Is it okay to sell a painting that you paint from a copyrighted photograph...?

Question

if you don't copy it exactly? change some things, leave some details out, use slightly different colors, etc.

Answer 1

If the photographer can recognise their work than you may be in trouble. . .

Answer 2

if your portray feels like a photocopy of the unique photograph, this is maximum possibly an infringement of copyright. no rely if this is a crucial transformation of the unique, like an impressionistic interpretation of a photo, this is possibly honest use. additionally, if the photograph is a photo that basically documents the visual attraction of a few thing, utilising it as a reference is far less risky than if the photograph is obviously a heavily arranged composition meant to be a paintings of paintings in itself. So an basic photograph of the Eiffel Tower can functionality a reference for a portray with none situation, whether the portray seems very very like the photograph, yet a photo that shows the tower from some unusual perspective or in some different way that shows creativity may be greater of a situation to apply as a variety. regrettably, each and each case is distinctive, so which you in no way rather comprehend until eventually and except you're taken to courtroom. while you're purely making paintings to entice close on your wall, in spite of the indisputable fact that, the probabilities of you ever having any issues are virtually 0 (and in some jurisdictions, they are precisely 0).

Answer 3

Of course, it is illegal to copy a photo and sell it for your own profit. But copyright laws go even further than that. If the original idea can be found in another work of art, it is also considered illegal. The usual suggestion, if you are going to use another person's work of visual art as an inspiration, is to use no more than 10 % of the original work.

Copyright laws, like tax laws, are one of the few areas in American law where you are guilty until proven innocent.

This information comes from some lawyer friends I know as well as my graphics arts teachers.

Rob

Answer 4

This is one of those gray areas - but it seems the courts have been following the idea that if it is instantly recognizable to be derivative then it is in the clear: e.g. Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroe piece has been duplicated many times with only some changes;you can see the original composition but in almost all cases, you can tell instantly it is NOT the original.

In art school I was taught the 10% was the amount of change that was required to be considered an "original" piece. (May have changed by now) If we had to have 90% original then every artist since time began has trampled on the caveman's (not Geico's) possible copyright. One of my drawings is a pen and ink (b/w) copy of a color picture of a little girl in burn bandages. I removed color (all), I caricatured her face, used about 5 different line techniques on similar bandages, and even adjusted features on her face to accent the feeling. This work would probably be in the gray zone, but when I did an alphabet of Campbell's cans, that would be ok (at least to Warhol) because the composition, colors and overall effect were totally different than Andy's original. (The trademark of Campbell's doesn't stop you from using it - Tm's are to keep your competition from looking like you enough to confuse potential customers i.e. I make a dark soda named dole with a red can and some Adidas swishes; it is often inferred that my intent was to get some absent minded coke buyers to buy mine by deception.)

A copyright is meant to allow a person to make an original work and then have complete control of it: if it gets duplicated, any changes in that duplication, any monies collected due to duplication, even how and when a piece is allowed to be seen. "It is MY heart and my work so I get to chose, if, how, when, where and in what matter, it gets shown." That's why copyright infringement does not require you to get money from the work, just use it in some way the copyright owner doesn't wish. A cute way to look at it is art is like underwear - it's yours and exclusively yours therefore you chose when to show them, who gets to see them, when to destroy them, etc.

This changes when a "work for hire" is made: you are being paid by an individual or company to produce artwork specifically for their use, not selling to the general public. If you have an idea for art at work, and they reject it, you can't go home change it and sell it to someone else IF you are on the payroll. BUT if you make what is called "on spec", meaning taking a chance that they may or may not use it, then you retain rights and they can be infringing your rights if they take your idea and don't follow your wishes.

Just giving credit doesn't do anything IF the artist has all rights reserved (look familiar?) Think about your own original works: would you be happy if someone duplicated your work and even gave you credit but you didn't want that piece ever seen? How about if they used it on Hate or racists websites? or put it on toilet paper and sold that? Is your work exclusively yours?

My point is: don't do small changes if you are going to snag a large portion of another's work, make sure you can instantly tell is is a "derivative" work.

If you want more detailed info, the laws concerning patents, copyrights and trademarks are on the Federal Government's websites: I use http://www.fedworld.gov to start.

Note: the signature has nothing to do with the copyright - it is a way to prove authenticity but has nothing to do with rights: when I was younger, my little brother decided to take large portions of my works that I had made, and remove my signature and put his own on. What he didn't know was
1) He only thought that made it ok to say he did it - it had his name on them
2) that I had full rights over my works even when my signature was removed
3) Just showing anyone else my work (whether he said it was his or mine) was an infringement of my copyrights - some of those things were for me and ONLY me - forever.
4) what I would do
I showed our parents what he'd done, waited for him to come home from school, and burned them all in a metal trashcan in the front yard as he walked up. It was my right as owner.

Answer 5

If you don't get caught yes.

I used to work in a Walgreens and when people came in with professional pictures, the machine that copies pics would copy them because of copyright laws. I would ask a lawyer or look it up or just don't get caught.

Repost in the legal section

Answer 6

Yes it is legal. As long as you interpret the painting and use your "artistic license" to make it your own.
There is one thing you should include is to give the original artist acknowledgment. Some statement like "after Picasso" or "after Rembrandt" .
Coping other persons work is a normal process in learning art as long as you give the person credit for originality and you are not trying to sell it as your own original idea.

Answer 7

Yes. I think its legal? It depends. Im not sure o_O. Sorry i couldn't help much. But ive seen painting of famous paintings, exact copies, sold. I think its okay. Just don't try to pass it off in a certain way...

Answer 8

As long as you change 7 things in the photo it becomes yours. And it needs to be 7 larger details, not something like add a blade of grass here, actually change it.

Answer 9

No it is not okay if you don't ask the artist first. If you're are not going to ask the author if you can use it, you need to change some of it and add or take away things.

Answer 10

Yes.

Even if you make an exact copy it is OK. As long as you don't copy the signature. Sign it with your own and it will be viewed as an original painting.