Is sketching a photograph and selling it legal?

A photographer takes a photo, and I re-draw it with chalk, charcoal and graphite with the desire to make

prints and sell for profit.

 

Does anyone have a clue what the legality of this is? I cannot find anything at all anywhere - I can't justify

paying $150 an hour for a lawyer's help - but I am curous for personal reasons.

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

Google is your friend:

 

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=copyright+derivative&meta=

 

will lead you to:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

 

And if you read that you will learn that unless you hold the copyright to or a license to the original copyrighted work, you could be sued for copyright infringement.

No, legally you can't. What you're creating is called a "derivative" work and as such, runs afoul of the copyright of the original piece.

If it's a photo made by some friend of yours, just ask, and it's probably not a big problem. If it's made by a non-professional stranger, there's a good chance you could get permission for it; ask and see. If it's a professional (but not famous) photographer, make 'em a per-print offer to let you try it.

 

Also, notice that it is the photograph that is copyrighted, not the scene. So just because Ansel Adams did Yosemite, doesn't mean you can't paint it and sell- just don't try to copy his picture in the process.<div></div>

Speaking for myself: I have had one particular photograph "appropriated" a number of times, once as a painting.

 

I found it so strange I just couldn't bring myself to protest. I mean, like what's one painting? It is not like he was mass producing.

 

Now, about your thing - IT IS AN ABOLOUTE NO-NO! You cannot make a derivative to sell commercially in the manner you espouse - "make prints". You have already made it clear to the world what your intention is, so a plea of ignorance is gone, poofed into thin air. Don't go there. Don't do it.

I truly like your image, Stephen. Thanks for putting it up here!

stylize it a little. if the scene is fairly common.. then the photograph was 'inspiration'. free game.

 

if the photograph was one of a kind, and/or your sketch is a true attempt to recreate the image, then you may be starting to cross moral lines, maybe not legal ones.

 

I say since you are asking, you must feel in some small way that it might be wrong, so in that case. I agree with Pico. don't do it.

Consider actually partnering with a photographer for this type of thing. Since not all photographers can draw and not all those who draw can take good photos, the two of you might be able to generate some very nice work. This would be a nice, legit way of getting the results you want. As to doing it any other way, I'd agree with everyone else in saying that it's a REALLY bad idea. However, I'm not sure about the rules concerning doing this with stock photography you've acquired legitimately. Then again, most stock sites aren't going to be in the business of providing you with fine-art style photos.

Stephen's comment about Ansel is very true. Can you shoot your own version of the photo that you like (with whatever camera you have at hand)? If so, draw from it...and you got no worries! Almost always, the photographer does not own the subject, lighting, or even the angle of their shot...just the resulting image.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dave

One to paint for free ?

 

Does that mean that the print does not look like the digital image ?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

But a drawing of a photo ? That's a derivative work and not allowed without premission...if the drawing has specific characteristics of the photograph composition. If not then the drawing is an impression of all similar compositions seen or known by the artist...

"like what's one painting? It is not like he was mass producing.'

 

Take a stroll through an art gallery selling paintings and you can see what one painting can be worth.

Thanks Stephen.<div></div>

Cool, KL IX, now sell it for the big bucks!

I like your image as well Stephen.

"Derivative" being the key word that I couldn't get my finger on. Thanks to everyone for the

great responses!

Hello,

 

Art & Copyright Law

 

When working with visual images produced by other people, it is imperative to be cognizant of copyright law. Artists, from as far back as the Renaissance have used parts of other people?s work in their own work. The key word is ?part?. One artist may use a figure from another?s painting. Another may use imagery from popular culture or advertising. An example is Andy Warhol?s use of Campbell?s soup cans. He was not the original designer of the soup can. Warhol also made art based on photographs taken by others. Examples are the use of photographs of Jacqueline Kennedy, Chairman Mao, and Marilyn Monroe. Many artists have used photography from mass media in their art work. Sometimes they get sued for copyright infringement. Everyone holds copyright ownership of their images. If you take a photograph, someone else cannot use it without your permission. As a student, knowledge of copyright law is important so that you do not infringe on the rights of others.

 

It is considered ORIGINAL ART if you:

 

1. Substantially change an image that is in the public domain (artist has been dead for 50 years) to make it your own. An example is Robert Colescott deriving his composition and title from Eugene Delacroix?s George Washington Crossing the Delaware. He painted the figures dark skinned and changed the name to George Washington Carver to make a statement on race. His painting cannot be confused with Delacroix?s. It is not an infringement since he is making a socio-political commentary on the Delacroix painting.

2. Parody or offer social commentary on an existing artwork. That is why there are so many artworks that include the image of the Mona Lisa. Marcel Duchamp?s painting a mustache on a representation of the Mona Lisa makes it no longer THE Mona Lisa and changes the Leonardo Da Vinci painting?s meaning and historical context.

3. Use appropriation or pastiche to make a unique art work. Appropriation is using part of another person?s art in your work. Since the early 1900?s artists have been insisting that other artists? work is fair game as subject matter just as is an apple or pear in a still life. See Pablo Picasso?s series of works based on Diego Velazquez? Las Meninas painting. Sherrie Levine has based a large body of work on appropriation, with a lot of attendant controversy. Appropriation of imagery calls into question rightful ownership of an image. It makes a society bring up the discussion to decide where to draw the line on property rights. Pastiche is a collection and arrangement of imagery derived from a variety of sources that are not the artist?s own.

4. Do not take away the owner?s ability to earn income from the work in question. For example, people will not stop going to the Louvre Museum in Paris to see the Mona Lisa because another artist parodied the painting.

 

Artists have been successfully sued for copyright infringement.

 

A lawsuit is costly to the artist. An example is the case made over Jeff Koons? ceramic work made from an unacknowledged photograph titled String of Puppies. Koons did not ask permission of the photographer to use the image. The court ruled that it was ?not significantly different? from the original photo to meet criteria #1 above. Koons was required to pay damages to the photographer.