fiat76 Loc: PA, MD, and SC

A friend of a friend, unbeknownst to me, created a watercolor from one of my photographs. We are having prints (not for sale) made of the watercolor which will be mounted on white stock paper.

My question: How should the piece be signed? The original photograph will not be visible. I was thinking something like "Watercolor by XXXX XXXXXX, inspired by a photograph by XXXX XXXXXXX." I am hung up on the wording. All ideas will be appreciated!

OR, perhaps I should not receive any recognition? In this case, the wording is a moot point.

bleirer

So I think that would be a derivative work. Your photo enjoys the same copyright protection that any other work of art has. It would be just like someone making a painting based on the Mona Lisa. So you can grant any or all rights to your friend to use your art, but it is still your art. So I would go for joint equal credit, both artists sign.

RichinSeattle

It seems that lots of paintings start life as photographs, but I don't think I've ever seen the photographer credited on the final product - the painting.

bleirer

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I've never seen secondary credit either, but then I wouldn't know if something was a derivative work or not.

I did have a gentleman in England ask if he could use one of my photos for a painting. I said yes. (I was honored, respect him for taking the time to ask, and I did not ask for any credit.) I look at the possible painting as his work, even though it may be based on/derived from my photo (Or some semblance thereof.)

There are probably tons of artworks out there that are probably based on images that the artist did not take. And, how would I know if the artist did not have a similar image to work from? (In this case you know it's s derivative work.)

Since it's a collaborative project, I would see no reason not include somewhere, something to indicate so, like "Based on an image by...."

Now if someone sold a copy of one of my images or purported it to be their own, I'd be VERY upset!

Quixdraw Loc: x

Original Watercolor by John Smith Following a Photo by flat76?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

I believe the ethical thing to do would be for the painter to give attribution to you, rather than both you and he/she signing the watercolor. Since you (or they) are having prints made of the w/c, providing attribution would be simple.

Every painting I've ever painted bears my signature, on the work itself. No photograph I've ever printed/sold has ever borne my signature (or watermark, etc) on the work itself. Instead, that photograph has been dry mounted which then has a mat floated over the print and the mount. Top and sides of the mat are (usually) separated by a 1/4" space that leaves the underlaying mat visible, and on the bottom, (generally) a 3/4" inch space is left where the mountboard is signed, dated, and, in many instances, a title or descriptor of some kind has been hand-written in pencil by me.

Where I'm going with this, is that it's the painter's painting, and their signature would only be appropriate. In the 'descriptor' (space) mentioned above, the painter could/should provide attribution to you. Something like 'Mountain Stream, based on a photograph by XXXX' would be appropriate.

Needless to say, I haven't tried to address any legal and/or copyright laws kinds of arguments.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

why not supply a small print with your name on, to be attached on the back of the canvas as your input to the inspiration. That way 'should it be worth millions' you will get some credit.

In this way the purchaser can decide how much was 'image' and how much is 'Art'.

Keep the original image as you might be asked to print it as a picture too.

have fun

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Don't be hung up on wording. That makes all the difference in derivative works. Give credit where it is due. You both should enjoy the accolades and your laurels.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I wouldn't expect credit if someone did a painting of a photo I took. I wouldn't give credit to the people or objects in my photo, either.

BuckeyeBilly Loc: St. Petersburg, FL

Is your photograph copyrighted? If so, then you must be mentioned in a manner acceptable to you. If not copyrighted, then whatever the 2 of you agree upon is fine. This is akin to published works with quotes from those works being inserted into a formal paper or publication, as in college theses papers.

bleirer

I would just add that all creative work is automatically copyrighted once you create it.

BlueMorel Loc: Southwest Michigan

I used to belong to a local art group with an "artist" who painted what I can only call drafted copies of others' photos. I had not realized this when I gave him one of my photos to use for a painting because the original was taken at far too small a size to be usable for prints. I expected something with his own interpretation, not a pixel to pixel copy. He is very skillful at what he does, but it was annoying to see my work on the wall without acknowledgement of its origin.

fiat76 Loc: PA, MD, and SC

I am digesting all of your thoughts and appreciate your responses. If the situation were reversed (I am the artist and she is the photographer), I would want to give the photographer some credit, but that's just me. However, the artwork being a derivative and not a collaborative piece does throw a different light on the subject.

Thank-you for your suggestions!