US courts have determined that he's lost a certain amount of public privacy so you do have the right to take his photo and sell it to a tabloid. But...the court would feel differently if you were selling the same photo to a t-shirt company (or manufacturing the t-shirts yourself). -------------------------------- It's all about infringement and "infringement" is a little bit like "doing harm". In situations C and E, you are infringing on his ability to use his own face to earn income. And that's true even if he is NOT selling t-shirts on his own. We can't use his face to make money without his permission...without a license. The one exception? "Journalism" and public comment. That's why we CAN make money selling it to a tabloid. Interestingly, if you were a photographer, you would own the copyright of all your photos, but that doesn't mean you can do anything you like with them. Let's say JT agreed to let me take his portrait, I (if I'm smart) will make sure he signs a 'model-release' where I make clear how I intend to use the photos. Or, let's say JT is gonna be on the cover of Rolling Stone and Rolling Stone hires me to take the photos. I own the photos and Rolling Stone will pay me to use one of them on the cover. BUT-- I can then take one of the photos and sell it to Coke and let them put it on one of their coke cans. I own the copyright on the photo, but in this case, I don't have the right to license it to other commercial businesses. One interesting case from mebbe 7(?) years ago. There was a photographer who had all these photos of Marilyn Monroe that hadn't been seen before. All he wanted to do was sell prints--he wasn't going to license them to other companies to put on products or anything like that. He just wanted to sell prints and exhibit them in galleries in order to do so. Well...the Marilyn Monroe estate sued and they won. I think the court made a mistake in this situation. The basic function of a photographer is to shoot photos and make prints. We already agree he has the copyright. But the Monroe estate argued that him selling prints was the same as him licensing Marilyn's image to a t-shirt company. Photographers were shocked. I thought it was a huge mistake. But your original question was "do companies actually own people's faces?" Sometimes they do and these companies are very powerful. Especially nowadays in our media-rich world. People understand that when a celebrity dies, their image can be worth something. Actors now often draft up scenarios in their wills to determine which of their heirs will be in charge of their image. Anyway...lazy sunday ramble...
Celebrities actually have certain unique protections in addition to normal intellectual property laws. They have additional protections related to people using their "likeness" and this could include a painting of a photo of them, that you have copyrights to. Its complicated, but if you want to sell art depicting celebrities you should be informed about legal issues related to "likeness."
Many artist on RUclips do drawing tutorial of characters that ain't theirs. For example, how to draw Elsa from Frozen. If they were to monetize their videos, would they come across any problems in the long run.
I am a painter AND a photographer. I unfortunately experienced copyright theft at an art show. An artist only 2 booths away had swiped a mother-infant portrait photo I had done, which was on my website and she created a LARGE 30 inch painting of this image which was the focal point of her entire booth, listed for sale at $2000! Needless to say, it was shocking, upsetting, and to make it worse she lied about where she got the image from. I contacted Professional Photographers of America which has a legal department to support their members and they told me I could demand she relinquish the painting to me- the artist refused, but she promised she would not sell it. I didn't feel it was worth it to pursue it further. Learn to pose your own people for paintings. Not only did she violate my rights, but those of my client who did not give her permission to recreate her image.
I am sorry you had this happen to you. I’ve had a number of things outright stolen and used also. Now that I’ve learned more about copyright (on my own) that I know I must also copyright it with the copyright office asap. An idea about your portrait of the mother-infant that was stolen and used by the shameless artist without your permission; because she violated the rights of your client too, and used their face without getting a model release, your client can demand it not even be used to promote their painting (not just promise not to sell it).
If it is just for practise and you are not selling or displaying the works than it is still a violation of the creators copyright... but how would they find out.. and even if they somehow did find out do you really thing any copyright holder is going to take legal action because an artists copied their photo for practise?
Fabulous, helpful and all "common sense" from my understanding of copyright. Could you tell us how to do good Google image searches to see if anyone copying an image I have created? Thank you for all the care and effort you put into sharing!
My daughter is going through all you just described even the visit to the deadbeat dad full of promises flop. Amazing story so inspirational on many levels. Thanks for sharing. I'm so curious as to the artist you mentioned, Hime Humenis? I'm sure that's misspelled but who is he? I'm always interested in an artist who has inspired any artist that I like and inspires me, so I'd like to take a view of his work.
Also, sometimes the photographer or original creator no longer owns their copyright, so definitely make sure to contact the correct person. For example, the copyright for many Disney designs are sold by the creator. Vice versa, too, not all works in a book are owned by the publishers. It depends on their contract. If you find a picture in a book or magazine, be sure to find out who actually holds the copyrights. It is still illegal if you don't have permission from all holders in many cases. Often times, both the publishers and creator own the copyrights and you must get written permission from both. Keep in mind that the copyright page doesn't always specify who owns photos and illustrations, just the written words. As a rule of thumb, contact both the publisher and creator of an image.
Lisa, thanks for the info. I was wondering if 'sampling' bits of other photos, ie. part of a mountain, stream or sky to craft a painting is wrong? It would be the painting version of what is done in the music industry.Finally, I think I have a great idea for reference photos. I'm going to ask the poster of a youtube video if I can use it to do a painting. Imagine the possibilities of all the still images you could get of a beautiful landscape. I think most people would love to have their video turned in to a painting.
So informative! Thank you for this! I love your concepts in your paintings, so it's nice to know it's okay to use some of those ideas...just not copy. :) I drew a lion one time in my sketchpad, but I pieced him together from a few different lions. Would that be a copyright issue? It is hard to tell what photos I used due to him being sort of a Frankenstein, but I haven't painted him yet. I'm just not sure
My issue is: I never can really copy something perfectly anyway but still, it's annoying. I do make get a character (fanart) done, could post it on DA, but I don't sell it. I but credit to artist (his/her name, usually their social site if possible and not forgotten too), and that's all I can provide. I don't want to prohibit myself to never make any fanart because of this.
Lisa, thanks so much for your information on copyright laws. I appreciate it and have found I am infringing, which is sooooooo weird because I have been such a stickler about not doing so since I have been more than violated in this way a few times before writing this comment.. Something that wasn't touched on is that, in order to help the honest people remain honest (just as locks are for honest people), it is ALWAYS extremely helpful to put a copyright notice on the artwork. The reason is that MOST people don't understand copyright laws; and when they see the copyright sign (what do you call it?), they automatically know hands off. Of course this will not dissuade the terminally dishonest EVER. In fact, I have photos up online that have been stolen and the copyright notice taken off, either by cropping or blurring the area of the copyright. The funny thing is, the photos stolen weren't even that great. Lol. I have much better pictures up. I found one on an FB site I just happened upon and yet wasn't at all upset about it. I figured people had to be curious who the photographer was and must have looked it up. So to me, whether the person who stole it knew it or not, I benefitted. God is good. So I was then able to write on the site in the comments section that I was the photographer and that more of my photos could be viewed at...blah, blah, blah. And since the site actually promoted Jesus as the focal point and made no money on it personally, I thought it was great that my photo found its way there. But one of my and my husband's songs was stolen by Toyota for a nationwide commercial several years ago then our lawyer was bought off, and so Toyota got away with it. That I am still more than angry about, more so than words can express (which in this case phono-right laws apply). It happened another time with a Christian radio station's jingle with another of our songs, changed just enough to get away with it. Ugh! And another song full bore was stolen that was my dad's but done so after he died though I wasn't ever able to find the culprit. This isn't even to mention the others that have been stolen without us finding out about it. I suppose the point I'm getting to is that, though it hurts when one's actual copyright and the like are infringed upon, I do believe copyright laws have crossed the line of the ridiculous. When I went to school, so long as the actual piece wasn't stolen and used for monetary gain, it was fine. In other words, if another media was used--say a drawing of a photo TWO SEPARATE TYPES OF ART USED TO EXPRESS SOMETHING--then there was no infringement. I agree with that. So if ANYONE would like to draw my photos, that person absolutely may. To give me credit would just be some kind of wonderful, and I believe Jesus would bless that person for it. But if that person doesn't know I'm the artist but states it's a drawing of a photo, that's fine with me. And if it realistically looks exactly like mine, I just have to say that this artist wins out in that s/he far surpasses me as an artist of the original work. I will never get on that person for doing so. OH BROTHER, ARTISTS, GET OVER YOURSELVES! All that these laws are going to do is create MORE competition, causing the touchy ones to lose out. If you share, you win. For example, seriously, someone isn't even supposed to practice drawing someone else's drawing or painting or photo even if it would be something that would never be shown to another living soul? That would be like me saying someone couldn't practice singing or playing the guitar to my songs. That's ridiculous. Afraid of competition much anyone? How bad is that artist if s/he is so freaked out over that? What does that say about these kinds of artists, REALLY? Now if money is made over it, I totally get the outrage IF ITS THE SAME MEDIA BEING USED, LIKE COVER TUNES. DUH! But all the rest is just STUPID! Seriously Stupid! What if a person were to paint a picture that had been inspired by one of my songs? Should I sue that person for doing so though it's an entirely different media used to express it? OF COURSE NOT! HOW STUPID! Shouldn't I instead feel complimented that someone thought enough of my artwork to also make artwork of it? How inspired does that make me in my original work to then inspire others in another media to do likewise? For instance, when I was younger, I actually started several fads with clothing and hair and etc. It never angered me that people were copycatting me except when they took credit for it. Instead, it VALIDATED me and encouraged me to know that what I thought looked good actually did, feeding my inner artist. Don't stifle artists by stifling those that help us artists out here feel validated who need the encouragement. The only exception would be writing stories...plagiarism. Some people think, once it's spoken or turned into a movie, it's a different media. Words are words whether spoken or written. They ARE the same no matter what. One of my stories have been stolen also and turned into a movie on Hallmark. So this too is touchy to me SINCE THEY MADE MONEY OFF IT AND YANKED JESUS COMPLETELY OUT OF THE STORY AND DIDN'T GIVE ME CREDIT. But now get this: Two people could be standing in the same spot and take the same photo and have it turn out exactly the same. Who owns the copyright then? Yeah, come on, people! If we have to ask that question, you know these laws are too ridiculous. Do you know what the answer is? I have no idea if this is the truth but have heard it from several separate sources that the person who has it in RAW format wins. But what if both have it in RAW format? The person who publishes it first? HEEEEEELLLLLLOOOOO! That's so obviously not fair. Also, maybe others aren't aware, but a new law has been made so that, if an actor/actress or model disagrees with something s/he made in the past (say someone becomes a muslim after filming a Christian movie) and wants his/her parts yanked, this person can have the movie and or photos yanked until the parts are removed. So as for the horse subject photos mentioned earlier in this comment section, yeah, the owners have the "right" now to demand that photo not be sold for monetary gain. Hence, it might behoove the photographer to work out something quick with the owners before they find out. Again, I agree...this is stupid! However, the argument is that the photographer did use their horse as a model, so some sort of compensation should be made to make up for it if the photographer makes money off the photo. Why not then just give them free photos of their horse instead of a portion of what is made from it? Well, anyway, I have some changes to make on my FB site now; but you better believe I'm going to be MORE THAN VOCAL about this issue because it is completely out of hand now. --Victoria Tribby
Hey! Very helpful video, thanks! I'm trying to be more aware of these type of things now that I'm selling more & putting more out there online. Question, if you know and don't mind answering.. Not quite the same subject but As far as trademarking goes.. Did you actually trademark you're 'brand' (Lachri) when working under it or just purchase the domain of Lachri.com ? Is it sufficient to simply buy a domain or should I eventually use trademark? I assume this may be your last name. I'm looking to use a variant of my name. I know the likelihood of someone copying it is low.. But you never know. Hope this question makes sense. :)
I wanted to tell you that this is amazing information to know. I was always curious about copyright. I went as far as tring to research this and came up with nothing.. This amazingly made me feel a lot safer as an artest. I have to say I have been watching some of your videos n absolutely love your attitude and the information you have givin me.. I draw and color more times than not but have tried to paint with acrilics very difficult for me i always wanna start by drawing the picture on the canvas... then paint it... do u by chance have any advice for me upon this?
Thank you for this. I have had a lot of mixed opinions on this, and I tend to air on the side of caution. The art world is new to me, and I'm considering trying to sell. Ita so tricky...if I take one element from something else, and put it in a completely different overall painting, but that element is identifiable, then it's still a violation? I'm still a little confused, and very afraid, because I don't intend to take someone else's work, and I don't understand the line between inspiration and copying. This vlog was helpful. I still have questions, but this was very helpful. Thank you!
Oh dear, so I can't look up photos and then use them for photorealism? How would I contact them if I found the picture on Pinterest? Can't we draw those cartoon characters for fun? What would happen if we did get in trouble for them?
since this comment is a little old i'd thought to just toss in my 2 cents you can still look up royalty free stuff and use it. you can always try to reverse search stuff you find on Pinterest! if you use chrome you can right click on an image to do so. you can draw cartoon characters for fun, but if they tell you to take it down, i would do it asap. you would just get fined via court if they took it that far, but taking it down would solve the issue.
This is a very interesting conversation indeed. I use reference photos all the time. I wrote 1 professional photographer and received permission to use an image he took because honestly the pose was so completely unique I felt like giving him the credit and respect for his art form. Currently, I'm looking at dance posses common to salsa, waltz, & copa. The poses are common because they are standard moves/poses in the dance style. There would be a heavy burden of proof for a photographer to prove an image is 100% unique or one of a kind in this world if digital information. I see no conflict in using poses after changing the face or dress and background to fit the story I'm telling via art. I think many of us feel the gravity of this. As an example, If you draw a nude woman in a certain post and get wealthy selling that particular painting. I can almost promise some photographer somewhere will start screaming copy-write violation. It then becomes a fight between lawyers and legal blah blah blah. Anyone else think its a little absurd for a photographer to put a model on a lazy Susan spin him or her and take 365 pictures and then claim every shot is theirs and you need their permission to use that pose?
I didn't sell a lot of my drawings in the past for this reason. Because some of them are recognizable...Now I would be more comfortable because I am making up my own stuff now. I do use multiple photos as reference to where the eyes are or how big is this creature or object I am wanting to draw is. :) LOVE your videos.
I kinda get the idea that when you copy something as long as you are not selling it or claiming it to be yours its fine xD lol correct me if I am wrong though
With all due respect, drawing fanart being illegal seems ridiculous. There are artists who are passionate about different books and movies that they grew up with and there shouldn't be anything wrong with sharing that. That's why I share it anyway. SELLING fanart on the other hand is a very grey line, though. XD That's when a person is making money of a company's intellectual property since they can lose money for it. What's difficult is that different companies have different standards about selling fanart. You have Disney which is notorious about copyright and there are companies like Sega who are super lenient about it. Then there are different countries which have different standards on copyright. It's incredibly tricky so it's safest not to do it when in doubt. No, I'm not a lawyer ether. :x
LMaruchan I have read through most of the comments here and deleted most of this comment as what constitutes copyright is more than I realized! I will only add, sometimes an artist might "infringe" a bit, not thinking the painting will ever end up being a finished piece........I have a lot of my own photos and it occurs to me, I may like a photo because it reminds me of a scene I have photographed myself and I should go look for it. You have to draw like crazy, I personally hate to draw and love to paint, woe is me, because as Lisa points out -- if the drawing isn't right to begin with, it will only get worse as the painting goes along unless you have top notch drawing skills, which I don't.
Exactly, is all about the selling, when you benefit from it financially in any way, even if you earn or benefit from having it exhibited, maybe even just raising your profile as an artist, then you are liable to a suit. And they can demand money from you if they win that suit. As simple as that. And there is technology out there that scans the internet for matching images to raise copyright concerns. Don't chance it.
It's just so hard because I lack imagination so if im doing for instance multiple fish and I want one in another angle i cant imagine what the shadow would be like without a particular reference :/
You could make a model resembling the fish(es) in model clay or whatever and use that (or take a photo of the model and use that). That's also great practice to learn shadows.
I absolutely fell in love with your "Surreal waterfall landscape in acrylic - Lachri speed painting" tutorial and I was wondering where those photos were found? Of the waterfalls?? A lot of people around me also use photo reference websites and sometimes they don't seem very legit? I see some photos that I've seen on google EVERYDAY and then I also see them on these websites? So it just seems like a scam.. So I was just wondering what are some of the websites and other references you use?? Thanks!
Taylor M For the waterfalls, that portion was a combo of about 15 non royalty free reference photos. In that case they were all used as reference only, not to copy from so I was able to use non royalty free images for that. For royalty free images I either contact the photographer directly and get permission, use photos purchased from www.jasonmorgan.co.uk/ or wildlifereferencephotos.com/ or use paintmyphoto.ning.com There are a lot of other royalty free sites too, but those three are my main ones that I use.
This is the issue: a lot, A LOT on google images is art, so a LOT is illegal and unable to be used .... And if you turn on copyright filter, nothing good is left. When you need it as inspiration, ref, for your wallpaper, you always seem to be called a thief.... seriously, if you put your art out there, it's a risk on it's own (I both support that opinion and hate it because I make art too and it's frustrating).
I checked it out and I found out that Andy Warhol was actually sued THREE times but I could only get info on two of the lawsuits.Both times Andy Warhol was sued for copyright infringement he was sued for reproducing photos taken by other photographers without permission.However one must take into consideration that Andy Warhol DID NOT HARDLY CHANGE THESE PHOTOS AT ALL and they appear almost exactly like the original works.Andy Warhol could have created DERIVATIVE WORKS by altering the original photos until they became unrecognizable.Then he could have claimed Fair use under U.S. Copyright law.
I'd like to submit the following from the FAQs section of TeachingCopyright.org. "When does copyright start? Do I have to register the work with the government?" "Copyright status is automatic upon creation of your original creative work in a fixed, tangible form. Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is not necessary for copyright status and protection, though registration is needed in order to pursue an infringement claim in court."
Some years ago, I did a painting which I donated to a charity, and was asked to sign away the copyright, so only the charity could sell further copies of the work (it was made into a calendar, plus they sold prints, notecards, etc). I agreed to this, and was told that I could still use the image under the 20% change concept, but this was not in the contract. I did make a second painting (also donated to the same charity for a silent auction) the following year, and changed some details, but it would still have been clearly inspired by the original work. I don't suppose there would really be much of a case against my using my own original work as reference, especially since any profits went to the same charity, but now I wonder, since I had sort of thought that the 20% change concept was legitimate. Good information to know. The original photo I used for inspiration was taken by a friend, I had her permission to use it, and she was identified in both cases.
Hi Lisa. Thank you for providing this information. I appreciate your time and effort. I have a question for you. Do you register your works with the copyright office before you publish them online? I have a body of work completed and my website is almost done. I am getting antsy and want to launch. Do you recommend waiting and publishing with copyright office first? I know you aren’t a lawyer and I am not asking for legal advice. Just your opinion please… Thank you!
I personally do not. I just produce too much work for that to be practical cost wise. The work is technically copyrighted to you the moment it is created. having it registered just makes it easier to prove if you get involved with a legal dispute. For me, the videos of me creating the work are published the week they are made, so that will go a long way in my defense if I do end up in any sort of legal battle.
Hi Lisa: Wonderful artwork and nice work on your videos. I’m particularly fond of your art business advice and strategies! You wrote, “I just produce too much work for that to be practical cost wise [to register my painting copyrights].” In my response to Ralph Serpe’s inquiry, I wrote that creatives can group-register an unlimited number of UN-published works in a $55 eCO (on-line copyright registration) Standard Application. As a photographer, I’ve registered over 1000+ un-published images in a single application registration, proving that a prolific creative can register a large number of works economically. You wrote, “The work is technically copyrighted to you the moment it is created. having it registered just makes it easier to prove if you get involved with a legal dispute.” If you register your works BEFORE publication or WITHIN five-years of First-Publication, you’re granted presumptive proof (prima facie evidence) that you actually authored your paintings, you have evidence of a valid copyright, and all the information (facts) you included in your copyright registration application is deem valid unless it is refuted. See page 7 of www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf When you fill-out a copyright registration application, you’ll have to check a box to “certify” to the best of your knowledge the following: “I certify that I am the author, copyright claimant, or owner of exclusive rights, or the authorized agent of the author, copyright claimant, or owner of exclusive rights of this work and that the information given in this application is correct to the best of my knowledge.” “Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided by section 409, or in any written statement filed with the application, shall be fined not more than $2500. (17 USC 506(e))”. If a person lies about creating or owning a particular registered copyright or other material component included in the application, s/he is subject to a fine up to $2500. This is one of the CRIMINAL components of the Copyright Act. I imagine the copyright registration will also be cancelled if the party is found guilty. In addition, before you can file a copyright infringement action in federal court, you must attach a copy of your Certificate of Registration to the complaint (some jurisdiction permit plaintiffs to “file” vs. actually receiving their registration) to have legal standing (the right to sue). Sometimes you might get infringers who challenge your copyright’s validity and ownership. When that happens, just show them a copy of your Certificate of Registration and link them to the legal citations I referenced or better(!) have them contact your intellectual property attorney to explain why they’re out-of-luck. To file a copyright infringement action, you MUST register the copyright. As of November 2016, it’s currently taking about eight-months for the Copyright Office to process an eCO on-line application; paperforms are taking about 14-months to clear. If you want the Copyright Office to expedite and process your application in about a week, it’s an additional $800 charge! BONUS: With your copyright Certificate of Registration in-hand, US Customs and Border Protection can help stop the unlicensed/counterfeit importation of your paintings on product and merchandise from entering the United States-pretty cool! See 17 U.S. Code § 602. Also see www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0f323c66-e121-4736-92d0-b263b0865b6e You wrote, “For me, the videos of me creating the work are published the week they are made, so that will go a long way in my defense if I do end up in any sort of legal battle.” Without having a timely registration on-file, it’ll likely be too costly and difficult for you and your copyright attorney to fully enforce your copyrights and receive money damages. In fact, if you contact a copyright attorney, seeking help to recover money damages from an infringer, her first question to you, “Did you timely register your painting’s copyright?” A timely registered copyright is very much like an insurance policy: It provides creatives with a BIG legal stick that encourages infringers to quickly settle their infringements out of court. On the other hand, if creatives have to go to trial to defend their rights, their timely registered copyrights make them eligible for enhanced statutory money damages from $750 to $30,000 (and up to $150,000 for willful infringement) AND the reimbursement of their attorney fees (both at the court’s discretion). See 17 U.S. Code §§ 502-506. According to 2,577 members of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the average cost to litigate a US copyright infringement lawsuit with less than $1 million at risk from the trial to the appeal process is $350,000 (YIKES!). Source www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims/usco-smallcopyrightclaims.pdf (see page 8 of this PDF). Unless your un-registered work was used commercially, like on packaging, TV marketing, or other expensive media spots (where actual damages/profits can potentially run in the millions of dollars), your registration needs to be timely filed to have a chance to receive real money damages from the infringer. In summary, here’s why you timely register your artwork (Ilike Parts 5 & 6!): 1) You have immediate standing to pursue infringement actions in federal court; 2) You have presumptive proof of valid copyrights; 3) You have the ability to pursue statutory damages from $750 to $150K for infringed works (notwithstanding Fair Use) in litigation; 4) You have the ability to recoup your attorneys’ fees & costs in litigation; 5) US Customs & Border Control can seize Chinese, Canadian, Mexican, German, and other international exporters that include your unlicensed paintings on their products from entering the US (cups, calendars, maps, apparel, and other merchandise affixed with your art); and 6) You have LEVERAGE to push the infringers to accept your out-of-court settlement offer; otherwise, they are subject to protracted litigation and liable for Parts 3 & 4. John W. Mashni, entertainment attorney with Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC, writes, “We encourage all content creators, including authors, producers, businesses, musicians, filmmakers, organizations, photographers, and freelancers to register all of their copyrighted materials to take advantage of the benefits that registration provides.” See www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=72fa2637-e8bc-41b1-a327-fdbd56658739 You’re a talented artist; your paintings should all be timely registered!
You can register them in batches every three months. It is better than register not at all. You can't enforce your right without it. Without many infringers will give you the finger. Yes, the artist could still sue, but the costs for actually enforcing your rights are insane.
Silke Schümann wrote, “You can register them in batches every three months.” That’s not correct. In order to register artworks in batches every three month, ALL the works included in the registration must be UN-published--you can NOT mixed published and un-published artworks in the same registration. If all the works were first-published simultaneously (same date) in the same unit of publication (calendar, magazine, website, etc.), you’re permitted to register them all in one eCO Standard Application. Publication has a special meaning under US copyright law: If you allow others to share, distribute, download, save, or make copies of your web or social media displayed artworks, then your work has likely been published. If you include social media icons like Facebook, Instagram, etc. next to your posted artworks where you’re encouraging others to share your art, then your work has likely been published. The easiest way to enforce your art/painting copyrights is to register them as UN-published before posting them anywhere.
Wow, thank you very much to sharing copy knowledge, for a new artists, they need to learn more about copyright issues. It’s really not cool to using other people hard work for profit purposes. This is really disgusting.
Wow, this is so confusing and frustrating to be honest. How are you supposed to draw/paint lets say a tiger without looking at a reference foto? I really don't have the imagination to do that. Luckily I'm no where near selling nor printing any of my stuff, so no need to worry. Anyways, love your videos, you're such a huge inspiration! ;D love from Denmark (so cheesy, i'm sorry, hehe)
Ida Its not as bad as it seems. You can use reference photos, you just need to have permission from the photographer to use their photo. There are awesome websites like paintmyphoto.ning.com/ where you can get royalty free photos to work from. There are a lot of amazing photos there. You can also purchase royalty free reference CDs from people like wildlife artist Jason Morgan - Wildlife Art
Larchi interpretation of law is a bit exagerated. I know many established artists whose works are obviously not even partly, but totally, inspired by known and famous photos. They're specialised in specified area, and anyone interested in that area could easily recognise the photo that "inspired" theire work. As long as I know, they have never ever had any copyright issue with the copyright owners, and I'm sure they've never asked for authorisation as they never mention it. If you take any subject out from it context and paint it, especially if it's a famous subject that is hugely photographed, it's difficult for the CW owner to prove technically that it's taken from its own picture, I guess that's a simple trick that prevent most artists from being pursued by photographers. And I don't consider it as stealing as long as a huge amount of art produced throughout History, and especially in modern History, is based on previous famous work of art or creation. It could be considered as reinterpretation, hommage, inspired by, fan art, parody, caricature... it's a kind of art on its own. Law has nothing to do in it, and should keep itself away from creativity. As I know, there's nothing new in this world, everything is recycled, transformed... and I hate when an artist talks as filthy lawyers. It's not an artist anymore. Just someone trying to create and protect his passive income. A materialistic artist ! how ironic !
I mean I dont see anything wrong with using a reference photo for the shape and anatomy of a tiger... but I suppse drawing the stripes on your own though can give the lovable cat some uniqueness as each *individual* tiger, zebra, tortoise, cow or any other animals with crazy markings have their own unique stripes, shell markings or patches! it's like the animal's very own finger print, maybe trying to draw stripes on your own a little may just give the animal you're drawing it's very own charm, that what I would do at least
Dang, I'm glad I watched this video. But here's the question: I am working on a 13"x26" painting. I found an image of a skateboarder online to use as a reference. In the painting the skateboarder only takes up 2"x2" of the canvas. I have changed the clothes and the skateboard color, but the overall form and pose of the skateboarder is identical. Am I breaking the law?
But, if i want to draw super man, and don't sell it or use it for my site, instagram etc. Can i draw it then ? Because then i just use it for myself right ? I really agree about the photographic part. There are so many people who do that! i'm a amateur photographer and i really know how it feels. Btw you are awesome! Greets from the Netherlands
Marjet S If you speed and no one is around to see you do it...it's still technically illegal but you're not likely to get caught. Same thing with art. Technically you're still violating copyright, but if no one sees it you can't exactly get in trouble for it. That said, people draw spider man all the time under the concept of "fan art" and share it online, and don't have issue. Its still a violation of copyright but marvel won't normally go after anyone for it unless they are making prints, selling the work etc.
I know this is a late comment on this thread, but I have a question: I'm a wildlife artist and I'm not a photographer and can't take good enough reference photos myself so I rely on other people's photos. Can I buy photos from royalty-free sites like Fotolia to create and sell my art? I'm a graphite pencil artist and usually change something in the photo plus it would be in black and white which makes it look different too.
I have a question. I went through an art gallery of an artist who painted pictures back in the 1930s I want to do a video about this artist. Is this okay. Cheers Darren
Very informative, thanks for the vid. :) So do all of these limitations apply only when the artist is trying to sell their work? Say for instance if a youtuber was doing a speed painting a celebrity from a reference photo as a tutorial and had no intention of selling it, and was just doing it purely to demonstrate their own skill and have fun in the process, would it still be alright for them to do that?
No, technically that is still a violation of copyright. The thing is you start stepping into fan art at that point and many many companies allow for this and even encourage it. They can however at any point change their mind, and legally demand that the the art be removed.
For the person who went on a bout patented bananas - I dont think you watched the full thing?.... Its ok to copy art as a personal learning experience and keep it. - you just can put it up as your own but if you share it then you need to give credit to the person who did the tutorial etc (all the greats are used to help teach people). Its just that if you 'show' it as your own or try to 'sell' it that it is a copyright issues.
so would one get in trouble if they posted a video of a painting of like elsa from frozen on youtube as a speed painting video even if it was just for learning purposes? I know you were really elaborate but I wasn't sure if it was all specific to if you try and sell the piece or if it is just the creation process in general.
+Lachri Fine Art if someone was to sue you, do they always request you stop first , cease and desist type of thing, to 'give you a chance' so to speak if you do tread on that ground? thank you xx
Coming in a little late here. Maybe Someone has already asked below, but...if u get permission from an artist or photographer for using their ref photos, does that automatically allow you to make prints of your rendering of that photo, or do you specifically need additional permission if your intent is to sell prints?
Hey Lisa I was wondering if you could answer my questions. Firstly how do you color like what motion do you use and how do you hold your pencils because all my friends that watch your videos were asking me but I don't know and I didn't want to lie. Secondly,how do you know what colures to use or to layer . Any way your an amazing artist and I can't wait till your next video because I love your speed drawings thank you :):):):):);)
billy plant I normally move my pencils in light, small circles and add about 20 layers, blending in between every 3 or 4 with paint thinner. As for the color, that just comes with experience, and trial and error. Keep a scratch piece of paper next to your project so you can test out colors as you work :)
This has made me think that everything I have drawn up until now has been somewhat wasted. I'm forever drawing characters from Game of Thrones and Batman etc. things that I am a passionate about and heavily influenced by. I did a drawing recently of Ned Stark on the Iron Throne which I was going to apply for your critique. But now it seems I shouldn't have been doing it at all.
Oh its never a waste. As long as you weren't making prints, it can fall under the "fan art" category. Even with not being able to make prints from it, all of this has been helping you to improve your skill and that is never wasted time. When you want to start selling stuff, then you can use the techniques you learned from your fan art in your original pieces :D
I based a painting on a birthday card I received. This was later sold at a charity event. I have no idea who owns the copyright - nor do I have the original card. I am now concerned that this was illegal. Every week at my art class pupils use some sort of reference for a painting . We are hobbyists who have an end of year sale. Should I be worried ?
Would it still be counted as copyright if the piece of artwork was from a video instead of a photo? Eg. If i saw a dog running on a RUclips video and paused at the perfect moment, would that still count as copyright?
Carla René actually not true regarding using material such as paintings from RUclips paint alongs...many..for ex. The Art Sherpa has full lessons of acrylic paintings and has a disclaimer indicating that any of her paintings can be used for personal and selling use..as in most of the RUclips paint along videos..you need to credit the "original artist," in this case Cinnamon Cooney...another channel..paintwithkevin..he has more then 200 paint along videos in oils..again he allows anyone to copy and sell ...anyone who uses another Artists works when coming from a workshop..RUclips etc..must credit the original artist..you sign your name ..and must write " I inspired by...". What about the waterfalls in Lachris video of "how I plan my painting?" she used Photoshop and took a few pics of waterfalls and went with that....if 20 artists are at a workshop painting plein air and all painting the very same scene...lol when there are photos taken by a photographer ..of course they have the copy right logo on the pic...pics from travel sites...these are not copyrighted...they are not stated as such..and nature is a scene in which "not one individual owns ." What about the stencil she uses in her paintings..as in the one behind her..is that copy righted...not...I saw on comment asking if the pics on there are copy righted...the site is of pics that are "public domain," any artists that have been deceased for 70yrs or more becomes public domain..unless a collector takes over the copy rights...don't take this as a go to...I am only saying what is known..not a lawyer...create at your own ....not as to what I have indicated...although the RUclips sites I have mentioned..the art sherpa has a disclaimer under the info..and paintwithkevin..just contact him..they allow..again for their works to be sold...
Question about the Trademark stuff: I like to reference characters from Disney, Nickelodeon, Nintendo, etc. in my art, but I never copy an actual image of them, I always change them in some way (different colors, different physical structure, different poses, etc.) and I always make my own original compositions in my art. Example: I recently made a painting that had to do with the Covid-19 issue, and I used "Koopa Troopa" as the figurative element in the painting (gave him a mask, dressed him as an Airport security guard, etc.). I didn't mention Koopa Troopa or Nintendo in the title of the work. One of my favorite artists KAWS is doing this exact same thing, and his work is selling for millions at auctions, and somehow he isn't getting sued. He might have a license to use these images, but I seriously doubt it. My question is do you think it would be ok for me to do this? Why or why not? I thought this was considered "fair use" since I'm not copying an exact image from these companies, just referencing it, which I thought was legal. I appreciate any feedback you can give. Thanks.
Hi Lisa .... I love this video, very informative ... I belong to a non-profit art organization here in Florida and was wondering if you would let us use this on our website for our fellow artists and members to watch and take heed. Please let me know. Thank you.
Stanza, I too loved this video ... she explains a lot in a little time, but of course - we all know there's a whole more involved. She is good, that's for sure!!
What your opinion on Sherrie Levine's "After Walker Evans" photo then? It is literally a photo of an original Walker Evans photo. A lot of Levine's work is re-photographs of other works. The whole copyright issue was a huge debate in my art history class. So, I'm really curious about what your opinion.
I'm actually not really familiar with that case. If I remember correctly she photographed another photographers work and called it art? The family of the person she copied sued and won didn't they? I personally don't get the point of taking photos of another photographers work, and if the case was as simple as that, I don't at all agree with what she did. I admit though that I am not totally educated on the whole thing so I'm really only seeing the one side.
Is pixabay totally free to use their photos? Can you paint finding nemo just for a decoration in your room? What about dollar store canvases that have a preprinted design sortof like a paint by number, but without numbers so you decide the colors, can that be sold?
Crafty Tamara Pixabay is the best site for royalty free photos, so you can use them for references. Of course you can paint a character in your room, as long as it’s just personal and you are not making money from it or claiming it as your own. Lastly, no I would not sell anything that has been preprinted, because although you have chosen the colours, the design and product have not been created by you. Hope this helps x
ok I painted a mermaid maybe 12 years ago for a friends daughter.I believe it was Disney, but not sure. I never took a picture of it. I gave it as a gift. The daughter is now a teen and Im pretty sure its not in her room, but I'm not sure if she kept it because it was from me or gave it away or sold it. My friend does give a lot of stuff away. What happens if someone either bought it or received it free and then sells it? I feel kinda funny asking do you still have that painting? I mean it could be past around and I wouldn't know. Back then I never even thought of it being sold or given away.
Great video, but I have a question, let's say I look up on google how a side profile looks and I draw a generic person, I change things like colours, lightining, hairstyle, maybe I take a few photos as reference. Would it be stealing the pose?
If you create a transformative work than generally it is not a violation of copyright. Courts look at various factors when determining whether a work is to be considered transformative.
i was wondering if using celebrity images from google as a reference was infringement of the copyright law. I dont sell them i might share them at my Instagram page sometimes. Am i considered to be violating the copyright?
Sorry if I missed this in the video. But, does it change anything if you are not profiting? I mean, if you work from a reference photograph to create a drawing or painting, but have no intention on selling it, is this as big of problem? I am sure it is still wrong technically. But why would anyone ever come after you for using their photo for a reference when you aren't even profiting from it?
well as a photographer, if I had to paint anything I would have no problems avoiding copyright, the painting would not look like anything like the original.
HAHA!!
My uncle who is an artist told me about an artist that won a contest with a considerable cash prize using a photograph without permission. The photographer found out and the prize was taken back and the award taken away as well. As a photographer I can say it isn't just snapping a picture. It's usually thousands of dollars in equipment and countless hours of hiking and waiting in the case of wildlife photography and many more hours in post process editing and learning how to do it. I actually got into photography because I wanted to create my own compositions to paint.
One aspect of copyright law you haven't touched on is that the copyright remains with the 1st work only (the reference photo) and any derivative works created from that photograph are not automatically covered under copyright law. You must apply for copyright on derivative works and you must be able to show "transformational changes" from the original work and that you have expressed your own personal style and personality into the new work. If it is just a copy of the original photo then it is just a copy, not an original and not protected.
I agree with some points but what about if you do something and you have no idea someone else did it
and thank you for mentioning me in the video Lisa - appreciate it - Again ;)
Thank you for having these CDs available for artists! Some of my most popular work has come from those reference photos :D
Thanks Lisa for talking about this very important subject. I am always surprised how many artist are not aware they are stealing. Try taking your own photos people! You might surprise your self. Great vlog today! Thanks again for sharing. Brenda
Lisa, This is great information. I think it is so so so important that the artist or photographer understand these rules. We all appreciate your explanation of the copyright as it applies to painting another painting or photo. In reading some of the comments about how a photographer at a horse show had their photos used without their permission with the excuse that it was the horse of the person who used the photo. Just like you, I am not a lawyer, but when I was checking on submitting some of my photos to stock photo outlets I found out that there are many restrictions if "model releases" were not available. This not only applies to people, but also to pets and things that can be recognized. Caution!. If doing a photo or painting of someones pet, animal, or thing, make sure you get a model release to allow you to use the image in your photo or painting. Now this has nothing to do with copyright violation when someone uses your work without your permission, but it may eliminate problems in the future. Again, Lisa, thanks for the great vlog.
Etsy amongst a few other sites have artists selling paintings/prints of many Disney, DC, Marvel, etc. even if it's a silhouette of the character. Given a lot of those aren't showing details of the face or it'll be just a watercolored silhouette of a character, it's still CLEARLY "Ariel," "Batman," and so on (and most times the product has the character in the title). lol I'm all for artists getting their art out there via the web and even being inspired by famous characters but when the painting is more than "just inspired" then I start to lose respect for that artist. I've worked hard to teach myself art and have been drawing since a kid and enjoy seeing others who have worked just as hard (self-taught or went to school) as well as sites/youtube channels like this who share the knowledge. I just came across your channel today and I love your videos and tips. Thank you for taking the time to post them.
Muse Ology That is one of the things I really dislike about etsy. It is full of copyrighted material. Ebay pulls that stuff pretty fast. Etsy doesn't care at all :(
China is VERY bad at following copyright. In general if the image / painting / etc is on the net they think it is OK to copy and sell - the number of times I have seen my paintings copied on ebay :(
Yep, there are lots of issues with China in this :(
yeah same here. ive had paintings, signs and photos copied often....but i think they know im in a far away country with practically not much time or money to chase them down. it annoys me but theres no use me stressing over it if i cant do anything about it ;-)
Jason Morgan - Wildlife Art wow -- if I google myself I see my images online, but so far have seen no copies or any knowledge they are being used copied or sold (or "shared").
For years, nothing I painted was recognizable at all, but now that I paint much better......Andy Warhol, according to one biography, paid a fortune for using a photo of four flowers that he found in a newspaper. He used photos from newspapers all the time, and celebrities, not to mention the Campbells's soup cans, which if any of those he had permission for, I don't know.
I would be flattered, but if some company in China or someplace else was making a fortune using my stuff on a calendar for example, I would be very upset to think someone is making a cheap profit from an expensive work that I haven't been able to sell here for a fair price.
I believe you can get legal copyrights of your work, fill out a form for each image, not sure what it costs. Once there is a written copyright, it is easier to go after someone using your work. Otherwise it runs into time and money to go into the whole process having to start from a position to prove you created it in the first place. As my work gets better, I begin to think it might be worth the investment.
Sorry to hear your artwork are being used here in China. It's true! Almost all items plenty of business people copy to sell like books, bags etc...
I am very glad you posted this! I have a huge problem as an amateur equine photographer with people stealing my pictures because their horse is in it. I actually had to stop photographing for a local horse show circuit because when I would post pictures from shows for leopke to purchase, they would just steal them. The only money I made from this was from prints that were purchased. I put in countless hours of time and effort and never was played a cent, yet somehow my pictures were showing up everywhere! Unfortunately I couldn't afford Photoshop and didn't know about gimp to water mark them. People assumed because their horse was in it, they could use it. Wrong. Several years later I still see my pictures as profile pics on Facebook or as horse add pictures on craigslist. It was overall a very bad experience, and one I won't be doing again. People need to realize it is indeed stealing!
Yep, people do that same thing with dog show photographers as well. So many believe that if their dog is in the photo, then they own it. Nope, you own the dog, not the photo!. I recently had someone who hired me to paint their dog allow my painting to be used in a tattoo. She seemed to think that her owning the photo gave her the right to do so. Nope! And in that case, it was actually the tattoo artist at fault. He legally was required to get written permission from the original artist (me) before he started the tattoo. The really annoying part was when I saw the photos of this tattoo all over facebook and the person was giving credit and links to the tattoo artist but none to me as the actual creator of the work in the first place!
This is super helpful! I've been drawing since I was in kindergarten but I've never been able to create my own work I recreate (and I mean try to create exact replicas of those works) for my art. I've never been good with imagining my own ideas. I'm definitely going to start using my own ideas from now!
Good job explaining how to use references safely, unless you have authority to copy something exactly, references are for the general understanding, such as your aspen tree example, don't copy everything, just the general concepts. I generally use references to understand for example: what a quarter face lit looks like, what a dragon looks like, what dragon eyes look cool, what about their horns look like, what a sunset looks like, etc. Unless I'm doing fan art, I make sure that it looks original from my references. If someone wants to use my work as references, I personally would be flattered, just so long as they made it different, even if all they changed was the background. It would be cruel of my to go after that person.
Good video :) Glad to see someone is talking about this. VERY important I think to know about this as an artist.
thank you thank you thank you
this is perfect, I have been trying to explain to some people the basics of copyright and this would have come in so handy. It can very country to country, but most copyright laws are the same as they are talked about here.
This is how I paint & draw. I look a like 20 different photos, and I use my own creative though process to to converge everything that I've seen into one. Reiterating things that I like and leaving things that I don't like. You can't even look at my art and say "oh that's from that." Is completely unrecognizable and that's what's important. And can be inspire by someone's art but don't take it and claim it as your own. I love putting the original artist's name on my work. I have no problem with that.
Based on this, I could not draw a picture of my own face using my yearbook picture, because the photo in the yearbook is copyrighted to the company that the school hired to take the photographs. Isn't that nice?
Did you pay for that photo? Yes? Then, it might be considered a work for hire, and the copyright transferred to who ever payed for it. Do your own research (your local law library is a good place to start).
I liked it, and I just happened to have painted a shelf today from learning from you.... You know, the skull and butterfly I put on fb, WHEW! I'm glad you don't mind. Thanks for the great knowledge you bring .
I saw that, it is awesome!!!!
This is why I copyright my work before publishing it on social media or releasing it anywhere else. Also, if you don't copyright your work you won't be able to take it to court. Learned this the hard way, Lisa I love your videos you are very informative ☆
This is incorrect. "Copyright" is not a verb, there is no act of copyrighting. Copyrights exist the moment a unique creative work is created. Registering a copyright with a government is simply a useful way to prove whether you have copyrights for a work and can be used as evidence in court. Just because you haven't registered a copyright doesn't mean you can't protect your rights in court, it is simply more difficult to prove whether you are a copyright holder of a particular work if you have not registered your copyright.
In my experience mrhappy I had to "physically prove" my work with images and videos when working on my art which helped a lot when taking my work to court. Now, unfortunately it's not that easy to claim that your very own material is yours these days especially if it was featured for a company that did not ask for permission nor a release form. But thank you for your input
So I think, I'm just going to make my own photo's and draw them xD
dilara karatas That is ideal :D
Great I guess I'll have to go China to take a picture of a panda -.-
Hey Lachri, I was just wondering if im breaking copyright law if I took a screen shot of a celebrity in a music video and then composited it in photoshop by changing values and adding things like smoke to it, can I draw that composited image into a painting and then sell it as print?
+Hair I don't think so. She stated that no percent of changing a copyrighted image would allow it to be legal. And the frame of video is an image, and thus copyrighted.
Thank you for that info it is nice to know that. All of my art is original, (all 18 paintings so far) its not much but I was worried about copyrighting my work. I'm almost done with my Orca's and will be sending it to you someday soon. Intertwined has turned into a wheres waldo as I mentioned before, with so much going on in it. I've been working on it over a month now so, I hope you like it as much as I do. My son said to me its weird how something so beautiful can be so sad at the same time. It's surreal looking at the world for what it is, and it forces us to think. All of my art is meant to make you think, I just wish I was as good as you. DrQ'in I Love your stuff.
Thank you this has been so informative!! The art I have been creating would probably be classed as 'fan art' but understanding all this really encourages me to be more original and take my own photos! As a keen film maker I hope to steer clear of any issues in the future, especially as I'm learning the ukulele to make my own music:) I've had trouble in the past with people removing my credits to my art/ photos, attempting to claim as their own which is frustrating. Copyright is horrible in the way that everything seems protected and it's difficult to avoid, but good when you yourself have sweated over a piece only for someone to steal it :(
Very informative. Thank you. I often see paintings of celebrities for sale - everyone from John Lennon to Dolly Parton - and I wonder how those are able to make it to the mainstream. I can't believe everyone who's painted those has received permission.
This is very informative. Thank you, Lisa.
could you make a video on the "common" road painters and drawers go to make money. I think it would be interesting.
She is correct on all of this about copyright. Good information.
Once you buy a photo from whatever website . Will they continue selling the same picture to other people? If so, what if two or more people make a painting of it?
That was an awesome vid. I don't sell copyrighted work on my etsy I hate when ppl do that! I make polymer clay charms and there are sooooo many copycats on that site! I do have a question though, I can post fanart on deviantart just to show it off right? I definitely won't sell prints, that's not ok.
Usually you can without issue, make sure to label it as fan art. Legally it is still copyright but many of us do it, and like I mentioned in the video many companies actually encourage it. Some however will demand it be removed. It depends on the company.
Ok I’m late to the party here but I have to say I THat this is very well done and well said. I intend to make sure a lot of my artist pals see this.
This is why I shoot as much of my own reference as possible. Plus it’s fun to collect costumes and props!
Another thing to keep in mind, read your job contracts, even for jobs that seem unrelated to your art! Some job contracts (certain schools, for example) say that they (the job) can claim copyrights to anything you create while you work there, even works you made at home and for reasons unrelated to your job. If the contract says anything about copyrights, have a lawyer read through it before you sign it. If you are in a 'creator' field (ie artist, writer, film creator, etc), try to learn what you can about copyright law. Consider taking a copyright law course on Coursera or Edx (they are free). Just make sure you take a course in your country as copyright law varies from country to country.
YES!!! thank you!
I try to take my own photos for referense, or else I'll google for general info (let's say I want to draw someone playing a violin but I have no idea how to hold a violin..I look up lots of photos or play a video, make stic-figures and sketches to get a feel for the movements, and then work from them)
Or I go to deviantart and see what people put up there in stock images ad read their terms of use and give credit etc etc.
So if I were to make a portrait or a persons/celebs face and sell that, is that stealing too? Or do companies ACTUALLY own people's faces.
There are too many factors to answer yes or no, but I can say that if you did not take the photo then you do not have rights to use it. If you did take the photo I believe the law varies by state as to whether or not you can use it without that persons permission. You would need to talk to a copyright lawyer for the last part.
Interesting.. And very confusing since Ido not even live in the usa. Haha. Thanks tho!
It is confusing. Here's a bunch of scenarios. I'm not a lawyer but here's some perspective on each:
Situation (A):
Let's say you're a big fan of Justin Timberlake (JT) and you've studied him and watched him for years. So, you can pretty much draw a picture or paint a painting of JT in any position doing anything. So, you do a portrait of JT from your imagination and post it online or stick it in a gallery to sell it. In this case, you're probably okay.
Situation (B):
Now let's say you do a portrait of JT every day and start to sell them and let's assume you're successful (I mean...you're selling hundreds of JT portraits a year).
Situation (C):
You're paintings are SO good, you are contacted by a t-shirt company and they want to put the image on t-shirts and sell them.
Situation (D):
You are a photographer and you bump into JT on the street and you take his photo and sell it to a tabloid.
Situation (E):
You are a photographer and you bump into JT on the street and you take his photo and sell it to a t-shirt company to use on t-shirts that they will sell.
Again, I ain't no lawyer, but:
A famous person has the right to control how their face is used, in the same way that we all have a right to privacy. But, US courts have determined that if someone is a celebrity, then that makes them a PUBLIC FIGURE, and public figures have lost a certain amount of that control.
So... Situation A is probably not going to get you into trouble. JT is a public figure and that is reason enough, legally, for you to do a portrait of him and sell it. And let's say JT saw the painting and HATED it and wanted to take it down. Well...he could take you to court but he would probably lose, unless he could show that the image you painted was damaging to him and, at the same time, without merit.
Situation B also probably would not get you into trouble, but situation C probably would. Why? Well...b/c, as a public figure--an entertainment figure--there's a good chance JT has licensed (sold) permission to use his face on t-shirts to a company. If YOU are then selling his image on t-shirts, you're infringing on his ability to earn income as an entertainer. it wouldn't matter that your image is a painting. You'd be just as liable in court as situation E.
Situation D, however, you'd be safe. Why? B/c as a public figure, US courts have determined that he's lost a certain amount of public privacy so you do have the right to take his photo and sell it to a tabloid. But...the court would feel differently if you were selling the same photo to a t-shirt company (or manufacturing the t-shirts yourself).
--------------------------------
It's all about infringement and "infringement" is a little bit like "doing harm". In situations C and E, you are infringing on his ability to use his own face to earn income. And that's true even if he is NOT selling t-shirts on his own. We can't use his face to make money without his permission...without a license.
The one exception? "Journalism" and public comment. That's why we CAN make money selling it to a tabloid.
Interestingly, if you were a photographer, you would own the copyright of all your photos, but that doesn't mean you can do anything you like with them.
Let's say JT agreed to let me take his portrait, I (if I'm smart) will make sure he signs a 'model-release' where I make clear how I intend to use the photos.
Or, let's say JT is gonna be on the cover of Rolling Stone and Rolling Stone hires me to take the photos. I own the photos and Rolling Stone will pay me to use one of them on the cover. BUT-- I can then take one of the photos and sell it to Coke and let them put it on one of their coke cans. I own the copyright on the photo, but in this case, I don't have the right to license it to other commercial businesses.
One interesting case from mebbe 7(?) years ago. There was a photographer who had all these photos of Marilyn Monroe that hadn't been seen before. All he wanted to do was sell prints--he wasn't going to license them to other companies to put on products or anything like that. He just wanted to sell prints and exhibit them in galleries in order to do so. Well...the Marilyn Monroe estate sued and they won. I think the court made a mistake in this situation. The basic function of a photographer is to shoot photos and make prints. We already agree he has the copyright. But the Monroe estate argued that him selling prints was the same as him licensing Marilyn's image to a t-shirt company. Photographers were shocked.
I thought it was a huge mistake. But your original question was "do companies actually own people's faces?" Sometimes they do and these companies are very powerful. Especially nowadays in our media-rich world. People understand that when a celebrity dies, their image can be worth something. Actors now often draft up scenarios in their wills to determine which of their heirs will be in charge of their image.
Anyway...lazy sunday ramble...
+Concrete Turtle Thank you very much for taking the time to write this! That was actually very helpful. I think i understand it much better now 😀
Celebrities actually have certain unique protections in addition to normal intellectual property laws. They have additional protections related to people using their "likeness" and this could include a painting of a photo of them, that you have copyrights to. Its complicated, but if you want to sell art depicting celebrities you should be informed about legal issues related to "likeness."
Many artist on RUclips do drawing tutorial of characters that ain't theirs. For example, how to draw Elsa from Frozen. If they were to monetize their videos, would they come across any problems in the long run.
+PhantomDrawing They can. Fan art is a really gray area.
I am a painter AND a photographer. I unfortunately experienced copyright theft at an art show. An artist only 2 booths away had swiped a mother-infant portrait photo I had done, which was on my website and she created a LARGE 30 inch painting of this image which was the focal point of her entire booth, listed for sale at $2000! Needless to say, it was shocking, upsetting, and to make it worse she lied about where she got the image from. I contacted Professional Photographers of America which has a legal department to support their members and they told me I could demand she relinquish the painting to me- the artist refused, but she promised she would not sell it. I didn't feel it was worth it to pursue it further. Learn to pose your own people for paintings. Not only did she violate my rights, but those of my client who did not give her permission to recreate her image.
I am sorry you had this happen to you. I’ve had a number of things outright stolen and used also. Now that I’ve learned more about copyright (on my own) that I know I must also copyright it with the copyright office asap.
An idea about your portrait of the mother-infant that was stolen and used by the shameless artist without your permission; because she violated the rights of your client too, and used their face without getting a model release, your client can demand it not even be used to promote their painting (not just promise not to sell it).
Soooo we can still copy things as long we're not selling it? Like if it's just for practice, then it's fine? Right? Right?
yes
What about painting classes? Or art teachers or instructors that get paid for their services?
If it is just for practise and you are not selling or displaying the works than it is still a violation of the creators copyright... but how would they find out.. and even if they somehow did find out do you really thing any copyright holder is going to take legal action because an artists copied their photo for practise?
Perfectly put, I learned a lot. Thank you.
Thank you Lisa for making it so clear and putting it out straight. Respect :)
fiza foza :)
Fabulous, helpful and all "common sense" from my understanding of copyright. Could you tell us how to do good Google image searches to see if anyone copying an image I have created? Thank you for all the care and effort you put into sharing!
Woah! Im glad Lionsgate was ok with my Katniss hahaha! This was so informative (:
Yeah, like many companies they seem to love the free advertising they get from fan art :D
Thank you for this clarification. Idk who made up this crazy rule of 10%
Thanks for taking the time to make this video, very useful information.
Brilliant! This vlog needs to go viral, there are so many artists out there that would learn from it. I:-)
My daughter is going through all you just described even the visit to the deadbeat dad full of promises flop. Amazing story so inspirational on many levels. Thanks for sharing. I'm so curious as to the artist you mentioned, Hime Humenis? I'm sure that's misspelled but who is he? I'm always interested in an artist who has inspired any artist that I like and inspires me, so I'd like to take a view of his work.
Also, sometimes the photographer or original creator no longer owns their copyright, so definitely make sure to contact the correct person. For example, the copyright for many Disney designs are sold by the creator. Vice versa, too, not all works in a book are owned by the publishers. It depends on their contract. If you find a picture in a book or magazine, be sure to find out who actually holds the copyrights. It is still illegal if you don't have permission from all holders in many cases. Often times, both the publishers and creator own the copyrights and you must get written permission from both. Keep in mind that the copyright page doesn't always specify who owns photos and illustrations, just the written words. As a rule of thumb, contact both the publisher and creator of an image.
Lisa, thanks for the info. I was wondering if 'sampling' bits of other photos, ie. part of a mountain, stream or sky to craft a painting is wrong? It would be the painting version of what is done in the music industry.Finally, I think I have a great idea for reference photos. I'm going to ask the poster of a youtube video if I can use it to do a painting. Imagine the possibilities of all the still images you could get of a beautiful landscape. I think most people would love to have their video turned in to a painting.
Thank you ! This is an important subject, thank you for sharing
So informative! Thank you for this! I love your concepts in your paintings, so it's nice to know it's okay to use some of those ideas...just not copy. :) I drew a lion one time in my sketchpad, but I pieced him together from a few different lions. Would that be a copyright issue? It is hard to tell what photos I used due to him being sort of a Frankenstein, but I haven't painted him yet. I'm just not sure
You *should* be fine in that case :) There are always exceptions to everything though.
My issue is: I never can really copy something perfectly anyway but still, it's annoying. I do make get a character (fanart) done, could post it on DA, but I don't sell it. I but credit to artist (his/her name, usually their social site if possible and not forgotten too), and that's all I can provide. I don't want to prohibit myself to never make any fanart because of this.
Lisa, thanks so much for your information on copyright laws. I appreciate it and have found I am infringing, which is sooooooo weird because I have been such a stickler about not doing so since I have been more than violated in this way a few times before writing this comment..
Something that wasn't touched on is that, in order to help the honest people remain honest (just as locks are for honest people), it is ALWAYS extremely helpful to put a copyright notice on the artwork. The reason is that MOST people don't understand copyright laws; and when they see the copyright sign (what do you call it?), they automatically know hands off. Of course this will not dissuade the terminally dishonest EVER.
In fact, I have photos up online that have been stolen and the copyright notice taken off, either by cropping or blurring the area of the copyright. The funny thing is, the photos stolen weren't even that great. Lol. I have much better pictures up. I found one on an FB site I just happened upon and yet wasn't at all upset about it. I figured people had to be curious who the photographer was and must have looked it up. So to me, whether the person who stole it knew it or not, I benefitted. God is good.
So I was then able to write on the site in the comments section that I was the photographer and that more of my photos could be viewed at...blah, blah, blah. And since the site actually promoted Jesus as the focal point and made no money on it personally, I thought it was great that my photo found its way there.
But one of my and my husband's songs was stolen by Toyota for a nationwide commercial several years ago then our lawyer was bought off, and so Toyota got away with it. That I am still more than angry about, more so than words can express (which in this case phono-right laws apply). It happened another time with a Christian radio station's jingle with another of our songs, changed just enough to get away with it. Ugh! And another song full bore was stolen that was my dad's but done so after he died though I wasn't ever able to find the culprit. This isn't even to mention the others that have been stolen without us finding out about it.
I suppose the point I'm getting to is that, though it hurts when one's actual copyright and the like are infringed upon, I do believe copyright laws have crossed the line of the ridiculous. When I went to school, so long as the actual piece wasn't stolen and used for monetary gain, it was fine. In other words, if another media was used--say a drawing of a photo TWO SEPARATE TYPES OF ART USED TO EXPRESS SOMETHING--then there was no infringement. I agree with that.
So if ANYONE would like to draw my photos, that person absolutely may. To give me credit would just be some kind of wonderful, and I believe Jesus would bless that person for it. But if that person doesn't know I'm the artist but states it's a drawing of a photo, that's fine with me. And if it realistically looks exactly like mine, I just have to say that this artist wins out in that s/he far surpasses me as an artist of the original work. I will never get on that person for doing so. OH BROTHER, ARTISTS, GET OVER YOURSELVES! All that these laws are going to do is create MORE competition, causing the touchy ones to lose out. If you share, you win.
For example, seriously, someone isn't even supposed to practice drawing someone else's drawing or painting or photo even if it would be something that would never be shown to another living soul? That would be like me saying someone couldn't practice singing or playing the guitar to my songs. That's ridiculous. Afraid of competition much anyone? How bad is that artist if s/he is so freaked out over that? What does that say about these kinds of artists, REALLY? Now if money is made over it, I totally get the outrage IF ITS THE SAME MEDIA BEING USED, LIKE COVER TUNES. DUH! But all the rest is just STUPID! Seriously Stupid!
What if a person were to paint a picture that had been inspired by one of my songs? Should I sue that person for doing so though it's an entirely different media used to express it? OF COURSE NOT! HOW STUPID! Shouldn't I instead feel complimented that someone thought enough of my artwork to also make artwork of it? How inspired does that make me in my original work to then inspire others in another media to do likewise?
For instance, when I was younger, I actually started several fads with clothing and hair and etc. It never angered me that people were copycatting me except when they took credit for it. Instead, it VALIDATED me and encouraged me to know that what I thought looked good actually did, feeding my inner artist. Don't stifle artists by stifling those that help us artists out here feel validated who need the encouragement.
The only exception would be writing stories...plagiarism. Some people think, once it's spoken or turned into a movie, it's a different media. Words are words whether spoken or written. They ARE the same no matter what. One of my stories have been stolen also and turned into a movie on Hallmark. So this too is touchy to me SINCE THEY MADE MONEY OFF IT AND YANKED JESUS COMPLETELY OUT OF THE STORY AND DIDN'T GIVE ME CREDIT.
But now get this: Two people could be standing in the same spot and take the same photo and have it turn out exactly the same. Who owns the copyright then? Yeah, come on, people! If we have to ask that question, you know these laws are too ridiculous. Do you know what the answer is? I have no idea if this is the truth but have heard it from several separate sources that the person who has it in RAW format wins. But what if both have it in RAW format? The person who publishes it first? HEEEEEELLLLLLOOOOO! That's so obviously not fair.
Also, maybe others aren't aware, but a new law has been made so that, if an actor/actress or model disagrees with something s/he made in the past (say someone becomes a muslim after filming a Christian movie) and wants his/her parts yanked, this person can have the movie and or photos yanked until the parts are removed.
So as for the horse subject photos mentioned earlier in this comment section, yeah, the owners have the "right" now to demand that photo not be sold for monetary gain. Hence, it might behoove the photographer to work out something quick with the owners before they find out. Again, I agree...this is stupid!
However, the argument is that the photographer did use their horse as a model, so some sort of compensation should be made to make up for it if the photographer makes money off the photo. Why not then just give them free photos of their horse instead of a portion of what is made from it?
Well, anyway, I have some changes to make on my FB site now; but you better believe I'm going to be MORE THAN VOCAL about this issue because it is completely out of hand now.
--Victoria Tribby
You are welcome. And that was very kind of you to say. I agree with you. :O)
How about a video that shows my paintings should it have a caption like Katherine Arion Copyright 2020 at the end of the video?
Thank you dear Lisa, very informative.
Hey! Very helpful video, thanks! I'm trying to be more aware of these type of things now that I'm selling more & putting more out there online. Question, if you know and don't mind answering.. Not quite the same subject but As far as trademarking goes.. Did you actually trademark you're 'brand' (Lachri) when working under it or just purchase the domain of Lachri.com ? Is it sufficient to simply buy a domain or should I eventually use trademark? I assume this may be your last name. I'm looking to use a variant of my name. I know the likelihood of someone copying it is low.. But you never know. Hope this question makes sense. :)
I wanted to tell you that this is amazing information to know. I was always curious about copyright. I went as far as tring to research this and came up with nothing.. This amazingly made me feel a lot safer as an artest.
I have to say I have been watching some of your videos n absolutely love your attitude and the information you have givin me.. I draw and color more times than not but have tried to paint with acrilics very difficult for me i always wanna start by drawing the picture on the canvas... then paint it... do u by chance have any advice for me upon this?
+Pheonix Piro Sounds like that question would be better suited for a Q&A video, way too much info to type out lol. Check out www.lachri.com/faq
Thank you for this. I have had a lot of mixed opinions on this, and I tend to air on the side of caution. The art world is new to me, and I'm considering trying to sell. Ita so tricky...if I take one element from something else, and put it in a completely different overall painting, but that element is identifiable, then it's still a violation? I'm still a little confused, and very afraid, because I don't intend to take someone else's work, and I don't understand the line between inspiration and copying. This vlog was helpful. I still have questions, but this was very helpful. Thank you!
*I still have questions, but this was very helpful*
So which one is it? lol
Oh dear, so I can't look up photos and then use them for photorealism? How would I contact them if I found the picture on Pinterest? Can't we draw those cartoon characters for fun? What would happen if we did get in trouble for them?
since this comment is a little old i'd thought to just toss in my 2 cents
you can still look up royalty free stuff and use it.
you can always try to reverse search stuff you find on Pinterest! if you use chrome you can right click on an image to do so.
you can draw cartoon characters for fun, but if they tell you to take it down, i would do it asap. you would just get fined via court if they took it that far, but taking it down would solve the issue.
This is a very interesting conversation indeed. I use reference photos all the time. I wrote 1 professional photographer and received permission to use an image he took because honestly the pose was so completely unique I felt like giving him the credit and respect for his art form. Currently, I'm looking at dance posses common to salsa, waltz, & copa. The poses are common because they are standard moves/poses in the dance style. There would be a heavy burden of proof for a photographer to prove an image is 100% unique or one of a kind in this world if digital information. I see no conflict in using poses after changing the face or dress and background to fit the story I'm telling via art. I think many of us feel the gravity of this. As an example, If you draw a nude woman in a certain post and get wealthy selling that particular painting. I can almost promise some photographer somewhere will start screaming copy-write violation. It then becomes a fight between lawyers and legal blah blah blah. Anyone else think its a little absurd for a photographer to put a model on a lazy Susan spin him or her and take 365 pictures and then claim every shot is theirs and you need their permission to use that pose?
I didn't sell a lot of my drawings in the past for this reason. Because some of them are recognizable...Now I would be more comfortable because I am making up my own stuff now. I do use multiple photos as reference to where the eyes are or how big is this creature or object I am wanting to draw is. :) LOVE your videos.
Sarah Kashuba Thanks :D And yeah, using reference for reference and not to actually copy is totally fine :)
I kinda get the idea that when you copy something as long as you are not selling it or claiming it to be yours its fine xD lol correct me if I am wrong though
Nope, still a violation of copyright :) Of course if you're not posting online or anything no one would know either way.
Lachri Fine Art I see I should have read all the responses to this, my bad. Wow, this is madness.
With all due respect, drawing fanart being illegal seems ridiculous. There are artists who are passionate about different books and movies that they grew up with and there shouldn't be anything wrong with sharing that. That's why I share it anyway.
SELLING fanart on the other hand is a very grey line, though. XD That's when a person is making money of a company's intellectual property since they can lose money for it.
What's difficult is that different companies have different standards about selling fanart. You have Disney which is notorious about copyright and there are companies like Sega who are super lenient about it. Then there are different countries which have different standards on copyright. It's incredibly tricky so it's safest not to do it when in doubt.
No, I'm not a lawyer ether. :x
LMaruchan I have read through most of the comments here and deleted most of this comment as what constitutes copyright is more than I realized! I will only add, sometimes an artist might "infringe" a bit, not thinking the painting will ever end up being a finished piece........I have a lot of my own photos and it occurs to me, I may like a photo because it reminds me of a scene I have photographed myself and I should go look for it.
You have to draw like crazy, I personally hate to draw and love to paint, woe is me, because as Lisa points out -- if the drawing isn't right to begin with, it will only get worse as the painting goes along unless you have top notch drawing skills, which I don't.
Sorry but you are wrong
The Black Johnny Gat
Wrong about.........
LMarucha thanks good to know
Exactly, is all about the selling, when you benefit from it financially in any way, even if you earn or benefit from having it exhibited, maybe even just raising your profile as an artist, then you are liable to a suit. And they can demand money from you if they win that suit. As simple as that. And there is technology out there that scans the internet for matching images to raise copyright concerns. Don't chance it.
It's just so hard because I lack imagination so if im doing for instance multiple fish and I want one in another angle i cant imagine what the shadow would be like without a particular reference :/
You could make a model resembling the fish(es) in model clay or whatever and use that (or take a photo of the model and use that). That's also great practice to learn shadows.
I absolutely fell in love with your "Surreal waterfall landscape in acrylic - Lachri speed painting" tutorial and I was wondering where those photos were found? Of the waterfalls?? A lot of people around me also use photo reference websites and sometimes they don't seem very legit? I see some photos that I've seen on google EVERYDAY and then I also see them on these websites? So it just seems like a scam.. So I was just wondering what are some of the websites and other references you use??
Thanks!
Taylor M For the waterfalls, that portion was a combo of about 15 non royalty free reference photos. In that case they were all used as reference only, not to copy from so I was able to use non royalty free images for that. For royalty free images I either contact the photographer directly and get permission, use photos purchased from www.jasonmorgan.co.uk/ or wildlifereferencephotos.com/ or use paintmyphoto.ning.com There are a lot of other royalty free sites too, but those three are my main ones that I use.
This is the issue: a lot, A LOT on google images is art, so a LOT is illegal and unable to be used .... And if you turn on copyright filter, nothing good is left. When you need it as inspiration, ref, for your wallpaper, you always seem to be called a thief.... seriously, if you put your art out there, it's a risk on it's own (I both support that opinion and hate it because I make art too and it's frustrating).
I checked it out and I found out that Andy Warhol was actually sued THREE times but I could only get info on two of the lawsuits.Both times Andy Warhol was sued for copyright infringement he was sued for reproducing photos taken by other photographers without permission.However one must take into consideration that Andy Warhol DID NOT HARDLY CHANGE THESE PHOTOS AT ALL and they appear almost exactly like the original works.Andy Warhol could have created DERIVATIVE WORKS by altering the original photos until they became unrecognizable.Then he could have claimed Fair use under U.S. Copyright law.
What about painting famous mountains, architecture like the Eiffel tower or old archeology artefactos?
I'd like to submit the following from the FAQs section of TeachingCopyright.org.
"When does copyright start? Do I have to register the work with the government?"
"Copyright status is automatic upon creation of your original creative work in a fixed, tangible form. Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is not necessary for copyright status and protection, though registration is needed in order to pursue an infringement claim in court."
Thank you , Lisa !
Some years ago, I did a painting which I donated to a charity, and was asked to sign away the copyright, so only the charity could sell further copies of the work (it was made into a calendar, plus they sold prints, notecards, etc). I agreed to this, and was told that I could still use the image under the 20% change concept, but this was not in the contract. I did make a second painting (also donated to the same charity for a silent auction) the following year, and changed some details, but it would still have been clearly inspired by the original work. I don't suppose there would really be much of a case against my using my own original work as reference, especially since any profits went to the same charity, but now I wonder, since I had sort of thought that the 20% change concept was legitimate. Good information to know. The original photo I used for inspiration was taken by a friend, I had her permission to use it, and she was identified in both cases.
good thing the anime art is a world of infinite fan arts with no copyright strikes
Hi Lisa. Thank you for providing this information. I appreciate your time and effort. I have a question for you. Do you register your works with the copyright office before you publish them online? I have a body of work completed and my website is almost done. I am getting antsy and want to launch. Do you recommend waiting and publishing with copyright office first? I know you aren’t a lawyer and I am not asking for legal advice. Just your opinion please… Thank you!
I personally do not. I just produce too much work for that to be practical cost wise. The work is technically copyrighted to you the moment it is created. having it registered just makes it easier to prove if you get involved with a legal dispute. For me, the videos of me creating the work are published the week they are made, so that will go a long way in my defense if I do end up in any sort of legal battle.
Hi Lisa: Wonderful artwork and nice work on your videos. I’m particularly fond of your art business advice and strategies!
You wrote, “I just produce too much work for that to be practical cost wise [to register my painting copyrights].”
In my response to Ralph Serpe’s inquiry, I wrote that creatives can group-register an unlimited number of UN-published works in a $55 eCO (on-line copyright registration) Standard Application. As a photographer, I’ve registered over 1000+ un-published images in a single application registration, proving that a prolific creative can register a large number of works economically.
You wrote, “The work is technically copyrighted to you the moment it is created. having it registered just makes it easier to prove if you get involved with a legal dispute.”
If you register your works BEFORE publication or WITHIN five-years of First-Publication, you’re granted presumptive proof (prima facie evidence) that you actually authored your paintings, you have evidence of a valid copyright, and all the information (facts) you included in your copyright registration application is deem valid unless it is refuted. See page 7 of www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
When you fill-out a copyright registration application, you’ll have to check a box to “certify” to the best of your knowledge the following:
“I certify that I am the author, copyright claimant, or owner of exclusive rights, or the authorized agent of the author, copyright claimant, or owner of exclusive rights of this work and that the information given in this application is correct to the best of my knowledge.” “Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided by section 409, or in any written statement filed with the application, shall be fined not more than $2500. (17 USC 506(e))”.
If a person lies about creating or owning a particular registered copyright or other material component included in the application, s/he is subject to a fine up to $2500. This is one of the CRIMINAL components of the Copyright Act. I imagine the copyright registration will also be cancelled if the party is found guilty.
In addition, before you can file a copyright infringement action in federal court, you must attach a copy of your Certificate of Registration to the complaint (some jurisdiction permit plaintiffs to “file” vs. actually receiving their registration) to have legal standing (the right to sue).
Sometimes you might get infringers who challenge your copyright’s validity and ownership. When that happens, just show them a copy of your Certificate of Registration and link them to the legal citations I referenced or better(!) have them contact your intellectual property attorney to explain why they’re out-of-luck.
To file a copyright infringement action, you MUST register the copyright. As of November 2016, it’s currently taking about eight-months for the Copyright Office to process an eCO on-line application; paperforms are taking about 14-months to clear. If you want the Copyright Office to expedite and process your application in about a week, it’s an additional $800 charge!
BONUS: With your copyright Certificate of Registration in-hand, US Customs and Border Protection can help stop the unlicensed/counterfeit importation of your paintings on product and merchandise from entering the United States-pretty cool! See 17 U.S. Code § 602. Also
see www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0f323c66-e121-4736-92d0-b263b0865b6e
You wrote, “For me, the videos of me creating the work are published the week they are made, so that will go a long way in my defense if I do end up in any sort of legal battle.”
Without having a timely registration on-file, it’ll likely be too costly and difficult for you and your copyright attorney to fully enforce your copyrights and receive money damages. In fact, if you contact a copyright attorney, seeking help to recover money damages from an infringer, her first question to you, “Did you timely register your painting’s copyright?”
A timely registered copyright is very much like an insurance policy: It provides creatives with a BIG legal stick that encourages infringers to quickly settle their infringements out of court. On the other hand, if creatives have to go to trial to defend their rights, their timely registered copyrights make them eligible for enhanced statutory money damages from $750 to $30,000 (and up to $150,000 for willful infringement) AND the reimbursement of their attorney fees (both at the court’s discretion). See 17 U.S. Code §§ 502-506.
According to 2,577 members of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the average cost to litigate a US copyright infringement lawsuit with less than $1 million at risk from the trial to the appeal process is $350,000 (YIKES!). Source www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims/usco-smallcopyrightclaims.pdf (see page 8 of this PDF).
Unless your un-registered work was used commercially, like on packaging, TV marketing, or other expensive media spots (where actual damages/profits can potentially run in the millions of dollars), your registration needs to be timely filed to have a chance to receive real money damages from the infringer.
In summary, here’s why you timely register your artwork (Ilike Parts 5 & 6!):
1) You have immediate standing to pursue infringement actions in federal court;
2) You have presumptive proof of valid copyrights;
3) You have the ability to pursue statutory damages from $750 to $150K for infringed works (notwithstanding Fair Use) in litigation;
4) You have the ability to recoup your attorneys’ fees & costs in litigation;
5) US Customs & Border Control can seize Chinese, Canadian, Mexican, German, and other international exporters that include your unlicensed paintings on their products from entering the US (cups, calendars, maps, apparel, and other merchandise affixed with your art); and
6) You have LEVERAGE to push the infringers to accept your out-of-court settlement offer; otherwise,
they are subject to protracted litigation and liable for Parts 3 & 4.
John W. Mashni, entertainment attorney with Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC, writes, “We encourage all content creators, including authors, producers, businesses, musicians, filmmakers, organizations, photographers, and freelancers to register all of their copyrighted materials to take advantage of
the benefits that registration provides.” See www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=72fa2637-e8bc-41b1-a327-fdbd56658739
You’re a talented artist; your paintings should all be timely registered!
You can register them in batches every three months. It is better than register not at all. You can't enforce your right without it. Without many infringers will give you the finger.
Yes, the artist could still sue, but the costs for actually enforcing your rights are insane.
Silke Schümann Thanks for advice! Very much appreciated!
Silke Schümann wrote, “You can register them in batches every three months.”
That’s not correct. In order to register artworks in batches every three month, ALL the works included in the registration must be UN-published--you can NOT mixed published and un-published artworks in the same registration.
If all the works were first-published simultaneously (same date) in the same unit of publication (calendar, magazine, website, etc.), you’re permitted to register them all in one eCO Standard Application.
Publication has a special meaning under US copyright law: If you allow others to share, distribute,
download, save, or make copies of your web or social media displayed artworks, then your work has likely been published.
If you include social media icons like Facebook, Instagram, etc. next to your posted artworks where you’re encouraging others to share your art, then your work has likely been published.
The easiest way to enforce your art/painting copyrights is to register them as UN-published before posting them anywhere.
Wow, thank you very much to sharing copy knowledge, for a new artists, they need to learn more about copyright issues. It’s really not cool to using other people hard work for profit purposes. This is really disgusting.
Wow, this is so confusing and frustrating to be honest. How are you supposed to draw/paint lets say a tiger without looking at a reference foto? I really don't have the imagination to do that. Luckily I'm no where near selling nor printing any of my stuff, so no need to worry. Anyways, love your videos, you're such a huge inspiration! ;D love from Denmark (so cheesy, i'm sorry, hehe)
Ida Its not as bad as it seems. You can use reference photos, you just need to have permission from the photographer to use their photo. There are awesome websites like paintmyphoto.ning.com/ where you can get royalty free photos to work from. There are a lot of amazing photos there. You can also purchase royalty free reference CDs from people like wildlife artist Jason Morgan - Wildlife Art
You can also check DeiviantArt for stock photos :)
That paintmyphoto website doesn’t appear to work any more. :(
Larchi interpretation of law is a bit exagerated. I know many established artists whose works are obviously not even partly, but totally, inspired by known and famous photos. They're specialised in specified area, and anyone interested in that area could easily recognise the photo that "inspired" theire work. As long as I know, they have never ever had any copyright issue with the copyright owners, and I'm sure they've never asked for authorisation as they never mention it.
If you take any subject out from it context and paint it, especially if it's a famous subject that is hugely photographed, it's difficult for the CW owner to prove technically that it's taken from its own picture, I guess that's a simple trick that prevent most artists from being pursued by photographers. And I don't consider it as stealing as long as a huge amount of art produced throughout History, and especially in modern History, is based on previous famous work of art or creation. It could be considered as reinterpretation, hommage, inspired by, fan art, parody, caricature... it's a kind of art on its own.
Law has nothing to do in it, and should keep itself away from creativity.
As I know, there's nothing new in this world, everything is recycled, transformed... and I hate when an artist talks as filthy lawyers. It's not an artist anymore. Just someone trying to create and protect his passive income. A materialistic artist ! how ironic !
I mean I dont see anything wrong with using a reference photo for the shape and anatomy of a tiger... but I suppse drawing the stripes on your own though can give the lovable cat some uniqueness as each *individual* tiger, zebra, tortoise, cow or any other animals with crazy markings have their own unique stripes, shell markings or patches! it's like the animal's very own finger print, maybe trying to draw stripes on your own a little may just give the animal you're drawing it's very own charm, that what I would do at least
Dang, I'm glad I watched this video. But here's the question: I am working on a 13"x26" painting. I found an image of a skateboarder online to use as a reference. In the painting the skateboarder only takes up 2"x2" of the canvas. I have changed the clothes and the skateboard color, but the overall form and pose of the skateboarder is identical. Am I breaking the law?
But, if i want to draw super man, and don't sell it or use it for my site, instagram etc. Can i draw it then ? Because then i just use it for myself right ? I really agree about the photographic part. There are so many people who do that! i'm a amateur photographer and i really know how it feels. Btw you are awesome! Greets from the Netherlands
Marjet S If you speed and no one is around to see you do it...it's still technically illegal but you're not likely to get caught. Same thing with art. Technically you're still violating copyright, but if no one sees it you can't exactly get in trouble for it. That said, people draw spider man all the time under the concept of "fan art" and share it online, and don't have issue. Its still a violation of copyright but marvel won't normally go after anyone for it unless they are making prints, selling the work etc.
I know this is a late comment on this thread, but I have a question: I'm a wildlife artist and I'm not a photographer and can't take good enough reference photos myself so I rely on other people's photos. Can I buy photos from royalty-free sites like Fotolia to create and sell my art? I'm a graphite pencil artist and usually change something in the photo plus it would be in black and white which makes it look different too.
I have a question. I went through an art gallery of an artist who painted pictures back in the 1930s I want to do a video about this artist. Is this okay. Cheers Darren
Thank you so for your advice, interesting subject.
Very informative, thanks for the vid. :) So do all of these limitations apply only when the artist is trying to sell their work? Say for instance if a youtuber was doing a speed painting a celebrity from a reference photo as a tutorial and had no intention of selling it, and was just doing it purely to demonstrate their own skill and have fun in the process, would it still be alright for them to do that?
No, technically that is still a violation of copyright. The thing is you start stepping into fan art at that point and many many companies allow for this and even encourage it. They can however at any point change their mind, and legally demand that the the art be removed.
Best video on this topic, all info in 1 place. Thank you
Hi Lisa, I watched your Vlog about copyright rules. You talked about buying a DVD with lots of photos and references, where can I buy it?
For the person who went on a bout patented bananas - I dont think you watched the full thing?.... Its ok to copy art as a personal learning experience and keep it. - you just can put it up as your own but if you share it then you need to give credit to the person who did the tutorial etc (all the greats are used to help teach people). Its just that if you 'show' it as your own or try to 'sell' it that it is a copyright issues.
Lachri you have awesome art work. 👏
so would one get in trouble if they posted a video of a painting of like elsa from frozen on youtube as a speed painting video even if it was just for learning purposes? I know you were really elaborate but I wasn't sure if it was all specific to if you try and sell the piece or if it is just the creation process in general.
+Lachri Fine Art if someone was to sue you, do they always request you stop first , cease and desist type of thing, to 'give you a chance' so to speak if you do tread on that ground? thank you xx
Thankyou so much for the video ma'am. I Just have one question what if its not to sell but only for my instagram or facebook?
I also learned this in Graphic design school and I see tons of people who sells on Etsy that has so many copyright what??
Very informative. Thanks so very much for sharing.
Coming in a little late here. Maybe Someone has already asked below, but...if u get permission from an artist or photographer for using their ref photos, does that automatically allow you to make prints of your rendering of that photo, or do you specifically need additional permission if your intent is to sell prints?
Thank you for these tips! The paintmyphoto link doesn't work, is there an updated URL?
Hey Lisa I was wondering if you could answer my questions.
Firstly how do you color like what motion do you use and how do you hold your pencils because all my friends that watch your videos were asking me but I don't know and I didn't want to lie.
Secondly,how do you know what colures to use or to layer . Any way your an amazing artist and I can't wait till your next video because I love your speed drawings thank you :):):):):);)
billy plant I normally move my pencils in light, small circles and add about 20 layers, blending in between every 3 or 4 with paint thinner. As for the color, that just comes with experience, and trial and error. Keep a scratch piece of paper next to your project so you can test out colors as you work :)
Thank you I will do that
This has made me think that everything I have drawn up until now has been somewhat wasted. I'm forever drawing characters from Game of Thrones and Batman etc. things that I am a passionate about and heavily influenced by. I did a drawing recently of Ned Stark on the Iron Throne which I was going to apply for your critique. But now it seems I shouldn't have been doing it at all.
Oh its never a waste. As long as you weren't making prints, it can fall under the "fan art" category. Even with not being able to make prints from it, all of this has been helping you to improve your skill and that is never wasted time. When you want to start selling stuff, then you can use the techniques you learned from your fan art in your original pieces :D
thx sooooooo much! that was so helpful!!!!
I based a painting on a birthday card I received. This was later sold at a charity event. I have no idea who owns the copyright - nor do I have the original card. I am now concerned that this was illegal. Every week at my art class pupils use some sort of reference for a painting . We are hobbyists who have an end of year sale. Should I be worried ?
Would it still be counted as copyright if the piece of artwork was from a video instead of a photo? Eg. If i saw a dog running on a RUclips video and paused at the perfect moment, would that still count as copyright?
Carla René actually not true regarding using material such as paintings from RUclips paint alongs...many..for ex. The Art Sherpa has full lessons of acrylic paintings and has a disclaimer indicating that any of her paintings can be used for personal and selling use..as in most of the RUclips paint along videos..you need to credit the "original artist," in this case Cinnamon Cooney...another channel..paintwithkevin..he has more then 200 paint along videos in oils..again he allows anyone to copy and sell ...anyone who uses another Artists works when coming from a workshop..RUclips etc..must credit the original artist..you sign your name ..and must write " I inspired by...". What about the waterfalls in Lachris video of "how I plan my painting?" she used Photoshop and took a few pics of waterfalls and went with that....if 20 artists are at a workshop painting plein air and all painting the very same scene...lol when there are photos taken by a photographer ..of course they have the copy right logo on the pic...pics from travel sites...these are not copyrighted...they are not stated as such..and nature is a scene in which "not one individual owns ." What about the stencil she uses in her paintings..as in the one behind her..is that copy righted...not...I saw on comment asking if the pics on there are copy righted...the site is of pics that are "public domain," any artists that have been deceased for 70yrs or more becomes public domain..unless a collector takes over the copy rights...don't take this as a go to...I am only saying what is known..not a lawyer...create at your own ....not as to what I have indicated...although the RUclips sites I have mentioned..the art sherpa has a disclaimer under the info..and paintwithkevin..just contact him..they allow..again for their works to be sold...
Question about the Trademark stuff: I like to reference characters from Disney, Nickelodeon, Nintendo, etc. in my art, but I never copy an actual image of them, I always change them in some way (different colors, different physical structure, different poses, etc.) and I always make my own original compositions in my art. Example: I recently made a painting that had to do with the Covid-19 issue, and I used "Koopa Troopa" as the figurative element in the painting (gave him a mask, dressed him as an Airport security guard, etc.). I didn't mention Koopa Troopa or Nintendo in the title of the work. One of my favorite artists KAWS is doing this exact same thing, and his work is selling for millions at auctions, and somehow he isn't getting sued. He might have a license to use these images, but I seriously doubt it. My question is do you think it would be ok for me to do this? Why or why not? I thought this was considered "fair use" since I'm not copying an exact image from these companies, just referencing it, which I thought was legal. I appreciate any feedback you can give. Thanks.
Hi Lisa .... I love this video, very informative ...
I belong to a non-profit art organization here in Florida and was wondering if you would let us use this on our website for our fellow artists and members to watch and take heed. Please let me know. Thank you.
Go for it =)
Thank you very much ... truly appreciated!
Terri Mills
Lisa, may I also use this on my own website? www.terrimillsart.com
I think it is valuable information for everyone to know!
Everybody should be aware of copyright theft and do the decent thing Terri. This is good.
Stanza, I too loved this video ... she explains a lot in a little time, but of course - we all know there's a whole more involved. She is good, that's for sure!!
What your opinion on Sherrie Levine's "After Walker Evans" photo then? It is literally a photo of an original Walker Evans photo. A lot of Levine's work is re-photographs of other works. The whole copyright issue was a huge debate in my art history class. So, I'm really curious about what your opinion.
I'm actually not really familiar with that case. If I remember correctly she photographed another photographers work and called it art? The family of the person she copied sued and won didn't they? I personally don't get the point of taking photos of another photographers work, and if the case was as simple as that, I don't at all agree with what she did. I admit though that I am not totally educated on the whole thing so I'm really only seeing the one side.
Is pixabay totally free to use their photos? Can you paint finding nemo just for a decoration in your room? What about dollar store canvases that have a preprinted design sortof like a paint by number, but without numbers so you decide the colors, can that be sold?
Crafty Tamara Pixabay is the best site for royalty free photos, so you can use them for references. Of course you can paint a character in your room, as long as it’s just personal and you are not making money from it or claiming it as your own. Lastly, no I would not sell anything that has been preprinted, because although you have chosen the colours, the design and product have not been created by you.
Hope this helps x
ok I painted a mermaid maybe 12 years ago for a friends daughter.I believe it was Disney, but not sure. I never took a picture of it. I gave it as a gift. The daughter is now a teen and Im pretty sure its not in her room, but I'm not sure if she kept it because it was from me or gave it away or sold it. My friend does give a lot of stuff away. What happens if someone either bought it or received it free and then sells it? I feel kinda funny asking do you still have that painting? I mean it could be past around and I wouldn't know. Back then I never even thought of it being sold or given away.
Great video, but I have a question, let's say I look up on google how a side profile looks and I draw a generic person, I change things like colours, lightining, hairstyle, maybe I take a few photos as reference. Would it be stealing the pose?
If you create a transformative work than generally it is not a violation of copyright. Courts look at various factors when determining whether a work is to be considered transformative.
i was wondering if using celebrity images from google as a reference was infringement of the copyright law. I dont sell them i might share them at my Instagram page sometimes. Am i considered to be violating the copyright?
Sorry if I missed this in the video. But, does it change anything if you are not profiting? I mean, if you work from a reference photograph to create a drawing or painting, but have no intention on selling it, is this as big of problem? I am sure it is still wrong technically. But why would anyone ever come after you for using their photo for a reference when you aren't even profiting from it?
I just ask the photographer if I may use their photo as a reference for my art.