My photos for paintings?

[T Kubik]

So, I'm trying to get this photo business of mine off the ground and I've decided to display low rez samples of my work on Facebook to stir the pot a bit. It's worked great so far, I've sold a few pieces in the last week and I have scheduled 2 photo shoots! Anyways, I got an email from a high school acquaintance asking if she could use my photos for her paintings. Should I be charging for this? Should I even agree? If I charge, how much and how do I make sure she's not stealing the images? Thanks for the help.

[waple]

You're in luck that she actually asked before she did it. I had a guy come into my studio today showing my painting that he's done and said they were just from random photos he's found on the net.

I'm trying to turn it into a profitable thing by seeing if he and I can work on some projects where I shoot the initial photograph and then he paints it. But to be honest, I'm not sure how we'll structure the profits. Does he pay me up front and that's it then he keeps whatever profits he makes or do we split it all after the sale is final? Not sure.

[Hikin Mike]

So, I'm trying to get this photo business of mine off the ground and I've decided to display low rez samples of my work on Facebook to stir the pot a bit. It's worked great so far, I've sold a few pieces in the last week and I have scheduled 2 photo shoots! Anyways, I got an email from a high school acquaintance asking if she could use my photos for her paintings. Should I be charging for this? Should I even agree? If I charge, how much and how do I make sure she's not stealing the images? Thanks for the help.

Yes you should charge something. It's basically a 'Photo Reference'. A one time license and I'd charge about $50. Usually a 4 x 6 photo is fine.

[Concretin Nik]

Um, the photos is up already for her reference. She's seen it, maybe even saved it... you can't really keep her from making a painting of it... So yes, be glad she asked.

I'd trade though. Yes, you can use that photo, even give her a print... but give her another print (of your favorite photo) for her to make a painting for you...

If she asks for payment, then you should too. If she doesn't, then don't. Fair enough?

[T Kubik]

Yes you should charge something. It's basically a 'Photo Reference'. A one time license and I'd charge about $50. Usually a 4 x 6 photo is fine.

That sounds like a good plan. I'm going to have to weigh my options.

Um, the photos is up already for her reference. She's seen it, maybe even saved it... you can't really keep her from making a painting of it... So yes, be glad she asked.

I'd trade though. Yes, you can use that photo, even give her a print... but give her another print (of your favorite photo) for her to make a painting for you...

If she asks for payment, then you should too. If she doesn't, then don't. Fair enough?

You have a good point. Do you think that a 600x400 72 dpi pic is big enough to use for reference? I would ask for a trade if I actually wanted a painting.

[Hikin Mike]

I would ask for a trade if I actually wanted a painting.

I had a guy that wanted to do that. I sent an e-mail, in part...

"...exchange for one of your paintings. If you decide not to use my file as a reference painting, I ask for $50 for my time.

By sending me your e-mail means that you agree with the terms."


He never replied.

[Karl Johnston]

Personally I don't have a problem with it, in fact I'm honored, I've had 3 of my prints painted by 3 painters. All I ask is they give me a trackback or a reference to where they got the inspiration from and that's drummed up a couple of print sales for me.

I think it depends on the context. If there were a commercial painter opposed to a hobbyist looking to paint one of my prints or photographs then I would think, as another professional artist, like compensation would go with the trade.

[Playm]

By law, any photograph shot by you that you post on the internet is owned by you, the creator of the image. You own the copyright to that image. If someone horks your image off the internet without your written permission and creates a painting, it's in violation of the copyright laws. They have broken the law. You have a legal right to send a bill, collect payment for use and/or demand the image (in this case, a painting) created or proof of destruction of the image (and all copies) they created. If 10 copies (giclees or prints) have been made, it becomes a felony including a possible damages award of $2500 regardless if any profit has been made by the violator.

I think it hurts the industry that so many people are "flattered" to be ripped off. It diminishes the credibility of your photography and the photography industry in general.

Though many people out there in cyber-land aren't aware of the copyright laws, it's up to you, the creator and owner of the image, to educate them. Please do a search to learn more about the copyright laws. Here is a link of links that might get you started: http://www.photosecrets.com/links.law.html

No one is saying not to share. .. but I'm encouraging you to share the correct way, by giving credibility to the laws and to your imagery. (ie: issue a licence for use) If your image is good enough that someone wants to steal it to make a profit from it, then it's up to you to make them aware of (either) their ignorance of copyright laws or (if they don't care) their liability of the theft. (not referring to the OP .. because the artist did ask, which is commendable)

When someone does ask your permission, (that's wonderful when they ASK!), then it's up to you to issue a licence for use or not.

[Concretin Nik]

You have a good point. Do you think that a 600x400 72 dpi pic is big enough to use for reference?

I guess that depends on how detailed a painting she plans, and how good of a painter she is. :)

I like Karl's idea of recognition/trackback/documentation for the inspiration. On their site or in their gallery.



You don't have a single photo that you think would be cool to have as a painting? Really? I have one(actually hundreds) to trade then... I'll even pay for shipping of the painting to me! ;)

[T Kubik]

I guess that depends on how detailed a painting she plans, and how good of a painter she is. :)

I like Karl's idea of recognition/trackback/documentation for the inspiration. On their site or in their gallery.



You don't have a single photo that you think would be cool to have as a painting? Really? I have one(actually hundreds) to trade then... I'll even pay for shipping of the painting to me! ;)

Yeah, I like Carl's idea too. I think that many of them would look good as paintings, I just don't have anywhere to hang them. We don't hang a lot of stuff and my wife insists I hang my photography (darn) or her father's.

[Box Brownie]

Just my 2p's worth of point of view!

1) Yes, any use of an image is flattering but that does not assocaite "value" to the original image you created.

2) If the painter is doing this for personal use i.e. for their own wall then if yuo rimage is good enough for them to wnat it then a fee should be paid ~ as for how much, well IMO more than poccket money but not prohibitive & with the cabeat that for that fee it is just as reference image for that one off usage.

3) If the painter intends to sell the painting commercially then the cost of the reference image should reflect that ~ think secondary derivatives also i.e. will the painting be made into greetings cards etc.

Basically IMO recognise the value of your images and sell them effectively where you can for fees that reflect the usage requested but make sure they sold with agreed signed off conditions by the buyer.

For the record as per my sig I have yet to sell anything so take my B2B salesmans advice for what you think its worth :lol: ;)

[EveryMilesAMemory]

Just make sure that she paints the watermark into the image when she's finished!! You do have your work watermarked right?

[exile]

To echo what the others have said, be glad she asked in advance. I have had someone tell me after they had painted one of my images and entered it in a competition. She wasn't even asking my permission at that stage ... I think she expected me to be grateful. She won the competition too. I let it pass because she told me she was learning (the actual painting was a travesty of the original photograph).

The bottom line is that you own the rights to how the image is used and it is up to you to decide who (and how) you let make copies. You can let them do it for free, or you can come to an agreement. I don't know what the law is in the US, but here in the UK making a derivative of a copyrighted work does not create a new copyright. The original copyright covers the derivative i.e. you would own the copyright to the derivative AND any money made from that copy.

Funnily enough I read a really bad example of a painter trampling on a photographers copyright today - read about it here ... http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjsferrier/3739780244/in/pool-ayrshire_landscapes

[T Kubik]

Wow, that article is a trip! Yeah, I do have my stuff watermarked and it's very low res.

[Bravotwofive]

I would probably tell her she has to let me see it when she is done, and take a photo with her and the painting. No Fee. Why (you may or may not wonder)? Incourage the arts, and the image is already out there to see. Now if she sells it for few hundred thousand then I would probably discuss percentage options.

Asking first shows that she respects your work, and not everything is about money.

Just my .00083 cents worth.

Chuck

[Karl Johnston]

Wow that article is crazy, I think I'll put that on my blog.

[EveryMilesAMemory]

Funnily enough I read a really bad example of a painter trampling on a photographers copyright today - read about it here ... http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjsferrier/3739780244/in/pool-ayrshire_landscapes

Great link, thanks for sharing that! Amazing the stuff people think they can get away with!!

[Concretin Nik]

OK, gonna play a bit of devil's advocate... or at least pot stirrer... not meaning to push buttons or make this hostile in any way, shape or form... Just very curious... I think there is some seriously gray areas here...

The OP and the included link are obvious situations where the painting did (or would) come from the photograph and obtaining permission (at the very least) is the right thing to do...


Here's a situation to ponder:
Imagine an artist (painter) visits a famous landmark, or at least a very public landmark, say the Eiffel Tower, or perhaps a lighthouse... the views are inspiring... yet he doesn't have a camera with him (dumb I know, but give me at least his batteries are dead, ok?)...

He goes not to the internet to find a photo, but to the gift shop for a postcard that shows the view that inspired him... He absolutely saw the same image/perspective, from the same position with his own eyes... is he supposed to contact the postcard photographer to get permission to in a sense use "that photo" as his reference?? That seems rather silly doesn't it? You can't really copyright a particular view...


Discuss...

[exile]

That seems rather silly doesn't it? You can't really copyright a particular view...


Discuss...

Yup, that's right - you can't copyright a view! However, if you visit the same place 7 days in a row at different times of the day and in different weather you will see 7 different views. To look at it a different way, 10 POTN photographers on a POTN meet roll up a location and start exploring. They all come up with different expressions of that same location.

An artist who has been somewhere and wishes to express his experience of a place in a painting, but who looks for a post card/photo to use as a reference to make sure that the main features are all in the right place is creating a new work. If they aren't expressing their expereince of the place and merely expressing their experience of the postcard ... well that doens't have much merit does it. A photocopier could do that.

Copying a work without permission and then passing it off as your own is not acceptable.

Being inspired by a work and then creating your own work starting with a blank canvas on which you express your own thoughts/feelings/meanings is not just OK, its a good thing.