Where you take an already existing work and copy it to pass it as your own. If you use a reference image too closely, it can still absolutely be a copyright issue, as while CR doesn't protect ideas, it can still fall under plagiarism. Youtube copyright strikes, they don't want to get struck by showing images and references they don't own the rights to or aren't in the public domain From that point, I started doing my best to use CC images primarily, and being very careful not to take photographers for granted. I think she was within her rights to object, because she had captured something unique, not just a generic "donkey head," and someone else was essentially reproducing it and trying to profit.Īt the time, I was using reference photos all the time to paint animals, and it made me stop and think whether I was paying enough attention to fair use. She was upset because someone had started producing and selling paintings based directly on that photograph. In that group, a photographer had captured a really amazing shot of a donkey mugging for the camera. HOWEVER, I came across a case in another group that made me wonder. In my experience, there's always nuance.įor example, is it okay for me to look at a photo of a horse, and use that to help me draw a horse? Sure, the shapes of animals are not protected by copyright law. I think I'd need to hear more specific examples of what you are saying is and isn't acceptable/legal before agreeing that it's "100%" fine. Not some random organisation that is trying to re-claim things that belong to the public. If I died, it would pass to the people I entrusted with it and run out after a certain number of years. If I sell a painting, the copyright is still mine, unless otherwise stated. There's no one alive who could claim any intellectual ownership over any of these works, even if some of them might be in private hands. I hope this gets resolved soon, because this is clearly ridiculous. Their interpretation of the 2019 EU law is certainly very interesting (that's what the whole article is about). If they can successfully sue this, they can successfully sue anything. Even if Michelangelo was still alive, this should absolutely fall under fair use. That's a photo of a model just copying the pose of the David statue. This article is in German, but if you scroll down to the big picture of the Italian GQ magazine, they got sued for that and had to pay a total of 50.000€ in fines. I had somehow missed this whole case, but looked it up following your comment. However, using multiple photos of dance costumes for a character turnaround in a cartoon style? You probably don't have to worry so much. She even felt like her race was being fetishized as some of the aspects of the photo reference had been changed and she was not comfortable with it. Turns out the model that she used for photo reference found out and was understandably pissed. There was a case where some artist had her oil painting in a gallery or competition or something, basically for a lot of money. If you're a big enough artist, you don't want to be caught in a pickle where you are making money by selling prints of a painting of a picture of a small time model by a small time photographer. If you're selling your artwork and it's true to the reference, they're kinda right. I think you might have a pretty specific definition of "reference." If I paint from a photo without trying to change much about the photo, lots of people still call that a reference image. I imagine this stuff is a real problem now since art schools are unaffordable so more people are self-taught, public school arts programs have had funding stripped, and anyone can be a famous artist now without going through the previous vetting channels (getting accepted into galleries) This became known as "tracing" and does not explicitly imply you literally traced something, but more like if someone put a transparent slide over yours, does your art pass the sniff test? If you do this, the art world will strip you of awards & grant money, you will be publicly shamed at best and sued at worst. The photo is someone else's artistic eye: composition, light source, framing, etc. The biggest thing drilled into us during that time is: under no circumstance is it ethical to use copywrited images as a reference unless it will never see the light of day. It gets everyone on the same page skillwise and ethically. These courses train any bad habits out and provides proper training. Disclaimer: I went to art school in the early 00s, so things may be different now since back then deviant art was a fledgling and there wasn't any such thing as "art accounts" on social media.First two years of art school were spent on "foundations".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |