Copyright law regarding paintings based on photographs

Forums › Digital Imaging › Copyright law regarding paintings based on photographs

jarledb

Webhead
3257 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#122118 25-Jun-2013 12:54

Just discovered someone has made a painting of one of my photographs. While it is flattering, it also raises questions about copyright law.

Here is the photo and artwork in question.

Photo:

Painting:

Anyone know the legalities involved here and what kind of compensation I should look for?

Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.

1 | 2

BDFL - Memuneh
79287 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#843957 25-Jun-2013 13:03

IANAL, you retain the copyright over the original art form and if there's no license involved (a CC license for example) then no one should reproduce it.

Get a lawyer to give you proper information in your jurisdiction.

xpd

Geek @ Coastguard NZ
13767 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#843959 25-Jun-2013 13:04

Is it an actual physical painting ? Looks to me more than someone has just run your image through Photoshop/Picasa filters.....

Gavin / xpd / FastRaccoon / Geek of Coastguard New Zealand

LinkTree

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79287 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#843960 25-Jun-2013 13:05

Regardless, it still not legal to reproduce it... And if it's used for anything then it would be even a bigger case.

To the OP, where did you find the reproduction?

jarledb

Webhead
3257 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#843962 25-Jun-2013 13:07

I am not 100% sure, but this: http://www.itcompas.be/vantongelmartine/nieuw.htm - this: http://www.itcompas.be/vantongelmartine/ and this: http://www.uitinwestvlaanderen.be/20569/kunst-in-het-ondernemerscentrum-martine-van-tongel makes me think its an actual artwork of sorts.

jarledb

Webhead
3257 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#843964 25-Jun-2013 13:10

I infrequently Google photographs I have taken. Google Image Search has become scaringly powerfull.

You can search with an image from here: http://www.google.co.nz/imghp - The search can be an image you upload yourself, or an IMG-url or just an image search term.

sep11guy

660 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#843967 25-Jun-2013 13:12

jarledb: I am not 100% sure, but this: http://www.itcompas.be/vantongelmartine/nieuw.htm - this: http://www.itcompas.be/vantongelmartine/ and this: http://www.uitinwestvlaanderen.be/20569/kunst-in-het-ondernemerscentrum-martine-van-tongel makes me think its an actual artwork of sorts.

It looks like a painter has drawn it himself so it his personal work...

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79287 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#843969 25-Jun-2013 13:14

It looks like it's being made for commercial use. Get a laywer and ask for the work to be returned, destroyed or paid for.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

jarledb

Webhead
3257 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#843970 25-Jun-2013 13:15

I know what I would do if this was used for something that was screamingly commercial. Any such use would incure a fee of double the going rate for use of such a photograph. Typically in the NZD 2000 range. (But depends on use. If it was used in a magazine ad with high circulation the price would have been much higher).

In this case I am uncertain of how commercial the use is, and if the artwork has actually been sold (or could be sold) and what that means for compensation.

Probably lawyer food, but I have sent the artist an email and will see how she responds before I consider further action.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79287 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#843971 25-Jun-2013 13:15

sep11guy: It looks like a painter has drawn it himself so it his personal work...

The painter used his original art (the photo) in a derivative work (the painting). Still copyright breach as it is a copy.

mattwnz

20162 posts

Uber Geek

#843972 25-Jun-2013 13:16

Looks like it is a photoshop filter. Dust and scratches filter possibly. Involving a lawyer maybe expensive. Maybe first try the CAB. When I had someone copy my work, I just contacted them, and they removed it. But if you are looking for damages, the lawyer route would be the way to go, and they may give you some template to use in the future.

jarledb

Webhead
3257 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#843975 25-Jun-2013 13:17

sep11guy, actually. A photograph is a copyright protected work of art. If you paint a version of it you are making a derivative work.

Just as a piece of music doesn't loose its copyright if you record it yourself, so does the photograph not loose its copyright even if you make a painting of it.

More info: http://painting.about.com/cs/artistscopyright/f/copyrightfaq5.htm

jarledb

Webhead
3257 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#843978 25-Jun-2013 13:21

mattwnz: Looks like it is a photoshop filter. Dust and scratches filter possibly. Involving a lawyer maybe expensive. Maybe first try the CAB. When I had someone copy my work, I just contacted them, and they removed it.

Looks like it has been produced and displayed in art exhibitions.

If I was to want it gone, would have to ask them to burn all prints and recall any sold?

sep11guy

660 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#843980 25-Jun-2013 13:22

jarledb: sep11guy, actually. A photograph is a copyright protected work of art. If you paint a version of it you are making a derivative work.

Just as a piece of music doesn't loose its copyright if you record it yourself, so does the photograph not loose its copyright even if you make a painting of it.

More info: http://painting.about.com/cs/artistscopyright/f/copyrightfaq5.htm

Totally Agree !!

sep11guy

660 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#843981 25-Jun-2013 13:22

freitasm:
sep11guy: It looks like a painter has drawn it himself so it his personal work...

The painter used his original art (the photo) in a derivative work (the painting). Still copyright breach as it is a copy.

Yes, thanks, point noted. Just read a link from the OP.,

mattwnz

20162 posts

Uber Geek

#843982 25-Jun-2013 13:23

jarledb:
mattwnz: Looks like it is a photoshop filter. Dust and scratches filter possibly. Involving a lawyer maybe expensive. Maybe first try the CAB. When I had someone copy my work, I just contacted them, and they removed it.

Looks like it has been produced and displayed in art exhibitions.

If I was to want it gone, would have to ask them to burn all prints and recall any sold?

I that case, ask a lawyer. There was a case similar on fair go a few years ago, where a company photographed an artwork, and sold it on T-shirts.

1 | 2