Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
David Shepherd
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
Message
Posted
Hi all,
Just thought it would be nice to highlight wildlife artist David Shepherd. Seems the proceeds of his sales go to his own wildlife charity. The other day, I went to a new picture framer who was ever so kind, very interested in artists and he told me of him. Even David Shepherd's prints go for 3 figure sums so I thought I should have known about him before. Web link is:
http://www.davidshepherd.org/
Do you know him and what do you think?
( Sorry on the other thread couldn't spell either phenomenon or lead, too earlyin the morn or that's my excuse etc!) (lol)
Posted
It's only if you put your own work in the public domain that you need worry at all about this. Copy away. If you are intending to make money out of an image which is copied from a photo, by which I mean copied so that it is very obviously a work based on and using the same features as the original image, you need permission from the copyright holder for which you may have to pay a fee. If you are copying a photograph for an exhibition, and even more for a publication, again, you need permission from the copyright holder and you would acknowledge the original. More information is available in the Writers' & Artists' Yearbook, published by A & C Black. There are several other positings on this subject by the way - have a trawl through the site.
If a work isn't in copyright anymore, then you obviously don't need permission, but you should still make it clear that your work is "After.." the photographer or artist, or "based on a work/photograph by...". A bit of common sense clears most obstacles in this field.
Posted
Slightly ticklish, but the real question is whether the originator of the photograph could clearly identify that you had directly copied his or her work - not as easy to do as it might sound. However, if there is a risk it's a very small one and you would normally cover yourself quite satisfactorily if you were to say "based on a photograph by...". You've already found that rights holders don't bother to reply to you when you ask if you can use their work to copy from, and this is because all they're going to be interested in is blatant misrepresentation of their work and copying for commercial gain. If there's no money in the exercise, there's no point launching the civil action that would be needed to obtain redress.
If you were thinking of copying Damien Hirst, who has had eager recourse to law in defence of his rights, you'd be distinctly foolish: although you may have noticed some satirical images of diamond-encrusted skulls on this site, and I'm not aware that the artist has been dragged off to the Tower yet. If in doubt, take your own photographs or use public domain images - and don't directly copy from photos, but take from them the information you require; in which case it will be virtually impossible to prove their derivation anyway.
If you have a specific example in mind of what you want to copy, give us a clue. It's never easy to be authoritative about what-if questions of a theoretical nature.
Or just try not to copy from people you know to be, ahem, suers...
Posted
Or contact www.dacsorg.uk
You can ask them the question and they will be very happy to answer to you.
If you see a beautiful photo from a book or magazine or others, you can play with it, paint something out of it.
You CANNOT sell the result. If you exhibit it you have to mention that you have worked copying a photo by X.
The problem is that in an exhibition (local with other artists) you might add that you have been inspired by... but would the organisers display this info near your painting ?
Why just not try to paint it for yourself and create different work of your own for exhibition ?
Posted
thank you for the advice, i had one photographer who answered and said ok, hence lioness in my gallery. yessss ive just got an e-mail from photographer Karen Murrell regarding a request to draw one of her photos; Cuban Ballet Dancers, if you google her its the photo of the girl looking in a mirror,,, thanks for setting my mind at rest , i draw a lot from photos/ net because i dont get around a lot due to disability. ill be off now to start drawing you will see my results in a couple off days ...thanks again D.
Posted
Hi, Derek, allow me to say something about it, please.
Copying permission is difficult matter, because is not easy, as an author, to see your work reproduced, once when are talking about art work we are talking about an unique piece, an somebody's unique moment.
I know that copying usually is seen as normal, unfortunately normal, not because any business interest, but because who normally make copies, even as an exercise, will always feel difficulties so as to see the things, the reality, with their own eyes, although it is normal in our beginning, but we have to look around and to search our subjects.
For instance, personally, I have no problem if someone makes copies from my work. I never printed or wasted my time writing about forbidding for copying my paintings —this is not the international point, once I am not an worldwide famous artist— because I think it is more a self-love question, and people really have two possibilities so as to make that: by passion or by fame and economical interest; and unfortunately I have seen —in my country, at least— some copies in single exhibitions of authors(?) who have not education nor shame.
Of course this case is not copying from any painting but from a photography; this is different, I know. Therefore I talked about the prejudice, the real prejudice of the skills of who is usually copying, because he is delaying the achievement of own voice. This is —according to my perspective— the main prejudice; this is, for me, the point.
Anyway, we legally can copy —do not for selling, of course— even from a recognized masterpiece but necessarilly in a different size, and —obviously—, after our signature, we must make reference: "from Rembrandt" or another artist.
A big hug for all of you
Posted
Sorry if this has already been discussed but I am new to the forum. I have recently completed a painting taken from an exercise in Leisure Painter and would like to exhibit this in our local community centre. I assume that I would not be able to sell this work? Perhaps someone could advise me please.
Posted
If it was shown as an exercise in LP, the artist ,by inviting copies to be made of it, has placed the work in the public domain. I think you would be quite at liberty to sell it, but I should entitle it "after an exercise in LP magazine" (or subtitle it, obviously). Then honour is satisfied, but I do not believe that any legal issue arises here.