Total Art Soul - for artists

It's always good to acknowledge the people and the art that inspire us, in any case.

I've had someone (obviously) copy from one of my sculpture series, and then blatantly pretend they didn't when I confronted them.

I've also had someone copy from the same sculpture series, then write to me and tell me they were inspired by my work, and ask permission to continue.

I had to (tactfully) ask both of them to stop violating copyright, and both took their work in a different direction (though they had different attitudes about it). Guess which one I feel much better about supporting?

I actually felt bad for asking the person who wrote to me, to stop the copying, because she was so nice and my work inspired her. (No matter how much it pains me, I have to defend my copyright or I risk effectively losing it.) But because she had to think of how to change it up enough so that it was no longer a copy, I can look at her work and say that it's original and very cool. No one is going to see her work and think she copied me.

The other person? Even though their work is a bit different, I still look at it and think "copy."

I imagine it is rather tricky with painting landscapes though. I'm not a painter, but I use plenty of reference photos in my sculpture work. So far I've never sculpted an exact copy of something. I take elements from different photos (usually of creatures). Do any of you painters in the realism style ever do something similar with landscapes?

I think sandpiperrose takes different shots of landscapes and makes up her own. She has a couple here in her profile. I think mostly though she paints what she sees, in sit, or from her own photos.

It's only common curtosy to acknowledge those with which we draw inspiration from and who's works we use as source material.

I recently took a photograph from a friend who had offered it up for artistic exchange and after doing my magic to it posted back in the exchange and directly referenced that it was from their work.

even though they had given free complete access to it with no copyright boundries, i felt that i had to accknowledge the source my artistic interpretation had come from...it is even on my website with a direct link to their website etc.

i recently approached them to ask if they had a particular set of photographs i could paint directly from for the exhibition i am taking part in in november & he said yes straight away.

even though i will be making a painting with my own touches etc, i will still reference his photos as the original source of inspiration and if that painting sells, then it is only right that he also gets a cut of the profits.

The subject of Copyrights, has, in my opinion, many facets, and a very interesting topic for discussion. Being objective and exploring this laden topic, I quite often think of the paradoxes involved with copyrights.

As an example, Microsoft, in its' early days, did NOT copy protect their software properly, which meant that anyone could get and use it for free, which was a brilliant stroke of marketing skill and strategy (lol), which, in my opinion probably contributed in quite a large way to them being the wealthiest company in the world.

Apple, Microsofts' biggest rival at the time, on the other hand, had a really restrictive copyright/licensing model, which actually almost made them bankrupt.

Of course Microsoft will never admit that is the case, and you would not expect them to either, if they did it would make a mockery of their current policies, let alone be a shocking revelation!

Now, I am not alone in having this opinion, and there are some 'popstars' that also share this view, that giving away their songs actually makes them more popular, though this doesn't go down too well with the incredibly greedy and ruthless record companies, of course.

There are other subjects in this thread that I don't fully get though, I thought that the purpose of being creative was about sharing your creativity and inspirations, and by doing that to inspire others also, isn't that what the aim of Total Art Soul is?

Most musicians and composers are often inspired by other music, (and freely admit it) and often create similar pieces, the 2-5-1 chord progression of Jazz has been used millions of times.

Anyway, enough ranting, I'm off to paint some nice sunflowers in a vase....

joe wrote:

There are other subjects in this thread that I don't fully get though, I thought that the purpose of being creative was about sharing your creativity and inspirations, and by doing that to inspire others also, isn't that what the aim of Total Art Soul is?

There seems to be confusion between the legal aspect of copyright and the moral/ethical side of things.

Copyright laws are in place to protect the artist from having their artistic work copied and apply to all countries that are in the Berne Union as part of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. If you copy a photographers image without permission you are breaching their Copyright. That is the black and white legal aspect.

Proving copyright breach is a lot more difficult unless the derivative work is very similar or could not have been obtained by anyone other than the original photographer - eg portrait photographs of famous people.

If you want to copy a photograph of a landscape or other subject that you or anybody else 'could' have taken but didn't...the black and white answer is *still* that it is a breach of the photographers copyright...whether you get caught, or whether you alter it significantly so it looks different is where the legal aspect becomes shades of grey and difficult to prove...and where the moral and ethical side of things come into play. Just because you can dosn't necessarily mean you should, which is why this becomes a moral/ethical issue for the individual to determine by him or herself.

Some artists/photographers are happy for others to copy their work and willingly put their work in the Public Domain (places such as morguefile.com). Sharing their work in this way is their personal choice and most definitely does not apply to every photographer in the world who places their images on the internet!

Yes, some photographers are happy to have their photos used for painting reference without acknowledgement or payment, the majority are not (why should they when they spend thousands of dollars on equipment and years of their lives to develop their skills?).

Sharing and inspiring others might be the purpose of this website, but the purpose of being creative (in general and in the real world) has absolutely nothing to do with sharing and inspiring others, at least not in regards to the legalities of copyright infringement.

Totally agree with southwestOZ

if you copy an artwork it's infringement!

the best thing to do is wander over to deviantart and go through the stock photos (NOT the Photography sections) to use (make sure you read their TOU first)