Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Painting and digital artwork.
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
Thank you Robert. I would contest that any work however achieved if done by human hand is by nature ones own work.
On the legal side the copywriter infringement got a mention. The whole tone was to bring me down. It matters not a jot to me.
I am happy. Hours spent on a work and then is trashed. No worries. Find that photo and I will give up :)
One of my hours spent.
One of my hours spent. Edited
by Michael Myles
Posted
Michael it was me who made the comment on your painting in the first place , it was not done to get at you nor wax my intention to demean you in anyway . I responded as I did simply because when I ask if it was a photograph as I genuinely did not known you told me it was a painting. Sometime later I was told it was a manipulated photo, I really don’t care if ir was or not what made me cross was what seemed to be your misleading comment and that’s why I responded as I did .
To be totally honest I don’t have a problem with people using any sort of software or digital program to paint , draw or do whatever they want with it , I would have more respect if they were up front about it .
What would be best now is for us all to get on with what we like to do that is produce art and let it drop .
I do like the image you have posted about unfortunately it seems a bit blurred but despite that it looks very bright and cheerful.
Posted
Michael it was me who made the comment on your painting in the first place , it was not done to get at you nor wax my intention to demean you in anyway . I responded as I did simply because when I ask if it was a photograph as I genuinely did not known you told me it was a painting. Sometime later I was told it was a manipulated photo, I really don’t care if ir was or not what made me cross was what seemed to be your misleading comment and that’s why I responded as I did . To be totally honest I don’t have a problem with people using any sort of software or digital program to paint , draw or do whatever they want with it , I would have more respect if they were up front about it . What would be best now is for us all to get on with what we like to do that is produce art and let it drop . I do like the image you have posted about unfortunately it seems a bit blurred but despite that it looks very bright and cheerful.
Posted
Thank you Robert. I would contest that any work however achieved if done by human hand is by nature ones own work. On the legal side the copywriter infringement got a mention. The whole tone was to bring me down. It matters not a jot to me. I am happy. Hours spent on a work and then is trashed. No worries. Find that photo and I will give up :)Well, that's not quite how the law works, and I think you should probably watch the video to which I provided a link earlier. I was not having a go at you, though: I have absolutely no idea where your ideas come from, what photographs you may have used on which to base your work. These are only problems for us, as artists or members of a forum on which these things are discussed - as they probably have to be now and then: it's not the first time we've touched on copyright - when large commercial organizations, many based in mainland China though increasingly nearer to home) deliberately trawl through artists' websites & elsewhere (eg, here, including your own page perhaps) take a work without any attribution at all, and then manipulate it and sell it; and provide banks of photos for others to make use of, that's a problem for up and coming artists seeking to make a name for themselves. How can they, if people are going to tell them they've seen that work before? There are legitimate sites which provide non-copyrighted images for artists - in which the photographer or painter has deliberately foresworn copyright in order to provide those of us who can't easily get out and about with images we can use. Strictly speaking, those who have submitted them have already given their permission for them to be used: that's not the problem. There are three or four artists on this website who use a variety of digital packages: we know who they are, because they're not pretending they haven't used software to manipulate things - and if they have, that is no problem at all. I have used copyright-free photographs, or have sought permission for those I did use; or have used a variety of different photos to achieve an image - true, I didn't manipulate them digitally, largely because I wouldn't know how to, but I certainly used them. So I'm not sitting in judgement on you, or on anyone else: you, and the others are, repeating myself, not the problem - this isn't another rant about digital art, it's about a very discrete subject which is causing widespread concern in the art-world, as the video to which I linked, and various newspaper articles , prove. I know I can get a touch vituperative about things, and create the impression that I'm at war with the world when a better approach would be to approach things more diplomatically: but what I was trying to do here was draw attention to a problem which had just been brought to my own attention - I wasn't even thinking of the work of members of this site, because that's just not what anyone on here does.
Edited
by Robert Jones, NAPA
Posted
Everything I do is digital. Maybe that helps. The picture I posted in this thread is not a photo. I am loose on my art. most is without structure. I really work from instinct rather then learning.
I just do it because I can do little else. I can not even cut the grass. No balance. I make no profit , Fun is the name of the game.unsplash.com says their photos are without copywriter.
Just give a shout out to the author. So if it is not legitimate I would like to know. I have had responses from the authors on Twitter saying thanks etc. What is my crime ?
I have never said I do not use digital media. I am sat using the digital means every day.
I do get a touch of the, Luddites around this. I have been on the Internet for many years. I take care to not get into legal trouble.
I thought this matter was closed :)
Edited
by Michael Myles
Posted
Oh, no matter is EVER closed when people still have something to say! Last word syndrome, basically.
You have committed no crime, you're as pure as the driven snow, with an extra flash of Dulux white and little sparkly bits on top. This was, for my part (and I'm quite sure from others') never about you - but I can see why you thought it might have been. I don't have any problem with digital art - I don't practise it, but that's a choice I make, partly due to unwilingness to spend my money on the soft/hardware: paints and brushes cost more than enough, without that on top.
However, I saw Denise's 'time to draw a line' under this, so .......
THIS