Is this illegal?

Question

If I paint a picture of a famous film star and have copied it from either a picture or the internet and sell it would this be illegal?Would copyright rights be involved?

Answer 1

Ok everyone's making this complicated It now is Illegal.. Copyright infringement doesn't apply to a composition or your interpretation of an image. as long as you're not trying to just copy it as a photo. celebrities are not in the category of public domain anymore. A celebrities image is a product and it now protected by law. I know because Elvis Presley was one of the first images that became protected by law. Also the Marylin Monroe estate. Have had to get permission from several of these estates to publish my works. The days of Warhol are over. he mass produced works without the permission of several people. It wasn't required by law then. Now it is. You can use theses people in a painting as subject matter is legal but to publish works as the performer and to sell them under there name is illegal. example I cannot do a painting of madonna make prints of it and sell it as madonna. But I can do a painting of her and sell it as a painting...no mass production of the image. I can do one .Several are considered as mass production of a product and are protected by law. Does this help at all? I hope so! I have to get permission for about 40% of my posters of my work.

Answer 2

Public figures are considered public domain.

This sounds like a contradiction but here is how it plays out:

Movie stills of movie stars taken directly from a film or taken by a movie studio or by a publicist can be copyrighted. Not all still are. Some film companies and studios have let many of their copyrights expire. If it's copyrighted it will usually say so on the photograph. It will also be likely that it will have been copyrighted if the photograph was taken for a magazine.

If you're basing your painting on a photograph taken of a star in public chances are no copyright was ever applied for. Public images taken of public figures do not normally fall under the laws governing 'intellectual properties.'

However, you can base your painting on a photograph image as long as it is obvious that your work is a painting and not an actual reproduction of the photograph. If you're still worried about copyright infringement then you can credit the source just to be safe.

But realistically, it's hardly likely that you'll get into trouble either way because, unless you're an already famous painter or will become one anytime soon, no one will ever notice or care if your painting is based on a photograph. However, you can still cover yourself by simply altering the image to display your own artistic vision inspired by another source (with the source being a photograph).

Answer 3

There used to be a big fuss about so called copyright.There is always a grey area.At an exhibition in London last year i was mugging in front of a painting having my photo taken.An old woman came up to me and said you can't do that.She went to get security.My point is,a couple of weeks earlier,the whole collection had been shown in the Daily paper.If i had wanted to copy the paintings,i would have done from the newspaper,not an out of focus picture.
I know someone who had the same problem in New York.
If you go on eBay there are thousands of copies of famous paintings,for sale through companies.How do they get away with it.My best advice is to paint/copy whatever you like just put a slight touch of your own colour to it.You can't be acused of copyright then.

Answer 4

How can it be illegal? an art work does not need the persons permission to be done. if your real worried about this send an email to the site that holds the copyright and tell them that you used one of their photos for a painting and you would like to know what they think send them a photo of your picture if you want. i have done a lot of paintings from photos over the years and never gave a second thought about copyright. after all my image is not the same as a photograph. its your interpretation of the person.

Answer 5

I recommend you ask this again in the Legal section for a more specific answer about the copyright issues. Though it's unlikely to be illegal, it would not be art. The reason why is that art must have interpretation by the artist. What you are talking about it called illustration, which re-creates something as it is. This means not just putting a pink shirt on OJ Simpson's photo that had a blue shirt to begin with, but creating your own, individual view of what you copied.

Answer 6

I agree with you that the need to alter the mind, i.e., to escape from reality, is a basic human need. I think it may be a little lower on the list, though, because humans need love and/or companionship before they need other things. I also agree that the taxation issue, especially when it comes to marijuana, is significant. If everybody could just grow it in their back yard, the government wouldn't get its cut like it does with tobacco and alcohol. The pharmaceutical industry has enough drugs to put the entire nation into la-la land and then some, but they federally regulated, are profitable, and pay taxes. Heroin and cocaine are more problematic because of their addictive properties and potential lethal nature. If anybody could legally buy these drugs, cheaply, there would be a huge spike (no pun intended) in overdoses, so in this regard I believe the government, or at least your average voter, is concerned about the health effects and not so much about the lost taxes.

Answer 7

You can't make an exact duplicate of the orignial picture, because the picture (as a whole) is copy righted.
If, however, you make some changes (three is good) then your picture becomes something different and the copy right is lifted.
Changes could be: adding something new, taking something away that was in the original picture, colours, size, angles, etc.

Answer 8

No, as it would be a copy, and seen as such. Art students copy works of art as part of their course. If they want to make a few bob from it, good for them, as long they don't pass it off as the original!

Answer 9

No way. Its your original even if a copy. Its only illegal if you say its by the original artist etc which makes it fraud.

Answer 10

no, because your painting would be an original work. This is assuming you only based your painting on it and did not trace the picture and then paint it.