Using images to draw

When asked, I have always said yes (although in one case, the artist specifically wanted to produce prints for sale of his work, so we agreed a specific licensing arrangement - the photograph wasn't of a person), but definitely wise to ask. The photographer usually (but not always) owns the copyright of the photograph, so definitely need to check who does - it is rarely the model, even for Collab/TFP shoots, unless there is an explicit agreement and assignment of copyright or usage rights.

To be honest, if asked, I would most likely say yes, but in all honesty, I don't think I actually have a choice legally. Is it a copyright breach to draw an image while getting inspiration from a publicly shared photograph? How many people draw the Mona Lisa or the Stallion Fountain in Italy? I imagine if it is publicly shared, then it's kind of open source to artists such as painters and sketchers. It's different if a photographer or someone uses images as their own directly, obviously, but to draw from an image as inspiration would technically and legally i imagine make that a separate artwork of its own validity, I cannot see anyone getting in trouble for that personally. imho 

I imagine I may get shouted at for it, but nonetheless, that would be my personal understanding. I'm sure there will be at least 10 copyright experts who will follow, spouting technical EU laws on copyright that nobody's heard of now. But here's the thing: Have you ever heard of a painter being sued for copying an image for non-profit? Has anyone in your family? Has anyone in your families' families? Because in my X amount of years on this earth and in this industry, I've never ever heard of it. But I've seen millions of artworks being copied for inspiration, that number is countless. We all do it. We see someone's amazing shoot and take inspiration for our own. We see a magazine cover and try to replicate parts. We copy scenes from our favourite movies and movie characters. We get away with it because it's not a direct copy; it's from inspiration, so it's a separate artwork inspired by an original

Edited by ANDY00

Definitely open to it, as has been said by many before just reach out.

Mick Wells said

I wouldn't assume anything about the copyright or other rights associated with an individual image. I suggest you always ask and you are probably on safer ground when you are asking the photographer. And you may like to read this: https://petapixel.com/2024/05/13/court-rules-in-favor-of-photographer-who-accused-painter-of-ripping-off-her-work/ 

I was about to quote the same case. As copyright law is virtually the same in most countries across what we know as 'the western world' and a few others too, it makes a lot of sense not to abuse it (copyright, that is). But as others have already shown, so many photographers would be happy for you to draw copies of their images, where is the harm in asking first?

Tip: make the request in writing. DM, email, letter, whatever, phrase it as informally as you like. When the answer 'yes' comes back you have a defence if an automated demand to desist and remove is triggered. Some photographers, especially professionals, hold insurance policies to assist with their copyright claims and insurance companies pay agencies such as Getty Images to seek and pursue them. Your actual or virtual paper trail should put an immediate stop to an awful lot of hassle and, potentially, costs.

ANDY00 said

I don't think I actually have a choice legally. Is it a copyright breach to draw an image while getting inspiration from a publicly shared photograph? How many people draw the Mona Lisa or the Stallion Fountain in Italy?

Andy, two of us have just pointed to a very recent case. The artist lost. The photographer won. You most certainly do own copyright unless you have assigned it elsewhere, and breech of copyright is a serious offence, however much you may resent being told so. Your statement may seriously mislead others into thinking they can just go ahead and abuse copyright without a second thought.

Copyright lasts up until 70 years after the death of the creator. I suspect the copyright of the artists whose works you cite may have expired by now.

I'm not a copyright expert, nor do I claim any special knowledge. But I do have associate membership of the AoP (Association of Photographers) and its web site does have detailed and invaluable information on the rights of photographers including copyright. As, I assume but am really only guessing, would most photography membership organisations.

Edited by MikesPix

MikesPix said

ANDY00 said

I don't think I actually have a choice legally. Is it a copyright breach to draw an image while getting inspiration from a publicly shared photograph? How many people draw the Mona Lisa or the Stallion Fountain in Italy?

Andy, two of us have just pointed to a very recent case. The artist lost. The photographer won. You most certainly do own copyright unless you have assigned it elsewhere, and breech of copyright is a serious offence, however much you may resent being told so. Your statement may seriously mislead others into thinking they can just go ahead and abuse copyright without a second thought.

Copyright lasts up until 70 years after the death of the creator. I believe the copyright of the artists you cite may have transpired by now.

I'm not a copyright expert, nor do I claim any special knowledge. But I do have associate membership of the AoP (Association of Photographers) and its web site does have detailed and invaluable information on the rights of photographers including copyright. As, I assume but am really only guessing, would most photography membership organisations.

You don't own copyright on a likeness as i said, totally different if someone photographs or directly copies but to use as inspiration cannot be illegal or everyone on here doing starwars sets or startrek sets is breaking copyright law but they are not because they are making a new artwork based on inspiration as a painter or sketcher does, its not a direct copy its an artists interpretation, you cannot copyright from inspiration or we are all guilty we all take inspiration and add to our own work -ALL 

ANDY00 said

MikesPix said

ANDY00 said

I don't think I actually have a choice legally. Is it a copyright breach to draw an image while getting inspiration from a publicly shared photograph? How many people draw the Mona Lisa or the Stallion Fountain in Italy?

Andy, two of us have just pointed to a very recent case. The artist lost. The photographer won. You most certainly do own copyright unless you have assigned it elsewhere, and breech of copyright is a serious offence, however much you may resent being told so. Your statement may seriously mislead others into thinking they can just go ahead and abuse copyright without a second thought.

Copyright lasts up until 70 years after the death of the creator. I believe the copyright of the artists you cite may have transpired by now.

I'm not a copyright expert, nor do I claim any special knowledge. But I do have associate membership of the AoP (Association of Photographers) and its web site does have detailed and invaluable information on the rights of photographers including copyright. As, I assume but am really only guessing, would most photography membership organisations.

You don't own copyright on a likeness as i said, totally different if someone photographs or directly copies but to use as inspiration cannot be illegal or everyone on here doing starwars sets or startrek sets is breaking copyright law but they are not because they are making a new artwork based on inspiration as a painter or sketcher does, its not a direct copy its an artists interpretation, you cannot copyright from inspiration or we are all guilty we all take inspiration and add to our own work -ALL 

The artist in the case cited did not paint a picture of the photograph. There are clear differences. The photographer won the case.

I would suggest you are on very thin ice with your argument. How different does it have to be for a court to decide it is not a deliberate copy?

I don't know the answer to that. Nor, I respectfully suggest, do you.

My interpretation of what the OP asked about, if anything, would be nearer to the originals than the artist's effort which lost the case.

Simply ask for permission and respect the response, whatever it may be,.

I am not really fussed what others choose, between themselves, to do but I have turned down all requests for a number of reasons. This includes I intend to use my own photography for my own artwork and that is my investment now and because I only put my stuff online to secure bookings with models and as a medium to link with friends and family. I also dislike a lot of the entitled attitude over your work from people you have no interest or connection with and so handing over stuff to others not connected with my work is a line I have no intention of crossing. Not forgetting the lazy attitude that if you put it online, expect it to be available to anyone. Probably one of the reasons I like IG in that I can make my account private and sites that won't allow that privacy, I will limit even further what I will share

As others have said, better to ask permission.

Amazingly I see a lot of wildlife art that blatantly rips off wildlife photographers and none of the painters seem to even consider that A) they should ask permission and B) any wildlife photographer worth their salt can spot a blatant ripoff.

This might of course be related to my general dislike of modern art tuition - if painters are too poorly educated to understand the difference between additive and subtractive composition, any legal trouble they get themselves into is their problem.

ANDY00 said

To be honest, if asked, I would most likely say yes, but in all honesty, I don't think I actually have a choice legally. Is it a copyright breach to draw an image while getting inspiration from a publicly shared photograph? How many people draw the Mona Lisa or the Stallion Fountain in Italy? I imagine if it is publicly shared, then it's kind of open source to artists such as painters and sketchers. It's different if a photographer or someone uses images as their own directly, obviously, but to draw from an image as inspiration would technically and legally i imagine make that a separate artwork of its own validity, I cannot see anyone getting in trouble for that personally. imho 

I imagine I may get shouted at for it, but nonetheless, that would be my personal understanding. I'm sure there will be at least 10 copyright experts who will follow, spouting technical EU laws on copyright that nobody's heard of now. But here's the thing: Have you ever heard of a painter being sued for copying an image for non-profit? Has anyone in your family? Has anyone in your families' families? Because in my X amount of years on this earth and in this industry, I've never ever heard of it. But I've seen millions of artworks being copied for inspiration, that number is countless. We all do it. We see someone's amazing shoot and take inspiration for our own. We see a magazine cover and try to replicate parts. We copy scenes from our favourite movies and movie characters. We get away with it because it's not a direct copy; it's from inspiration, so it's a separate artwork inspired by an original

Edited by ANDY00

Absolutely not - publishing something does not make something 'open source' or in the 'public domain' from a copyright perspective. 

As for the two examples you cite - the artist of the Mona Lisa has been dead for a little while, and even if the sculptor of the Stallian Fountain hadn't been there is very specific provision in (UK) copyright law around photographs of sculpture that is on permanent and unrestricted display to the public (so for I can for example take photographs of public sculpture and publish those photographs even if the sculptor is still alive).

But basically, making completely incorrect assertions about copyright law could get people into a lot of legal trouble. There is a continuum from getting 'inspiration from' to copying that a court may well take a completely different view as to where a derived work falls to what you might think is fair artistic game. In short get permission before assuming.

MikesPix said

ANDY00 said

MikesPix said

ANDY00 said

I don't think I actually have a choice legally. Is it a copyright breach to draw an image while getting inspiration from a publicly shared photograph? How many people draw the Mona Lisa or the Stallion Fountain in Italy?

Andy, two of us have just pointed to a very recent case. The artist lost. The photographer won. You most certainly do own copyright unless you have assigned it elsewhere, and breech of copyright is a serious offence, however much you may resent being told so. Your statement may seriously mislead others into thinking they can just go ahead and abuse copyright without a second thought.

Copyright lasts up until 70 years after the death of the creator. I believe the copyright of the artists you cite may have transpired by now.

I'm not a copyright expert, nor do I claim any special knowledge. But I do have associate membership of the AoP (Association of Photographers) and its web site does have detailed and invaluable information on the rights of photographers including copyright. As, I assume but am really only guessing, would most photography membership organisations.

You don't own copyright on a likeness as i said, totally different if someone photographs or directly copies but to use as inspiration cannot be illegal or everyone on here doing starwars sets or startrek sets is breaking copyright law but they are not because they are making a new artwork based on inspiration as a painter or sketcher does, its not a direct copy its an artists interpretation, you cannot copyright from inspiration or we are all guilty we all take inspiration and add to our own work -ALL 

The artist in the case cited did not paint a picture of the photograph. There are clear differences. The photographer won the case.

I would suggest you are on very thin ice with your argument. How different does it have to be for a court to decide it is not a deliberate copy?

I don't know the answer to that. Nor, I respectfully suggest, do you.

My interpretation of what the OP asked about, if anything, would be nearer to the originals than the artist's effort which lost the case.

Simply ask for permission and respect the response, whatever it may be,.

I would suggest you are on thin ice with yours. Look, we can all agree that directly copying a photograph is a breach of copyright. But to say you own copyright on a likeness would implicate huge changes in the law, restraining the use of cameras where the public is involved or artwork may be on a wall, etc. You cannot copyright likeness or publicly shared art; it's not possible. Looking at the artwork in the court case you cited, that's almost 60% digital art (Photoshop), and the artist has clearly tried very hard to make an exact replica, which I assume he or she was selling. That's a totally different thing you're talking about. To try and replicate for commercial gain would clearly be piracy, and that is why the court ruled in her favour. You're talking about a painter taking inspiration from publicly shared, non-commercial works to better his art - it's 100% different.

If you want to be charged for taking an image of the London Eye or be cited for a court appearance because a member of the public appeared in a photograph you took, then your perspective is the right path to follow. Personally, I think if it's public, I should be allowed to shoot it or take inspiration from it. You do yours; I will do mine :-) To be clear you have no right to privacy in a public place. and everything youve done in your portfolio has been done before by 1000s if not millions of others.

Edited by ANDY00

JonC said

ANDY00 said

To be honest, if asked, I would most likely say yes, but in all honesty, I don't think I actually have a choice legally. Is it a copyright breach to draw an image while getting inspiration from a publicly shared photograph? How many people draw the Mona Lisa or the Stallion Fountain in Italy? I imagine if it is publicly shared, then it's kind of open source to artists such as painters and sketchers. It's different if a photographer or someone uses images as their own directly, obviously, but to draw from an image as inspiration would technically and legally i imagine make that a separate artwork of its own validity, I cannot see anyone getting in trouble for that personally. imho 

I imagine I may get shouted at for it, but nonetheless, that would be my personal understanding. I'm sure there will be at least 10 copyright experts who will follow, spouting technical EU laws on copyright that nobody's heard of now. But here's the thing: Have you ever heard of a painter being sued for copying an image for non-profit? Has anyone in your family? Has anyone in your families' families? Because in my X amount of years on this earth and in this industry, I've never ever heard of it. But I've seen millions of artworks being copied for inspiration, that number is countless. We all do it. We see someone's amazing shoot and take inspiration for our own. We see a magazine cover and try to replicate parts. We copy scenes from our favourite movies and movie characters. We get away with it because it's not a direct copy; it's from inspiration, so it's a separate artwork inspired by an original

Edited by ANDY00

Absolutely not - publishing something does not make something 'open source' or in the 'public domain' from a copyright perspective. 

As for the two examples you cite - the artist of the Mona Lisa has been dead for a little while, and even if the sculptor of the Stallian Fountain hadn't been there is very specific provision in (UK) copyright law around photographs of sculpture that is on permanent and unrestricted display to the public (so for I can for example take photographs of public sculpture and publish those photographs even if the sculptor is still alive).

But basically, making completely incorrect assertions about copyright law could get people into a lot of legal trouble. There is a continuum from getting 'inspiration from' to copying that a court may well take a completely different view as to where a derived work falls to what you might think is fair artistic game. In short get permission before assuming.

You have a picture in your portfolio of a headshot of a model holding a coffee cup, i think around 1000 accounts on this site alone have the same image, who took the original ? just so i know who all the copyright thief's are :-) Inspiration is not copyright theft, or we are all guilty ..........

And it makes no difference that the Monalisa is old it still a commercial work that is owned by a commercial institution the  Louvre Museum in Paris and makes Paris an estimated 3bn pounds annually, i would say vastly more valuable that our works yet its copied millions of times a year

Edited by ANDY00

ANDY00 said

You have a picture in your portfolio of a headshot of a model holding a coffee cup, i think around 1000 accounts on this site alone have the same image, who took the original ? just so i know who all the copyright thief's are :-) Inspiration is not copyright theft, or we are all guilty ..........

Edited by ANDY00

You clearly didn't read the bit in the post about the continuum, and as you are deliberately conflating more than one person executing the same concept (no such thing as an original photograph and all that) with copying an image, I will leave it there. But I really would do some reading about what copyright law actually is, as opposed to what you think it ought to be.

I'm just going to note the number of allegations of plagiarism in the musical world, with a range of outcomes, and how rich lawyers could get in arguing the various cases.  And then step away from the whole question!

JonC said

ANDY00 said

You have a picture in your portfolio of a headshot of a model holding a coffee cup, i think around 1000 accounts on this site alone have the same image, who took the original ? just so i know who all the copyright thief's are :-) Inspiration is not copyright theft, or we are all guilty ..........

Edited by ANDY00

You clearly didn't read the bit in the post about the continuum, and as you are deliberately conflating more than one person executing the same concept (no such thing as an original photograph and all that) with copying an image, I will leave it there. But I really would do some reading about what copyright law actually is, as opposed to what you think it ought to be.

And as I've said in every answer I've provided, it's clearly copyright infringement to directly copy an image for commercial gain. However, taking inspiration from a publicly sourced image cannot be copyright infringement, or we're all guilty.

I also mentioned there would be many experts in copyright law who would throw things at me, but you cannot change the facts. Nothing in anyone's portfolios is original; you may get a different model or add a prop here and there, but the pose has been done before, the location has been done before. Millions have done that exact scene, and before photography, painters and sketchers did it. If you put things on the internet and people see them, they will copy parts of what you've done. Copyright has nothing to do with it

And its awesome you chose to use that ladder or those ripped jeans but you cannot own that, copyright cannot make that yours, to use that is to take inspiration not to plagiarise, You were not the first and will definitely not be the last and nobody is going to jail for using what you've used in the past.

Edited by ANDY00