COPYRIGHT ISSUES

 The following comments were posted in another stream and it was suggested they be reposted here for ease of future reference so: Following comments elsewhere it seems to me it may be helpful to clarify the matter of copyright. Copyright always remains with the artist unless it has been sold to a third party. Any use of an image without the permission of the copyright holder is technically a breach of copyright.    It therefore follows that the use of an image without a  licence for its use by way of  express permission is a breach of copyright whether it is here on POL or in a commercially available magazine. Simply because an image is publicly available elsewhere does not give others the right to use it without permission. The main purpose of copyright is to protect the holder should others seek to take commercial advantage. Publication in a magazine would clearly come into this category but here on POL it is less clear that there is any commercial advantage to be gained and therefore little chance that an action would ever be brought.  Having said that, although the risk is minimal, there is case precedent to support such action.   Here on POL providing the details of the artist are included,  there is little risk but I would suggest that permission should always be sought first. Where permission isn’t sought the artist always has the right to ask that the image(s) be deleted. Another issue that has arisen concerns the use of another artists work (artwork, photos etc) for subject matter or as a means of inspiration . Thinking first about copying photos the question to ask is: ‘Is it beyond reasonable doubt that it is a copy?’  If I used someone else’s photo of, say Tower Bridge, there is little chance that anyone could ever say my painting used that specific photo given the number of photos in the public domain of the bridge. However if the photo included buses with adverts in a specific formation and a group of people wearing identifiable clothing then a direct copy could potentially be established beyond reasonable doubt. In an ideal world you should always use your own photos but where this is not possible (for example I have just painted a commission of the Shwedagon pagoda in Yangon) then my suggestion is to use several reference photos taking bits of information from them all to develop your own image. Short of this there are several sites offering copyright free photos which you are at liberty to use. The same general rules also apply to paintings – if you make a direct copy, unless your painting skills are pretty ropey, then it would be self- evident that it is, indeed, a copy of the original. Notwithstanding the copyright issues is it okay to copy someone else’s work?  If you are merely doing so for practice to improve your skills and for your sole benefit then you are on fairly safe ground but not if you exhibit (and this would include posting here on POL) or, worse still, if you offer the work for sale. Using the work of others for inspiration (style, genre etc) generally falls outside the copyright issues providing you don’t actually copy their work which would be a definite ‘no go’ for the reasons given above. A word of warning: this is not a black and white issue - ideas can be the subject of copyright - I have in mind diamond encrusted skulls and unmade beds.          

The creative copyright route is a good way of sourcing what are effectively copyright free images but this only includes those images where the artist/copyright holder has granted approval so it is a more limited selection. Alternatively you can Google 'copyright free images' and a host of sites will come up.

I'm no expert in American legislation and I'll do bit more research but my understanding is that photos are covered by the US Copyright Act so reproduce them at your peril.  The question of using photos of the famous is an interesting one. We see so many paintings of Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, et al which are painted, for example,  by people who were born after the death of the subject and clearly had to rely on source material other than their own. However as there are so many photos of these individuals available on the web it would be near impossible to ever prove which photo was the one used so, in general, the artist is on reasonably safe ground.

Nor I Linda. And certainly not someone like Damien Hirst who threatened to sue a 16 year old boy who made £200 by selling a satirical copy of Hirsts diamond encrusted skull. 

A style, as opposed to a specific design, is, in art terms, not generally the subject of copyright (which expires 70 years after the death of the artist).  It's a courtesy to acknowlege the artist who has made a style popular but not, I would suggest, essential. As far as Colour Field images are concerned, even if you did want to paint a direct copy,  there are many royalty free examples in the web.