metin
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 21
Likes โข 14
August 2016
|
Copyright, by metin on Oct 25, 2016 16:13:36 GMT 1, There seems to be an ambiguous grey area when I ask about image and copyright laws.
As artists we all use photos and pics for inspiration etc but where does the line cross where an image is copied,or a head substituted onto another body and then sold on as prints or finished art work.
Marilyn of course sold her rights but how about Audrey Hepburn and the others who haven't?
Any artists out there perhaps can enlighten me?
Maybe even Gallery owners?
Again thanks for your time
image
hosting
There seems to be an ambiguous grey area when I ask about image and copyright laws. As artists we all use photos and pics for inspiration etc but where does the line cross where an image is copied,or a head substituted onto another body and then sold on as prints or finished art work. Marilyn of course sold her rights but how about Audrey Hepburn and the others who haven't? Any artists out there perhaps can enlighten me? Maybe even Gallery owners? Again thanks for your time image
hosting
|
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
Posts โข 7,043
Likes โข 8,981
August 2011
|
Copyright, by Dr Plip on Oct 25, 2016 16:29:35 GMT 1, Richard Prince will know. Is he still on here?
Richard Prince will know. Is he still on here?
|
|
|
metin
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 21
Likes โข 14
August 2016
|
Copyright, by metin on Oct 25, 2016 16:36:33 GMT 1, That's because Marilyn sold her image rights away...anyone and everyone has used it.
That's because Marilyn sold her image rights away...anyone and everyone has used it.
|
|
randomname
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 1,810
June 2013
|
Copyright, by randomname on Oct 25, 2016 17:11:46 GMT 1, What you're asking about is fair use.
In general, artists can use existing, copyrighted art as source material if they create something new with it that somehow changes the meaning of the original. Some examples are social commentary, parody and satire.
That's a pretty vague and ambiguous standard, but it generally errs on the side of unoriginal hacks knocking off someone else's work.
Also, Marilyn Monroe licensing her image commercially has nothing to do with fair use as it relates to artists.
What you're asking about is fair use.
In general, artists can use existing, copyrighted art as source material if they create something new with it that somehow changes the meaning of the original. Some examples are social commentary, parody and satire.
That's a pretty vague and ambiguous standard, but it generally errs on the side of unoriginal hacks knocking off someone else's work.
Also, Marilyn Monroe licensing her image commercially has nothing to do with fair use as it relates to artists.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Copyright, by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 18:44:48 GMT 1, That's because Marilyn sold her image rights away...anyone and everyone has used it.
Sorry, what does that mean, sold her image rights away?
does that mean anyone that hasn't sold their arts image can ask for any photograph, painting, drawing of them selves to be binned as we are born copyrighted unless we opt out?
That's because Marilyn sold her image rights away...anyone and everyone has used it. Sorry, what does that mean, sold her image rights away? does that mean anyone that hasn't sold their arts image can ask for any photograph, painting, drawing of them selves to be binned as we are born copyrighted unless we opt out?
|
|
|
sugar72
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,379
Likes โข 1,817
August 2016
|
Copyright
Oct 25, 2016 18:55:16 GMT 1
via mobile
Copyright, by sugar72 on Oct 25, 2016 18:55:16 GMT 1, That's because Marilyn sold her image rights away...anyone and everyone has used it. Sorry, what does that mean, sold her image rights away? does that mean anyone that hasn't sold their arts image can ask for any photograph, painting, drawing of them selves to be binned as we are born copyrighted unless we opt out?
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2012/sep/03/marilyn-monroe-estate-image-rights%3f0p19G=e?client=ms-android-sonymobile
|
|
randomname
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 1,810
June 2013
|
Copyright, by randomname on Oct 25, 2016 22:04:32 GMT 1, That's because Marilyn sold her image rights away...anyone and everyone has used it. Sorry, what does that mean, sold her image rights away? does that mean anyone that hasn't sold their arts image can ask for any photograph, painting, drawing of them selves to be binned as we are born copyrighted unless we opt out? What he said doesn't really mean anything.
No one can use your image for commercial purposes without a signed model release. Marilyn Monroe modeled for various ad campaigns. And her estate continues to license her image for commercial purposes. That has nothing to do with whether or not an artist can use her image.
Copyright law is different for artists than for corporations and businesses. Artists can legally photograph you in public and use your image in their work. Generally speaking, you have no expectation of privacy when you're in a public space.
That said, privacy laws differ from country to country and state to state. It's always best (both legally and artistically) to work from original source material and to get a signed release if the model will be recognizable.
That's because Marilyn sold her image rights away...anyone and everyone has used it. Sorry, what does that mean, sold her image rights away? does that mean anyone that hasn't sold their arts image can ask for any photograph, painting, drawing of them selves to be binned as we are born copyrighted unless we opt out? What he said doesn't really mean anything. No one can use your image for commercial purposes without a signed model release. Marilyn Monroe modeled for various ad campaigns. And her estate continues to license her image for commercial purposes. That has nothing to do with whether or not an artist can use her image. Copyright law is different for artists than for corporations and businesses. Artists can legally photograph you in public and use your image in their work. Generally speaking, you have no expectation of privacy when you're in a public space. That said, privacy laws differ from country to country and state to state. It's always best (both legally and artistically) to work from original source material and to get a signed release if the model will be recognizable.
|
|
metin
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 21
Likes โข 14
August 2016
|
Copyright, by metin on Oct 27, 2016 8:59:02 GMT 1, Great answer and I totally understand that BUT how about when an artist uses say Kate Moss or the Queen or indeed any Hollywood celebrity? We see paintings,prints created obviously from sourced photos either online or from books and used without getting consent.
Great answer and I totally understand that BUT how about when an artist uses say Kate Moss or the Queen or indeed any Hollywood celebrity? We see paintings,prints created obviously from sourced photos either online or from books and used without getting consent.
|
|
ABC
Artist
Junior Member
Posts โข 5,533
Likes โข 1,923
August 2006
|
Copyright
Oct 27, 2016 9:48:45 GMT 1
via mobile
Copyright, by ABC on Oct 27, 2016 9:48:45 GMT 1, Taking an image directly from Google and using it as your own (creating a stencil for example)can and will get you into a legal case if the image owner wants to pursue the issue.
Taking an image directly from Google and using it as your own (creating a stencil for example)can and will get you into a legal case if the image owner wants to pursue the issue.
|
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
Posts โข 7,043
Likes โข 8,981
August 2011
|
Copyright, by Dr Plip on Oct 27, 2016 9:56:29 GMT 1, From my limited experience, rights holders only really get involved if you're either making a lot of money or if it looks like you're trying to make a lot of money.
Or if you're making them look particularly bad.
Oh and don't go anywhere near anything Shakin' Stevens related.
He crazy.
From my limited experience, rights holders only really get involved if you're either making a lot of money or if it looks like you're trying to make a lot of money.
Or if you're making them look particularly bad.
Oh and don't go anywhere near anything Shakin' Stevens related.
He crazy.
|
|
ABC
Artist
Junior Member
Posts โข 5,533
Likes โข 1,923
August 2006
|
Copyright
Oct 27, 2016 10:05:59 GMT 1
via mobile
Copyright, by ABC on Oct 27, 2016 10:05:59 GMT 1, From my limited experience, rights holders only really get involved if you're either making a lot of money or if it looks like you're trying to make a lot of money.
Or if you're making them look particularly bad.
Oh and don't go anywhere near anything Shakin' Stevens related.
He crazy.
About sums it up....a few artists "that we all know" have been caught out and ended up paying large sums out of court.
From my limited experience, rights holders only really get involved if you're either making a lot of money or if it looks like you're trying to make a lot of money.
Or if you're making them look particularly bad.
Oh and don't go anywhere near anything Shakin' Stevens related.
He crazy. About sums it up....a few artists "that we all know" have been caught out and ended up paying large sums out of court.
|
|
randomname
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 1,810
June 2013
|
Copyright, by randomname on Oct 27, 2016 16:41:32 GMT 1, Great answer and I totally understand that BUT how about when an artist uses say Kate Moss or the Queen or indeed any Hollywood celebrity? We see paintings,prints created obviously from sourced photos either online or from books and used without getting consent. The key point to fair use is whether or not the artist who appropriates the image transforms the meaning of the image in some way.
On one end of the spectrum, if you simply duplicate someone's image, that won't fall under fair use.
On the other end of the spectrum, if you're using the image in a clearly satirical way, that probably would fall under fair use.
One artist who comes to mind is Shepard Fairey. He can't draw. As a result, he regularly appropriates photography for his art.
In the past, he almost always used other people's images without their permission. But then he got into trouble for using an AP photo for his Obama Hope poster.
He was sued for copyright infringement by the AP. The interesting part to me is that he likely would have won the case, but he lied and said he used a different image. He ended up pleading guilty to perjury and settling the case with the AP.
Since then, he has collaborated more with photographers, using their images with permission (and for payment).
So while it may be legal to use other artists' work without their permission, I personally think it's a shitty thing to do. Some artists exploit fair use as a way to compensate for their lack of artistic skill and creativity. Or out of sheer laziness.
It's better to create your own source material to work from, either collaborating with a photographer or picking up a camera yourself.
Great answer and I totally understand that BUT how about when an artist uses say Kate Moss or the Queen or indeed any Hollywood celebrity? We see paintings,prints created obviously from sourced photos either online or from books and used without getting consent. The key point to fair use is whether or not the artist who appropriates the image transforms the meaning of the image in some way. On one end of the spectrum, if you simply duplicate someone's image, that won't fall under fair use. On the other end of the spectrum, if you're using the image in a clearly satirical way, that probably would fall under fair use. One artist who comes to mind is Shepard Fairey. He can't draw. As a result, he regularly appropriates photography for his art. In the past, he almost always used other people's images without their permission. But then he got into trouble for using an AP photo for his Obama Hope poster. He was sued for copyright infringement by the AP. The interesting part to me is that he likely would have won the case, but he lied and said he used a different image. He ended up pleading guilty to perjury and settling the case with the AP. Since then, he has collaborated more with photographers, using their images with permission (and for payment). So while it may be legal to use other artists' work without their permission, I personally think it's a shitty thing to do. Some artists exploit fair use as a way to compensate for their lack of artistic skill and creativity. Or out of sheer laziness. It's better to create your own source material to work from, either collaborating with a photographer or picking up a camera yourself.
|
|
randomname
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 1,810
June 2013
|
Copyright, by randomname on Oct 27, 2016 16:44:58 GMT 1, From my limited experience, rights holders only really get involved if you're either making a lot of money or if it looks like you're trying to make a lot of money.
Or if you're making them look particularly bad.
Oh and don't go anywhere near anything Shakin' Stevens related.
He crazy.
There's a legal reason for that. Part of what goes into determining whether something is fair use is whether or not it's done primarily for profit. If the primary intent is artistic expression, it's more likely to be considered fair use. If the primary intent is to make money, it's much less likely to be considered fair use.
From my limited experience, rights holders only really get involved if you're either making a lot of money or if it looks like you're trying to make a lot of money.
Or if you're making them look particularly bad.
Oh and don't go anywhere near anything Shakin' Stevens related.
He crazy. There's a legal reason for that. Part of what goes into determining whether something is fair use is whether or not it's done primarily for profit. If the primary intent is artistic expression, it's more likely to be considered fair use. If the primary intent is to make money, it's much less likely to be considered fair use.
|
|
|
metin
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 21
Likes โข 14
August 2016
|
Copyright, by metin on Oct 28, 2016 9:17:04 GMT 1, That's a great answer!
Totally how I was thinking but it's always better to hear from others in the 'business' so to speak.
Though still a fuzzy line in temps of how I see many others artists work. They'd be lying if they said it wasn't for financial gain.
That's a great answer!
Totally how I was thinking but it's always better to hear from others in the 'business' so to speak.
Though still a fuzzy line in temps of how I see many others artists work. They'd be lying if they said it wasn't for financial gain.
|
|