Total Art Soul - for artists

very good points from all and informative links...i for one have learnt more than i did before

We're still trying to get a library going here. The software is being a bit of a pig but Joe is still looking at it. I think it may be a wonderful resource for artists if they can come here and find copyright free images. I will be uploading several of my photos for general use.

Food for thought. Thanks for everyone's comments and advice. I now know several of my paintings are illegal. Not only that, many people I know are painting illegal pictures.

Reading the Wikimedia Commons article - thanks for the link - it seems that copyright rules on "derivative" works are quite strict. I was amazed to read that taking a photo of a child holding a Winnie the Pooh toy could be considered a derivative work and an infringement of Disney's copyright.

I realise the article was referring to US law, but no doubt English law is very similar. The important thing is how the law is interpreted in an an individual case. It must be quite rare for painters to be sued for using a photo without permission, but it's not really worth taking the risk.

A library of copyright-free photos would be great. There are some here.

David

Copyright infringement happens all the time sadly. Most people assume that if it is on the internet it is free to be used in any way they please. In 99% of cases this is incorrect. While you could paint something from a photo and sell it, or keep it for personal use - if you have not obtained the photographers permission (or using a stock photo from somewhere like morguefile.com) then you are in most cases breaking copyright laws and the photographer could (and many do!) pursue you legally if they find out. Unfortunately, pleading ignorance of © laws won't avoid the legal ramifications of breaching someones copyright.

If you paint from a photo you find on the internet and don't show it on the internet on forums like this one, or in public, you are unlikely to get caught. I know of photographers that actually search images of paintings on the internet to make sure their photos arn't being used illegally...personally I was surprised at going to this extreme, but some do.

Many art competitions also now strictly prohibit submitting artwork derived from photographs taken by anyone other than the artist.

Its why I got into photography myself, especially seeing as the best animal/wildlife images available on the free stock photo and artist reference library websites are duplicated so many times by artists around the world...makes it hard to claim a painting is original if 300 other people have painted it;)

Michelle

Below this image on Flickr is an interesting exchange that shows that some people think English law is open to interpretation:

www.flickr.com/photos/norfolkboy1/2615817850/

The test case in English law is apparently Bauman v. Fussell, but I can't find the original photo and the painting taken from it anywhere on the Internet.

This is a different approach from the US - an artist pre-emptively asking for a judgement because he thought he might be accused of breach of copyright:

www.lawfont.com/2009/02/10/obama-campaig...ster-artist-sues-ap/

The situation doesn't seem very clear to me, although I think the railway engine in the first example must be pretty close to the photo, and I think if I'd been the photographer, I would have felt annoyed that my photo had been used without permission.

David

I should correct what I said. The photos that will be uploaded to the library here (when it's up and running) will still have the copyright belonging to the original artist. What we will do is allow people to use these images for 'personal use only'. If they want to use them for commercial use, they must seek permission from the owner and make an arrangement with them.