penguinpete

As far as a painting from rivernan's picture is concerned (and this needs to be verified with a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property issues) I have heard that changing an image by 25% or more takes it out of the realm of copying and turns it into inspiration - but that was pre-digital, pre-Photoshop-or-other image editing. A painting of an image requires the artist to have some degree of talent and ability to re-render the image in a different medium, and that may let them off the hook for copyright violation or even ethical shadiness. It could be argued in court that giving away a copy of the image released it into the public domain (however unintentionally).

Sorry for the wordiness. IANAL, but I am the son of a lawyer.

-- Pete

KrazyKyngeKorny

Absolutely not. It is a reproduction of a copyrighted work. You can NOT sell it, give it away, post it on the internet, or, distribute it in any way.

George H Loc: Brooklyn, New York

[quote=Brucej67]I guess you are right, but even if it is a different media they are copying from it still sounds unethical to do it without permission.

Bruce,
I can see it both ways, but legally is what is binding.

George H Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Krazy,
Sorry but you happen to be wrong, he gave it to the woman, he would loose in court, she had a legal right to it. I would suggest you go read up on photographers rights to what they shoot.

jolly1

Sorry, English Wolf, but you are absolutely wrong. "Copyright
infringement" of what? One is a photograph, the other is a painting. No painting is an EXACT copy of an object, scene, individual, or photograph. You're talking apples and oranges here. Several fine artists paint from my photographs, perhaps not so much that they are great photos, but because they are free for their use. Not a single painting can be said to be an EXACT duplicate of one of my photos. An extra line here, a little differently shaped cloud, or flower, of a slight smear of pink, where there is red in the photo.
Nope, there is absolutely nothing you can do, other than perhaps mumble under your beard, if someone duplicates your photo in a different medium, because it would not be a photo, and it will never be EXACT. . . . .

jf65625

Dan: Great shot! You've got a great eye. Mind telling us a little about what cam & lens you used. Of course, I do intend to "copy" your technique. And, all seriousness aside, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Best regards, jf

jolly1

You're wrong. What if someone took your beautiful COLOR photo and did a pen and ink sketch of it in black and white? That would be an original work by someone else. The same holds true with a painting. If it is not absolutely an exact copy of your photo, there is no copyright infringement. And that can only be, if the copy were a photo copy of your work.

flyfishxprt

I was manning a booth next to an excellent oil painter at a show one time and noticed him tell 3 different photographers that they could not photograph his paintings. One did anyway, claiming that he could because it was a public place. The artist stood there for 10 minutes telling him why it was wrong and threatening to get him thrown out of the show or call the police and the guy finally deleted the images while the artist watched.

At first I thought the artist was rude but then after his explanation it made sense. The photographer could have easily made greeting cards or prints for sale or blown up a large image for someones wall, in essence "stealing" the copyrighted painting and undercutting the original artist any share.

Permission must legally be gotten from the artist of original art from any media before photographing for commercial use. But permissions should also be obtained even if photographed in a public place takes pictures of original art (or kids) for personal use. Once a painting, photograph or video is sold, it becomes the property of the sellee and the sellee needs to determine if it can be reproduced or not by the public.

You can't take magazine articles and associated images from a periodical and post them on your website without permission of the author/photographer/publisher.

I once noticed that a commercial website had, without permission, scanned photos from one of the books I published to decorate his website. He was not selling my book and neither did he give me credit. I wrote him a tactful letter but made it plain that he used my images unlawfully and needed to compensate me or the law would become involved........He paid.

billwassmann Loc: Emerson, NJ

If you want it only for your own interest, it's OK. However, it would be unethical to indicate you are the photographer or reproduce it for gain because you only copied another person's work.
Bill Wassmann

jolly1

A "reproduction" of anything is an exact copy. A painting done from a photograph is a different medium, and an original work of art. There is no "reproduction" involved here, and no painting, or drawing, of a photograph can be an exact copy.

Photo One Loc: Clearwater Florida

Hi Alan in Indiana. What part of Indiana do you live. I was born & raised in Frankfort IN.

To answer your question, the legal way would be to try to contact the real owner ans ask if you may use the photograph. It is probably a © picture.

Kenny in Florida

dspoon2 Loc: Rockwall TX

I'm on my way!!!!

billwassmann Loc: Emerson, NJ

I think they were both right. You can photograph someone's work in a public exhibition but you can't use it. I publish a line of photo notecards, most of which are my pix or my family's. I have a subsidiary line of "Nostalgia Notes" which are vintage photos I have collected. The photographers are long gone so I have no qualms. If I knew their names I give them credit.

alaskanfrog Loc: Alaska

If you take a photograph, and then give a copy of that photo to another person without copyrighting the photograph first, you forfeit your right to claim copyrights on that particular photo. By knowingly and willingly surrendering an image to another individual such as "Gifting" or telling the person or persons that they can "use" the image, as a photographer you have waived your rights to weigh claim to that photograph. If the person or recipient makes a painting of that photograph, then it's no longer a photograph, no matter how accurate it might look. It is in fact, another and a new creation and THAT painting is and can be subject to copyright protection. The creator of a painting of your photograph also has the right to claim it as an original painting and can choose to sell the painting if they wish.

By giving permission to use your photograph, even by word of mouth, you are surrendering and waiving your rights to make legal and copyright claims on that photograph.

However, If you copyrighted your photograph before giving permission, then it is your responsibility and the responsibility of the recipient to have such permissions put in writing in the form of an agreement. The agreement should outline what permissions you are giving and whether or not you retain ownership of the photograph. If you are retaining ownership of the photograph, then you are only giving and allowing the right to use the image, and the recipient cannot claim ownership of the photo itself. If you want to limit how the photograph can be used, then you have the right to outline the limitations in writing before surrendering and/or, giving permission to use your photograph. The agreement must follow the complex outlines that pertain to copyright laws in your area.

Copyright laws vary from state to state and can even vary from county to county. It's a good idea to familiarize yourself with any laws that pertain to legal copyrights for photographs. There are federal guidelines that also apply, so it's a good idea to research and to learn about the copyright laws and how they might apply to your photograph BEFORE you give permission to anyone to use them.

I posted several of my photos online, none are copyrighted. I do not have a copyright. Each and every time you want to copyright any of your photographs, you must file a legal document copyright claim for each individual copyright for each different photograph

I knew this before I uploaded any of my photographs. However I uploaded my photos knowing that for the most part I can actually trust the people in this website and that they would not impose their will on any of my photos, because these were taken by me and not you. If any of my photos suites your needs and you would like to use them, then by all means, feel free to do so. I would not have uploaded them if I didn't want them to be used. My only request is that you acknowledge me as the photographer and give credit where its due...

jf65625

Reply to alaskanfrog [Nov 11, 11 10:45:42]

As a retired attorney, I found your summary of copyright law very well written and understandable with a minimal amount of legalism. Thus, I recommend your post as Required Reading for all photographers & videographers.

Sure hope you share a lot of you Alaskan pix with use. I've had a couple of motorcycle tours to you magnificent state. Fantastic photo opps where every you look! By the way, I retired from that dreadful profession to pursue something worth the effort. Best regards, jf