Cpoyright on a photograph that someone has painted?

[ashdavid]

I know the law on actual photographs, but what if the photograph was turned into a painting and sold, would that still constitute copyright?

http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html

I suppose it comes under this part which would mean it is under copyright???

Q. If I change a few things in a copyrighted work by adding or taking something away, am I guilty of copyright infringement?
A. Yes. The right to make derivative copies is reserved exclusively to the copyright owner. While the idea for a work of art can be copied, the expression of the idea is fully protected. Sometimes, it is difficult to differentiate between an idea and an expression because the idea can sometimes get lost in the expression.
For example, one court had to decide if a pin made in the shape of a bumblebee was protected by copyright. The court said that the bumblebee was taken from nature and there was only one way to express this idea. Consequently, when there is only one way to express an idea, copyright will not prevent the copying of the expression. Furthermore, even though the pin was decorated with colored jewels, the placement of the jewels had to follow the form of the insect. Therefore, the jeweled bumblebee pin was not a expression that would be protected by copyrighted. The court held that it was an idea that could only be express in one way.

[Karl Johnston]

Where I am from; one requires the permission of the painter/artist.

A lot of painters have their work scanned or professionally photographed then re-printed multiple times on different special fine art papers (giclee is common). I only learned this a few months ago when talking to a director from Wall Street Gallery.

Some painters paint straight originals by hand, of course, these can fetch much higher prices than their prints.

So essentially; yes it does violate copyright

[RMelick]

Where I am from; one requires the permission of the painter/artist.

A lot of painters have their work scanned or professionally photographed then re-printed multiple times on different special fine art papers (giclee is common). I only learned this a few months ago when talking to a director from Wall Street Gallery.

Some painters paint straight originals by hand, of course, these can fetch much higher prices than their prints.

So essentially; yes it does violate copyright

I believe he is asking about the reverse, where the photo is the original and the painter is selling painted "copies" of such

[Karl Johnston]

Oh sorry, I completely misread that. You don't often hear that scenario.

I would think....so...not sure for certain but logic would suggest that it could work in reverse, too.

[Mark_Cohran]

If the painting is made directly from the photograph, then it's considered derivative and it would be copyright infringement - the reverse is also true.

[ashdavid]

As I thought, thanks for the help guys.:) Someone is painting and using my pics.

[RMelick]

As I thought, thanks for the help guys.:) Someone is painting and using my pics.

I am taking it that it is without permission then? That is too bad

[ashdavid]

I am taking it that it is without permission then? That is too bad
Yes, it was without my permission. The paitings are real good though and the since it was brought to my attention the person has asked me if she can use the pics so she can sell the paintings and prints.

[amonline]

Yes, it is copyright infringement. Of course, they can completely change the surroundings of the subject, and then it becomes their original work. Unfortunately, I know this pretty intimately. I deal with fine art reproductions and people who paint from photos all the time. I have to break the bad news to them in some cases when they've painted something from the web and then want to put it on their website. :rolleyes:

[JWright]

There was a big flap around this very subject during the election last year. Apparently an artist created what became a widely circulated image of president Obama from a photograph taken by an AP photographer. The AP sued for copyright infringement...

[Radtech1]

This idea of "derivative" work is getting out of control. I do not remember the source, so I cant link to it, but I read a year or so ago about a photographer who had taken some "skyline" photographs of a city. I believe that the vantage point had open public access - perhaps a "lookout deck" of a tall building.

Another photographer subsequently took a photograph from the same vantage point. The first photographer sued and won a copyright infringement case - even though he could not show that he was the first ever to take a photograph from that location, and that the second photographer had shot his shot himself, with his own camera! That is just plain asinine!

What next? Every photograph of Half Dome has to pay royalties to the estate of Ansel Adams.

Rad

[Mark_Cohran]

This idea of "derivative" work is getting out of control. I do not remember the source, so I cant link to it, but I read a year or so ago about a photographer who had taken some "skyline" photographs of a city. I believe that the vantage point had open public access - perhaps a "lookout deck" of a tall building.

Another photographer subsequently took a photograph from the same vantage point. The first photographer sued and won a copyright infringement case - even though he could not show that he was the first ever to take a photograph from that location, and that the second photographer had shot his shot himself, with his own camera! That is just plain asinine!

What next? Every photograph of Half Dome has to pay royalties to the estate of Ansel Adams.

Rad

I've never heard about any case where photographers shooting a natural or public accessible view from the same vantage point could claim copyright infringement, but here is a link that discusses the concept:

http://www.nylawline.com/writings_events/copyright_protection_and_su.html

and here's is a "fair use" excerpt for Bernie Krage's Legal Handbbook for Photographers:

377051


But artists being sued for infringing a photographers copyright is not unheard of at all. Here's at least one case:
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/photojournalism/e3i4b1f65d43468689993c27258f9c4eaf0

[Karl Johnston]

Here's food for thought.

Is it infringement for a photographer to copy the work of a painter; as in reconstruct the elements and the location, if that were possible, and take a photograph of it to sell?

Mixing things up a bit but what if you were to take a photograph of a concept like The Persistence of Memory by salvador dali ...aside from the fact that it would be orphan since dali is dead and gone now; would it be infringement?

Just an example.

The painting is this, by the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Persistence_of_Memory

Also known as "melting clocks"

If you could reconstruct the scene and then you copied that and sold it as a photograph = infringement?

[amonline]

Man, who cares... I would just love to see you melt a few clocks. :lol:

Seriously though, that's a good question. I would assume the legal door swings both ways and if you deliberately recreated a painting (albiet, not a Dali), that you'd be subject to legal retaliation - if ever caught by the original artist.

I think the main thing that comes into play in your example is the life of the Dali copyright. I don't know the dates, but that'd be a key player in the decision. But, if this was in line with a recent work of art, I think it could be labeled in court as infringement.

[Karl Johnston]

So we're in the business not only of selling images but now we sell visions, too?

Interesting...that would mean that every idea we create we would have to make unique in some singular way or another. Move a branch, change a color, shoot from a different angle...

[JWright]

This idea of "derivative" work is getting out of control. I do not remember the source, so I cant link to it, but I read a year or so ago about a photographer who had taken some "skyline" photographs of a city. I believe that the vantage point had open public access - perhaps a "lookout deck" of a tall building.

Another photographer subsequently took a photograph from the same vantage point. The first photographer sued and won a copyright infringement case - even though he could not show that he was the first ever to take a photograph from that location, and that the second photographer had shot his shot himself, with his own camera! That is just plain asinine!

What next? Every photograph of Half Dome has to pay royalties to the estate of Ansel Adams.

Rad

So, by the reasoning you cited above, every shot in this search (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&um=1&q=Heceta+Head&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=18) for a particular lighthouse in Oregon would be infringing on the rights of the photographers that took the first shots? And I would be infringing on this shot (http://www.memorable-beach-vacations.com/image-files/oregon-coast-3227tl-heceta-head-light-house-florence-500h-80.jpg) with this shot (http://johnwright.smugmug.com/photos/577801140_WsEqh-L.jpg) I took a couple of weeks ago?

It gets to the point where it becomes ludicrous...

[Karl Johnston]

I can't believe that taking the similar picture over again may be classified as infringement.

[amonline]

Yea, I don't think so either.