How to legally use photos for creative art?
zartemis
Registered Users Posts: 4 Beginner grinner
I enjoy creating art using Corel Painter. Sometimes this is completely original, somtimes it is created by looking at a photograph or nature, sometimes I like to import the images and manipulate them.
An example, including photos (my own) is in this gallary: http://zartemis.smugmug.com/gallery/2155891
The first 3 are the original photos, the last is the reworked image combining the 3 (it's still a work in process, though). It gets printed out on canvas, further prepped with gel medium and then I add splashes of acrylic paint, oil pastels, or any other traditional art media that seems appropriate.
When I start a work, I may draw from 100s of images before I settle on which ones I use. It may be days/weeks of work before I know if an image idea will "work out". I can't predict in advance which of the 100s of photos might be used and in what ways. I also don't know if will end up a saleable work of art. Maybe 1 out of 20 is. So that takes 2,000 images before I end up with a work of art I might want to sell that utilizes 2 or 3 of those images. Even with sales, this is a endeavor that operates at a loss.
Other than using my own photos, how would I go about getting photos to use in my art that is both legal and ethical. Asking for permission for individual photos before I start would be impossible (since it would involve 2000 manual inquiries). I wouldn't want to wait until after I know the 2 or 3 that end up getting used because I might get a 'no' after weeks of work.
I'm not sure the stock photo licenses cover my intended usage (preparing derivative works and selling them. Do they? From reading threads here, even the stock sites are considered borderline unethical from a photographer's poing of view. What's a legal and ethical and cost effective way to do this type of art? Am I limited to using my own photos (which is what I do now but is hampered by my poor photo skills and lack of enjoyment in photo taking)?
Thanks,
Michelle
An example, including photos (my own) is in this gallary: http://zartemis.smugmug.com/gallery/2155891
The first 3 are the original photos, the last is the reworked image combining the 3 (it's still a work in process, though). It gets printed out on canvas, further prepped with gel medium and then I add splashes of acrylic paint, oil pastels, or any other traditional art media that seems appropriate.
When I start a work, I may draw from 100s of images before I settle on which ones I use. It may be days/weeks of work before I know if an image idea will "work out". I can't predict in advance which of the 100s of photos might be used and in what ways. I also don't know if will end up a saleable work of art. Maybe 1 out of 20 is. So that takes 2,000 images before I end up with a work of art I might want to sell that utilizes 2 or 3 of those images. Even with sales, this is a endeavor that operates at a loss.
Other than using my own photos, how would I go about getting photos to use in my art that is both legal and ethical. Asking for permission for individual photos before I start would be impossible (since it would involve 2000 manual inquiries). I wouldn't want to wait until after I know the 2 or 3 that end up getting used because I might get a 'no' after weeks of work.
I'm not sure the stock photo licenses cover my intended usage (preparing derivative works and selling them. Do they? From reading threads here, even the stock sites are considered borderline unethical from a photographer's poing of view. What's a legal and ethical and cost effective way to do this type of art? Am I limited to using my own photos (which is what I do now but is hampered by my poor photo skills and lack of enjoyment in photo taking)?
Thanks,
Michelle
0
Comments
You might find some direction here:
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Forum/Forum.cgi
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
What I'm really after is what options I have for purchasing low cost licenses to use photos in this way (create highly derivative works that might, or might not, be sold. I'm willing to limit editions -- with the overpainting I do to the image, that happens naturally since I have finite time) --are there stock photo sites that allow this usage and treat their photographers in an ethical way? Something like a cdbaby for photos? It's not only important to me that it be legal, but that the business supplying licenses is reasonably fair to its suppliers.
Michelle
Almost all of the stock photo sites allow you to download free low-res thumbnails. I do it all the time for lay-outs. When you've finalized your decision and want a quality file you make the appropriate purchase.
If you stick with royalty-free images you need not concern yourself with any licensing beyond the initial purchase.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Forum/Forum.cgi?board=copyright;action=display;num=1161902148;start=3#3
discusses 'artistic' derivative works. It looks to me like one still needs to respect the original copyright even with significant change. And I'd want to do so anyway even it it wasn't legally required -- it only seems fair to me if I'm using someone elses hard work, even if I heavily adapt what they did so that it no longer resembles the original and I'd never get caught (e.g. like what I did with my prayer flag photo to make the background for the last art image in the gallery I posted. Unless I told you I used that photo it's unlikely anyone would ever make the association).
Most of the common royalty-free sites seem to not include derivative resale items (e.g prints on canvas for sale) in their licenses as a permitted use. I could use them as web images, but not sell the items. I'll probably have to comb through the site licenses one by one and try to find ones that allow it, or have extended-use options. Then when I find some, reserch comments on how the site treats its photographers. I may be one of the few interested in this usage/issues so can't benefit from other's research already on this issue.
But yes, using the low-res copies works fine for me for composition and initial layout before refining the final work. And actually, for what I do, I don't even need super high res copies since none of the original detail will remain when I'm done. I just need to find sets of images with licenses that would permit the usage I eventually want.
Michelle
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Just to give an example, here is the one from shutterstock:
http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml
You can see that even for hand-painted renditions of the images, it does not allow for the sale of such works.
Even their "enhanced" license doesn't seem to allow this usage:
"You may not ... Produce or otherwise create for resale or distribution, printed reproductions of any Image on canvas, paper or any other medium unless expressly permitted by this agreement."
Michelle
Perhaps their license terms are not enforceable or you might be reading too many restrictions into their terms.
If you change the image materially by adding paint over the original (in effect using the image as an "armature"), it's my understanding the photo copy write is unenforceable.
It will be interesting to see the results of case law regarding post processed image collages.
Wrong. Each site has specific listings of what uses are covered under the licensing.
For example, licensing an image and manipulating it in a small manner and offering it for resale, is something NOT included in most licenses, and is not covered under derivative works.
You may find this interesting.
http://www.talkmicro.com/micro-photographers-daily-contact-sheet/1840-photos-used-paintings-interesting-ss-thread.html
Regarding "copy write" (sic):
http://painting.about.com/cs/artistscopyright/f/copyrightfaq5.htm
Thanks for the links
Lots of attempts to regulate this "derivative" practice, but I still think; if you cover the entire photo with a hand applied different material, so you can't identify the photo from the painting - copy write law doesn't apply.
Going the other way, if an artist starts with a blank canvas and copies a photo exactly, copy write law doesn't apply.
One of the links tells of a gal using two stock photos and doing watercolor over them keeping the same image; then winning a prestigious prize - and "getting" away with the plagiarism.
Plagiarism isn't confined to small operator, big high profile companies practice it all the time
I remember Gillette razor company plagiarizing Wilkenson Stainless Steel blades years ago. The potential award got so big, Gillette bought them.
More recently, Apple computer started when the Beatles started their Apple record label. Jobs & Co acknowledged the benefits and signed a royalty agreement that they recently reneged on. I believe there was a cash settlement.
So stepping away from the moral issue, perhaps the copy write is only as strong as you're willing to sue for.
Again the case law is going to be interesting on this subject.
copy write is what the person does when they produce written material for ads or other productions.
copyright is what protects the original creator from unauthorized use by others.
http://www.takeflightphoto.com
http://www.usdgcphotos.com
Thanks for the definition. I didn't know that.
I'm afraid you're terribly mistaken at least in the simplicity of your comment. Everything is based on the breadth of the copyright as defined by the original artist. You might look to the Shepard Fairey case for enlightenment.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Thanks for the tip.
The original artists requirements may be enforceable on future use. If the plagiarizer had no knowledge of the terms, the right's owner would have to prove damages in addition to the "image theft". that's my speculation
Personally I have no interest in the case mentioned.
If I were inclined to paint over photos, I wouldn't let a copyright (there I've spelled it correctly) stop me. If I got a threatening letter, I would cease and desist.
Copyrights are a commercial tool; some on these boards may feel there is some type of morality to recognize and abide by the rules. As Apple demonstrated, not only do they chose not to abide by the rules in spirit but they broke a contract with agreed to terms and conditions.
And there are those, inclined to rob a house, who wouldn't let a locked door stop them. Criminal is criminal!
.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Only in as much as copyright infringement is not a breech of criminal codes enacted to defend public safety. For that matter you could argue most laws settle at the level of civil action. But if you think consequences do not mete out for infringers, Title 17 of the US Code would prove that wrong.
The creator of the photograph, i.e. the photographer, usually holds the copyright to the photo and, unless they've expressly given permission for its use, making a painting based on a photo would infringe the photographer's copyright. In terms of US copyright law: "Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work."1 You may be able to obtain permission to use a photo for a derivative work from the photographer, or if you're using a photo library buy the right to use it.
But beyond that what is your point or purpose? Are you advocating for trespass?
I prefer this forum take the position of helping our members understand the laws and use them to their advantage as well as their protection.
.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Correct. I misstated my view and thanks for pointing it out. Many royalty-free images, such as many on sites such as iStock, will allow derivative works to be fashioned from the original. You are also correct to remind everyone to carefully read the copyright notices, not just of the sites, but for each artistic item being purchased.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
The law does not provide instant solutions. Copyright law is grey, especially when it comes to modern innovations such as digital images, digital music, digital films, etc. It is also difficult and expensive to enforce. Cases may have unpredictable results, especially in UK and USA where there is a notion that common law, case law, and a written constitution are valid and may over-rule recent legislation or signed contracts. Signed contracts and licenses do not always prove to be enforceable when there is a reasonable presumption that the signing party did not read the small print or that the small print infringes on your basic rights as a citizen under the constitution. At the same time, ignorance of the law is no excuse so you have no defense when you did not know of some minor legislation or case law. No wonder lawyers are rich.
In UK and US, when enough money is staked, the legal ruling will eventually come down to what the court thinks is fair and reasonable. It is well known that courts in different states in US are culturally inclined to think differently, so part of the puzzle is to decide where you want to fight the case and where you should incorporate your business. For many smugmug members very happy to sell a print for $100 this is another world.
Determining what is legal comes down to the amount of money you are prepared to invest. Most of us do not want to spend the time and money to defend our "legal" rights and so back off when the first threatening letter arrives because we cannot afford to fight.
Let us suppose that significant money is involved. At the basis of the law, everywhere, is the notion that you MAY NOT use the creative work of others without permission. For the creator, the onus is to prove that it is actually their creative work and not that of others. Emerging is the notion that your own image is your copyright, even when shot by someone else. In the zartemis case this is going to be difficult on all fronts.
The opportunity for Smugmug is to be proactive and establish a fair and reasonable code of conduct and a general licensing agreement that means zartemis could download and manipulate any images for artistic purposes. When that results in a big profit for zartemis then the image providers have a right to share. Smugmug members would need to opt-in to the scheme and guarantee that their offered images are their copyright, including permissions from "actors". It is a relatively simple concept. Fair is also that Smugmug shares, like a stock agency, for investing in the legal agreements, code of conduct, and datasets.
Well said....