Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Realism, plagiarism guide. need help!
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
Hello, I am a newbie. I m keenly interested in creating realistic art from pictures that stir inspiration. The problem is that painting from a photograph taken by someone else, as per my knowledge, is considered plagiarism. I want to paint from the picture and not plagiarize. As when a writer refers to the original writer in his content so that plagiarism can be avoided, can anyone please guide me how I can refer the photographer when I create a realism from his work. OR is there another way to do realistic art.
P.S I believe painting from a photograph should not be considered plagiarism. Realism is the painting of what someone has already created either it is a vase in a photograph or a vase present at your home.
Posted
Plagiarism is generally concerned with copying the creations of others. Photography can fall into this but remember that it is not plagiarism to paint something from real life which is in the public domain - for example a street scene, incorporating buildings and even statues. So if you use a photograph depicting such a scene then is it plagiarism? Well we fall into the area of grey here. If you simply use the photograph to depict the 'hardware' then I would suggest you are okay to do so - it would certainly be impossible to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the painting copied a specific photograph . BUT if there is something about the photograph that is unique to that photo then the answer is no. So what would make it unique? Well a group of people standing in certain poses, an unusual camera angle, a flock of birds taking off in a pattern that would never likely be repeated etc etc.
This whole area is a difficult one. How many times do you see paintings of deceased 'celebrities' Marilyn Monroe, Elvis etc. I see them regularly in Galleries painted by artists who were too young (or not even born) to remember them. So the artist must have used source material the copyright of which would lie with the photographer - but could you ever prove which photograph was actually used ? Probably not.
By the way a new act comes into force soon extending copyright to include furniture etc which will include work by Arne Jacobsen et al
Posted
Can you licence photos to paint a picture from them in the same way you can licence music to produce your own cover version? There must be a way - I'm thinking Ryan Adams' complete song-for-song cover of Taylor Swift's album "1989" and it's got to be achievable in painting too; there are enough websites come up if you search "Royalty free photos" in Google.
Posted
Amanda is right there, as soon as you take a picture you own the copyright to it. If you take part in art competition you will always find that they do ask if the work is your own, and that if it's based on a photo, that it is your own, or have written permission of the person who has taken it to use it.
There is a lot of websites with free to use photos, some of them aren't that free you have to pay a fee to download them, some websites you can give a donation if you wish to the photographer. However do check on these websites if they are "free for personal use" or "free for commercial use", they are not always both, and if not commercial you won't be able to sell the painting.
Posted
For most competitions yes they do ask if it's your own work but in my experience not all of them do and I can't recall ever being asked such questions in respect of exhibitions.
I have never come across websites such as you describe Karen but then again I have never looked for them so thanks for info.
Posted
There is a website called Pixabay, where most photos are in the public domain and are free for commercial use (it tells you on the right of the picture) , you can click "coffee" under the photographer name and that's the donation bit, but you don't have to. And some others like Shutterstock where you have to pay to be able to use the photo.
Hope that helps!
Posted
My work is copied and made use of on the internet on you tube,,, The best I can do is ask the copyist to add my name .better than to move a building over to the left and say it is his
many of the past artists copied ,and when photography came about it was used by them ,also some of the printers used to ask artist to make etchings for them from old paintings and pictures ,to produce their books ,,I have an habit of looking at the date on a painting .particularly if it looks a little photogenic ,and thinking was photography being used at that time ,, and some artists Like ,Leonard Russell Squirrel . was
an Architectural ,, landscape artist ,,, etcher and engraver, wow .and me an artist ,,, .come on .owed on a bit....
thats why I call myself an amature painter .
Posted
Only just come across this one.
Copyright is, as has been said again and again here, complex. The internet has only made things more complex. Seems to me that the best advice, both morally and artistically, is to make sure that all reference work you might use is your own.
If you do use other peoples work I believe you should at least try to gain permission, especially when you are talking about celebrity pictures where the photographer is very likely to be a professional. Using their work for your profit may be difficult to establish legally—though far easier I would think in the Lennon pic instance—but is morally objectionable in my view.
In the case that you cannot identify the copyright holder, evidence that you made sincere efforts so to do would generally be accepted should it come to a challenge by the copyright holder. I know of a case in which a hairdresser had used a photographer friend’s image in an ad. He had copied it from a magazine ad. and in so doing he had infringed the copyright of the photographer, and the company the picture was commissioned by and the magazine he had copied it from. He, of course withdrew the ad immediately on being challenged.
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2