Copyright Guide for Artists
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2020
- A short video packed with must know information about copyright. If you're an artist these are the things you should know about.
Check out my Patreon channel also if you'd like to learn more from me at / emmacolbertart - Навчання та стиль
i wish more artists operated like this. not only is it the legal thing to do, its the ethical one also.
I don’t sell any of my work, but I always ask permission to draw from the photographer......it’s just good manner ....never been refused so far x
"Copying is not giving u a chance" :) So good to tell to the world.
Very important topic and you covered it brilliantly. I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR INTEGRITY AND ENCOURAGING OTHERS TO ALSO RESPECT THE RIGHTS of othwr artists and creators. Honor is the gift we give ourselves...
great, helpful post. thank you.
Really good video Emma. So many people are unaware. I was really shocked that a really talented artist was unaware of this and didn't believe when I explained. They get it now, asked permission retrospectively and the piece can now be shared with pride. She's so happy about that!
Yes it surprises me too Sue, but there is a lack of information out there and a heap of people who don't care anyway. Hopefully this video shares the basics of how to keep yourself right.
So well said, Emma. I'm an author who has had an entire feature article of mine stolen and used by another "author" in his book. He apparently had no shame at all, even going so far as to say he'd researched and written the story when I reported the copyright violation to his publisher (who did at least give me credit in all subsequent editions/electronic versions of the book.) I'm not sure why anyone would assume they could simply take someone else's work as their own - be it art, writing, design, etc. After all, it's not just one piece of work they're stealing. It's a lifetime of study, practice and skill.
That's terrible to hear. I've seen it happen a lot, especially with authors. Whether it's on purpose or through ignorance it causes the copyright victim a lot of harm. It's not nice to work so hard on something to have someone swoop in and take the credit. Thanks for your e mail also :-)
Thanks for this !
Fanastic video. As both a photographer and an artist this is such an important topic to me. You've covered it well, showing both perspectives.
Thanks Emma for all the info on copyright.
This was such good, helpful information and I appreciate how you approached this from so many angles. Thank you ❤️
Thank you for the recommendation of the website. I just started using colored pencils and wanted good reference material. I briefly glanced at the site during this video and was pleasantly surprised that there were many pictures of mountains as background images there. Thank you for posting this helpful video.
I have such great respect for you. Excellent video. I'm elderly & can't get out much, so depend on photos a lot. This week I have been trying to find source material for 3 paintings going to an organization in New York. I found one good photo I can adapt to a watercolor & left a phone message for the photographer who got back to me and was delighted at my request. He gave his permission, I will make sure he gets credit & when I get a chance I'm going to send him a piece of my work.
Excellent one of the better descriptions I've seen of how to copyright ©️ material doing a good job of presenting step-by-step ways to protect you artwork and for other artists.
1:29 For the display shop as a thumbnail put it as low resolution! Brilliant idea!
I know this video is 4 years ago but this explains why artist struggle with their work being shared. When you did mention the watermark being a little ineffective and an easy way to bypass it is by photoshopping it. Especially in 2024 where AI is now taken seriously in popular media like (Twitter and instagram) both platforms wide population. They want to train AI by using the user data base. I’ve seen artist moving to a new platform “Cara” as it is against AI. I don’t know what to make of this as an artist. I valued my artwork being mine and not someone else. Thank you for sharing this video in UA-cam. I would’ve dodged a solution and took a huge bullet 🤍
Hi and thanks for commenting. The world has changed a lot since I made this video. AI was not even a topic then. So more than ever we have to try to protect our copyright and it gets harder! I've joined Cara to give it a chance. I think more will open like it where AI is prohibited.
This is the 9th video I've watched regarding copyright and art. (In my case, digital photos). This is the first video that was really helpful! Thanks for your clear, easy to understand, reason-based explanations.
Thanks for the feedback! Really appreciate it :-)
Thanks for the reminder!
Thank you, Emma. As an artist, you are for sure covering all the ground. Much appreciated!
Thanks Rudy! Trying to :-)
Thank you this is so helpful!
Thanks for the video. Have a nice day.🙂
the one thing i will say is that there are only so many subjects and it is easy for many people to have the same idea without knowing. or over time to have similar ideas. art is a flowing thing. make what comes from your heart. dont worry about the everything else.
It's not so much about repeating ideas that other people have done already as that's unavoidable really. More about not stealing photographer's work and not asking permission to use images directly in your work. But of course we all inspire each other too and that's great.
this was every thing you need to know about copyright. The Pastel society rules are dumb because what they are essentially saying is you have to be a photographer and and a painter.
I loved the cow painting :)
Thank you so much.
…gorgeous lush work.
Thank you for making this video. Was researching NFT art and came upon this 👍🏽🙂
Glad you found this helpful. I'm looking into NFTs also!
Your drawings are lovely
As a digital artist I do merch, and I don't want anyone to steal my work so I'll do the low resolution and more to keep it safe then ❤️
Always take the picture of a funny angle
thanks so much for doing this video. I considered making one myself but many have already been done on this subject, yours included. Thanks for pointing out that it is not just a legal issue but an ethical/moral one too. I am especially annoyed with fan art which is almost always based on a photo which was not taken by the artist and I am certain in most cases no permission was granted. In fact, I have found that it is difficult to get permission from a photographer whose subject matter is celebrities. I would also add that even with royalty free photos of celebrities that the permission is often only for commentary or editorial related uses not for making fan art. One last thing, just because we don't profit from copying a photo, publishing it in any form still may be considered an infringement all the same. Thanks again
That's a good point and thanks for commenting. I think it's just always best to seek permission or go for royalty free in the first place. Just because many are doing it doesn't make it right.
@@EmmaColbertArt so true
Painting the band portraits is sometimes my guilty pleasure, too. Of course I'm not gonna sell it. But, I was always wondering how is it possible someone sells it, or sell prints of that portrait, or last but not least, they even organize an exhibition and it's promoted by regional media! I find it quite rude and also surprising, the galleries are OK with it.
Well technically I'm not an artist. But trying to find ways to make money online while finding a job by selling my art Abstracts online. Like you said copyright exists the moment you create the work. But I'm really just afraid of people profiting off my artwork without my permission. I wanna register my artwork with the US copyright office but I honestly didn't know you have to pay. Honestly I don't wanna pay anything just wanna sell my artwork. I live in US btw
But thank you so much for this video. Definitely helps
Where to register copyrights?
i have too
I'm a long way from making money from a painting but it's really good to get into the habit and awareness of legal issues regarding copyrights. This was extremely helpful as it gave me a lot to keep in mind when I design a painting. It also feels nice to do an original work from the beginning to the end.
I agree, those are always my favourite paintings when I've started from scratch. But not to say you can't be original with found photo reference. Glad this helped :-)
♥️
I have some art I like to post but it's mostly pencil artwork.
On the government website it states clearly that you do not have to pay any fees to copyright your artwork. The minute you create your work it is copyright protected automatically. (UK law)
As I mentioned copyright is automatic. But in some cases if your work is very commercial and you do need court cases to sort out copyright infringements against you, having the work registered makes that easier.
But it's best to do your research in your country as everywhere is completely different.
hohoho hehehe writes, “On the government website it states clearly that you do not have to pay any fees to copyright your artwork. The minute you create your work it is copyright protected automatically. (UK law)”
Your UK “automatic copyright protocol” also applies to the US and all other *Berne Convention* member countries (UK, EU, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan, etc.).
*Keep this important fact in mind:* If your UK-created work has been stolen/exploited by a US-based copyright infringer, and you want to pursue him/her for money damages, you’re NOT required to register your work to have legal standing in a US federal court.
HOWEVER, you (as well as Americans!) will only be able to pursue *“actual damages”* (typically the missed licensing fee you would have charged and/or the cost of the unlawful copies) and the *“disgorged profits”* the infringer made (if any!). Both the missed licensing fee & disgorged profits are, too often, low fees that will NOT cover your US attorney fees.
If, on the other hand, your infringed work was *“timely”* registered with the *US Copyright Office* (USCO), either BEFORE the infringement began OR registered WITHIN three-months of its first-date of publication, you can pursue statutory damages (US$750 to US$30,000 and up to US$150,000 for willful copyright infringement) and your attorney fees & legal costs against the infringer.
Your timely registered US copyright claim provides your US attorney with the necessary *LEVERAGE* to push American-based (non-Fair Use) infringers to settle out of court. If the infringer doesn’t settle, and you prevail at trial, the infringer is now liable for your attorney fees & legal costs.
If you choose not to quickly register your works with the USCO, and unless you’re WEALTHY, you have to hope that your actual damages + the infringer’s unlawful profits are *SUBSTANTIAL,* like your work was exploited in a US advertising campaign, on (Campbell) soup cans, on apparel/merchandise, and in other commercial media.
This general rule applies equally to US, UK, and other Berne Convention creatives: Your un-registered works are pretty much NOT enforceable for money damages against US-based infringers, as any money you receive from trial or an out-of-court settlement will NOT likely cover your attorney fees, making it un-economical to pursue copyright infringers located in the United States.
This short law article explains why international Berne Convention creatives (including UK creatives), and especially those who are licensing, selling/listing, distributing, sharing their works in the US, should timely register their copyrights with the USCO (just replace the word “companies” with “authors,” “illustrators,” “photographers,” “artists,” and other creatives” to get the point): donahue.com/resources/publications/copyrights-registered-u-s/
5:25 *Pixabay WARNING:* Emma Colbert is correct about using your own photographs to create derivative artworks from your photographs.
Curious, how do you know that Pixabay, Unsplash, Pexels, Creative Commons (CC), and other royalty-free (RF) photo libraries have fully vetted their catalog of RF images and that they’re legally OK to exploit? You really don’t! Using photographs from these sites are *NOT Risk-Free!*
As a general rule, RF photographs offered through these “free” photo libraries do *NOT provide users with legal protection against copyright infringement, rights of publicity/privacy, defamation, trademark infringement, and other legal claims.*
Copyright attorney Joy Butler writes, *“Creative Commons [and other FREE photo] licenses often come with no representations, warranties, or indemnifications.* Those are the guaranties from the rights owner that it is authorized to give you permission to use the material and that the material has no permissions problems. Without representations, warranties, and indemnification, you are taking the Creative Commons material as is and essentially using it at your own risk.” www.guidethroughthelegaljungleblog.com/2012/03/using-creative-commons-materials.html
So, before proceeding to use any free-identified photographs, do some due-diligent and contact the photographer + conduct a reverse-image search to help authenticate the validity of the photographer’s RF claim.
Again, thank you for this comment. I agree that using Pixabay is not fail safe. I never use sites like that as my main point from this video is that your work will not be original. Too many other artists have already used those images.
If using other photographers' work I always contact a photographer and offer them a fee. That's if I don't use my own photography in the first place, which is what I do a large % of the time these days. To ensure you're original, I think it's better. But thank you again for these tips, especially about reverse image searching to double check the source. Great information!
Thank you again! If I took a picture of a statue in the city, can I sell it or I should ask the permission?
@@HappyYana wrote, “If I took a picture of a statue in the city, can I sell it or I should ask the permission?”
Per USA law: In general, city, park, and publicly displayed statues and other art pieces are copyright protected. And unless those works are in the Public Domain, you really should seek a permission license from the artist or copyright owner to license any of those images commercially.
When you take a photograph of a sculpture, you’re creating a *derivative,* and the artist owns derivative rights to his/her sculptures (artworks).
On the other hand, if the photograph use of the statue is for an editorial, news, historic, and other non-commercial media (magazines), then permission may not be necessary.
Curious, if your artwork was displayed in a park, would you get upset if I and others took photographs of it for profit (making t-shirts, posters, cups, etc.)? There’s your answer! :)
Great info, but if we make it low resolution, won't this affect the print out of the digital painting for our customers? or still they will be able to print high quality copy?
I'm not a digital artist, so I'm always dealing with physical original pastel paintings. What I'm talking about is when you post your work on social media, or sending a preview to a client to approve before payment. If you're a digital artist you should wait until you're paid before sending your high resolution image to the client. I think that's what you mean?? My actual original goes to the client and I sell prints of some work. But always low resolution posted on social media and website.
Hi, can landscape photography be copyright protected for taking reference for drawing ? Any one may visit that place and take a picture of that location.
👏
I’m questioning your tutorial stance
I do have a question mam if I created artworks and sell prints of a certain Niche, will I get copyright infringement for that niche eg.Marvel/Anime?
It totally depends where you're getting your reference from. It's difficult to create 'fan art' or have famous faces or characters in your work. I see it all the time but I think many people just do it without considering copyright.
This topic can't be stressed enough. I see it so often that painters think it's alright to use just a photo. I even watched a tutorial where the artist referred the viewers to use Pinterest for reference photos. I think it just disrespectfull to the photographer.
Yes I agree, but like in everything, there are those who don't care. More than disrespectful, it's illegal. But a lot of people also seem to genuinely not know this stuff, hence my video :-)
2:32 Cool
Hello can I use A free copyright template to obtain copyright of an art work
If i want to make a coloring book and I search up how to draw .... and then i use all my drawings or rather their drawings that I just learned to do and put the coloring book together and somehow make sales from it. Is it copyright
I'm not sure I understand. If you draw images from tutorials you mean? Then yes those images are copyright of the artist who created them. Making money from other peoples' images is what copyright is there to protect against. You could learn from the tutorials and then create different drawings that are similar as long as they are your original ideas and images. Then you would be able to sell the product and own the copyright.
Una cosa que se puede hacer si quereis copiar obras de artistas es modificar algunos detalles significativos de la obra, con eso es suficiente :) otra opcion que manejo ahora es que la IA me crea imagenes usando mezclas de cientos de imagenes de la red, al ser una mezcla no es una obra sola en si, asi que estaria libre de derechos. ;)
@Carla48435 wrote, “Una cosa que se puede hacer si quereis copiar obras de artistas es modificar algunos detalles significativos de la obra, con eso es suficiente”
If your works looks identical or “substantially similar” to the original work that you’re appropriating, then you’re likely a copyright infringer.
*Don’t steal other people’s artwork!*
I did not catch the website with the royalty free photos. Can you please post? Picksabay?
Hi Laura, I think I put a little snippet showing the site in the video but it's Pixabay
So I’m in high school and I saw a drawing and sketched the silhouette from it and then changed it up would that still be copyright? Could I get in trouble or not because it doesn’t look the same I just needed the general shape that I was struggling with
isanosaurus 2018 wrote, “I’m in high school and I saw a drawing and sketched the silhouette from it and then changed it up would that still be copyright [infringement]? Could I get in trouble or not because it doesn’t look the same I just needed the general shape that I was struggling with”
Without seeing your finished “work,” it’s hard to say if your use of the silhouetted drawing is a copyright infringement.
If the use of the silhouette is for a high school project (that’s not being sold or licensed), then you’re probably OK.
*You could also contact the copyright owner and ask if it’s OK to make a silhouette from the original work to include in your school project.*
Speaking in general terms, if you take, say a photograph, and change it into a drawing, sketch, or illustration, that’s called a “derivative” work. The photographer owns the right to reproduce the original photograph and all its derivative formations, unless you’ve changed the photograph so much that you really can’t see the original photograph or your changes fall within copyright’s *Fair Use* exception. *Fair Use:* copyrightalliance.org/?s=fair+use and www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
I have some of my artworks from 1997 that I would like to copyright now. When I put in for my copyright would I add in 1997 the year created or the year im copyrighting the artwork?
@CHRISMED2 wrote, “I have some of my artworks from 1997 that I would like to copyright *[register]* now. When I put in for my copyright would I add in 1997 the year created or the year im copyrighting *[registering]* the artwork?”
For US created works, you would enter the date (year) the artwork was “FIRST-published.” If it’s un-published, enter the year the artwork was “completed.”
*“Publication”* typically means you’ve offered or made available your artwork for sale, licensing, sharing, or for further distribution to the public. If you’re just “displaying” your artwork, like in a gallery show or on a portfolio website, AND it’s NOT for sale (no price tags), then it’s likely an un-published work.
If you’re officially *“registering”* your artwork with the US Copyright Office (USCO), it will ask you what year your artwork was published or created.
To save money on USCO registration filing fees, you can “group-register” from two to ten UN-published artworks in one *“Group Registration of Unpublished Works” (GRUW)* on-line application for a total fee of US$85. There are other requirements to qualify for the GRUW application.
As of March 2024, the USCO is “proposing” a NEW on-line copyright registration option that would permit artists to group-register up to ten of their *PUBLISHED two-dimensional artworks* (including paintings, illustrations, sketches, collages, cartoons, character artwork, logos, commercial art, textile designs, and representational or abstract artwork) that are First-Published within a 30-day period. The USCO is seeking comments from artists and others about this new registration application. Write back if you’d like to receive a link to make your comments known to the US Copyright Office.
Many thanks for a very detailed answer. I am not an expert on the individual laws in different countries surrounding this.
@@EmmaColbertArt Emma wrote, “Many thanks for a very detailed answer. I am not an expert on the individual laws in different countries surrounding this”
Hi Emma: The next time you explore copyright, perhaps invite copyright attorneys from your country and the US to answer your and your subscriber’s questions via a LIVE discussion.
I know it’s copyright to reproduce and sell art based on comic book characters or video game characters. I wonder if it’s copyright if you draw and sell a picture of an sports athlete ??
The copyright issue comes from the photo reference you use. If there is another creator involved in your work then there's possible copyright problems. You see this art a lot which is why that seems confusing. It's also possible to source the photographer and ask permission sometimes though. If it's your photo, you have nothing to worry about.
1:45 *Copyright Watermarking:* I respectfully disagree with Emma Colbert; affixing a subtle, cool-looking watermark design does not detract from the artwork or photograph. I’ve also provided citations as to why watermarks can be your best legal friend.
I’m located in the US, and I continue to include my copyright attribution (via watermark logo), robust metadata, licensing information, and other “Copyright Management Information” (CMI) to my creative works that I post or share. CMI doesn’t have to be large; it can be small, but readable, and/or transparent. *Including CMI legally reinforces my copyright creation & copyright ownership claims* and allows licensees to quickly find me.
In the US, if you don’t include CMI, infringers could argue that they didn’t know the work was copyright protected, and their infringing use was *“innocent.”* If a US court accepts that argument, an artist’s statutory damages could be as low as US$200 (see 17 USC § 504(c)(2): Statutory Damages).
On the other hand, copyright owners can “statutorily” defeat (bogus) *“innocent copyright infringement”* defense claims by affixing the work with CMI (see 17 USC § 401(d): Evidentiary Weight of Notice).
In the US, CMI provides a “chain-link-type fence” that is relatively strong. Per 17 USC §§ 1202-1203 (part of copyright’s DMCA), *infringers who knowingly/intentionally remove, cover-up, or change CMI with Photoshop or any editing software to hide their copyright infringements or induce others to infringed can be liable from actual damages and profits OR US$2,500 to US$25,000 in statutory damages PLUS attorney fees PLUS legal costs (at the court’s discretion).* A timely registered US copyright claim is NOT required to pursue CMI violators located in the US.
In addition, Infringers who modify or delete CMI demonstrate that their unlawful actions were *WILLFUL* copyright infringements. If the artist has timely register this/her copyright claim, damages against the infringer can now jump from US$30,000 to US$150,000 PLUS photographer’s attorney fees and legal costs (at the court’s discretion).
*American and international creatives who choose NOT to timely register their artworks with the US Copyright Office should, at the very least, include robust CMI to provide their US copyright attorney litigator with some legal options when enforcing their creative rights against US-based infringers.*
To more FULLY protect your copyrights, you should *“timely”* (QUICKLY) register them with the US Copyright Office (USCO). Watch *JUST* the first 20-seconds of Joshua Kaufman (Washington, DC copyright attorney litigator) video to understand why creatives really need to timely register their copyrights if they want to pursue US-based infringers for money damages: ua-cam.com/video/cBOKkrleY3Y/v-deo.html
Thank you so much for taking the time to add this valuable information here. I appreciate it a lot coming from a more knowledgeable legal stance. I think this is very useful for every artist to read. I also appreciate your comments about a watermark. That is something I had not considered regarding making it easier to prove the person had acted illegally 'knowingly'. In my experience many people can remove a watermark with ease and use it anyway, but I appreciate that it provides you with more of a legal standpoint if taking further action. My main aim with this video is to draw people's attention to the topic from both directions as a creator and a 'user' of other creatives' work. Your comments take it further offering actual legal advice, so thank you!
@@EmmaColbertArt You should *invite/interview an art/copyright/trademark/licensing attorney to answer your and your member’s legal questions.* Many attorneys would enjoy speaking to your 23K viewership.
Very useful information! Thank you !
This is probably a dumb question but do you need a copyright for each piece produced for profit or is it just one to protect any pieces you’ve created.
Kassey Z wrote, “This is probably a dumb question but do you need a copyright *[registration]* for each piece produced for *profit* or is it just one to protect any pieces you’ve created.”
That’s a really great question! If you’re selling, licensing, and/or sharing your creative works for profit or publicity AND you want to receive the *best/strongest copyright protection,* you have to “timely” (quickly) register EACH of your artworks with the US Copyright Office (USCO).
Once you’ve registered a work, you can make some (minor) changes to it without having to register it again. For example, you create (and register with the USCO) a colorful sketch of the skyline of New York City. Using Adobe Photoshop or another editing program, you remove all the color to create a b/w version of your original color sketch. The b/w version is a derivative of your original work that you would not have to re-register with the USCO.
If, however, you make *“significant and/or substantial”* creative changes to your original work (that’s also called a derivative work), then you may have to register this derivative copyright-protected work to be best protected.
The USCO writes, “For instance, simply making spelling corrections throughout a work [in a novel] does not warrant a new [copyright] registration, but adding an additional chapter would.” For more information see Circular 14 (Copyright Registration in Derivative Works and Compilations) www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
If you’re unsure if the changes you made to your original work are minor or substantial, I would err on registering it as a new derivative work just to be best protected. Of course, you can always contact a copyright attorney in your city/state for a legal opinion on which works need to be registered (I’m not a lawyer).
Write back if you need tips & tutorials on how to register your creative works with the USCO.
Hi. Is it ok to use magazine images for my personal journals?
I also will just post them on Instagram. Thank you.
You can use whatever you want if it's just for private use and not being published anywhere. I would still recommend being careful about publishing online. You may never get caught, but technically you're still publishing someone else's work. If you're clear that it's work not for sale and for practise only you should be fine, but in the eyes of the law it's still putting it in the public domain. Hope that helps.
Does teaching an artist's technique include copyright? I do not use the artist's photo because it is obviously a copy
That's a good question actually. I would say no because few artists own any kind of copyright over a technique. We have all picked up techniques from other people and I think that's the kind of 'borrowing' that legitimately happens in the creative world. Where it infringes copyright is in the use of actual images from the artist. It starts to become problematic if you're recreating a very recognisable style using almost the same type of images. For example, the artist paints only hares on black backgrounds and you start to paint very similar hares on black backgrounds. But on the whole I think most techniques are there for the taking.
@ezoji wrote, “Does teaching an artist's technique include copyright?”
If we’re discussing *US copyright law,* a technique, like a style or idea, is not copyrightable. I can copy other artists’ techniques & painting styles; I just can’t duplicate their expressed, finished work, especially if my work looks *“substantially similar”* to the original painting.
I'm wondering about copying from paintings. I like drawing from portraits of aristocrats from the fourteen fifteen and sixteen hundreds. Are there rules about selling this sort of work? I'm talking about something like a hard pastel drawing in sanguine and sepia, not a master copy.
As far as I'm aware, old paintings are usually part of the public domain and not covered by copyright. I would research any artist you're planning to copy and then you'll know for sure. It will likely be all art before a certain date for example.
@@EmmaColbertArt thanks 🙂
@@EmmaColbertArt what if I want to paint one of Picasso paintings? Is copyright infringement if I mention is a Picasso imitation?
Its not really that expensive to officially copyright register your art. you can register up to 10 pieces for 85$. About 10$ per piece, and it is something you never have to pay for again.
That's good to know for the US, each country differs. But still, if you have hundreds of artworks like I do, then it's pretty expensive for the average artist to find the money for that. But it's true that it's worth doing and only needs done the once. Thanks for the comment!
Hi, I have a question. I got permission from photographer to paint an animal she photographed. Later I decided I wanted to use my painting to display it on social media as a tutorial. Would that be considered a copyright infringement? Should I contact the photographer again with my intentions?
This is a tricky one that I also face which is why I try to limit my use of other people's photos. It makes life easier so I can give my Patrons full use of the photos I provide. In cases where I have used another photographer I've included the information that I intend to make the image available as a tutorial. But then I also make it clear to my Patrons that the image is only for practise purposes. They are not entitled to sell it. It's important to pass on the copyright information to artists who are learning. I feel responsible for the images of other photographers when I give them out to Patrons. In this case if it was me I'd probably contact them and ask. If you make it clear that other people will only be allowed to use it for practise they are likely to agree and appreciate you asking.
@@EmmaColbertArt thanks!
Ma'am i am an artist i want your favor how i can sale my paintings
Thank you for being so clear about it. I'm an amateur watercolor artist, I use a lot of photos from Pinterest as my reference photo. I do want to sell my art, can you kindly guide me what to do regarding reference taken from Pinterest... How do I take permission from the photographer... Kindly guide me please. Appreciate your response.
Sorry I'm only seeing your comment. My advice is to seek permission before you spend your time painting something as the photographer is not under any obligation to grant permission. But you can still ask their permission if you can track the owner of the image. Otherwise, you are breaching copyright by selling them. As I said in this video, you see it happen a lot, but it's better to keep yourself right and there are loads of royalty free images out there to use. Good luck!
Please help me tank you
This is a bit more complicated - because artistic alteration is also an issue.
painting from pictures is not an art, I see you also copy images from photos that created by others and use your photoshop tool for background and recreate the picture to create a piece of art. You are stealing too. Good artist is from imaginary or by vision.
You've completely missed the point of my video. Sourcing reference images that you have permission to use is not copyright infringement which is what this video is about. What you believe art is or isn't is up to you, but art only from imagination makes up a small portion of the art market these days. Room for all.
since when did art get put into your own definition? imagination is not the definition of art whether it is your taste or not. realism goes way back so just stop
You stole the image of those dogs. Careful in using the word "stole". Nothing is original and will always contain images, sources, materials, concepts, and techniques of previous artists and creators. It is laughable to think that someone robbed a person of their work online when AI technology is available today. Something to consider.
I always get written pawmission from the dogs I paint. But really I'm not sure what's laughable about intellectual theft which is literally against the law. Just because there's a bit of a Wild West with AI at the minute doesn't mean we should do the same. Music sampling happened and eventually sorted itself out. This will even out eventually too.
@@EmmaColbertArt Did the dogs give you permission? Did they bark or give written consent? Couldn’t help but chuckle when I read that. When I read a statement like yours about intellectual theft, I can’t help but wonder if people understand that nothing is new. Most (if not all) forms, objects, techniques, subject matter, and materials have been taken from the past and applied to what we call “our” art. It is not that unique. Artificial intelligence does the same thing, it takes parts from millions of references (other people’s art) and applies them in a “unique” way to form a picture. It also sounds arrogant. My art is so amazing I don’t want people to steal it. Really, your art is selling for millions and it created culture shifts? In art, this is a very difficult legal issue to pursue. You can try, but you will probably fail. Rather stay happy and create more beautiful things.
No! Stop! Timestamp: 06:00 Stop using the words "Print" or "Original" in what you are doing. If you paint a painting, and you sell the painting, that is an original piece of work because you did work. If you paint a painting, or paint a digital painting, and you send it to a Printer, that is not an original piece of artwork. Therefore, it is illegal, and fraudulent for you to advertise, or sell that work as anything other than a, "Copy", a "Poster", or a "Reproduction". There are no excuses for this fraudulent practice. The words "Print" or "Prints" are exclusively for use, by law for "Printmakers". This was done to protect the reputations of Printmakers. If your works come out of a computer printer, an offset lithographic process, or giclee’s process those are not "Prints" and it is fraudulent for you to use such language. It would be right for you to be sued for an act of fraud if you have done so. Unless you are a Printmaker, and you, yourself have pulled the work from your printing press, you may not use the words "Print" or "Prints". It gets worse if you attemp to sell your "posters" as "signed and numbered prints". This would be three acts of fraud. You may not "sign" a reproduction, but you may advertise a reproduction as having been "autographed". Signed, and autographed have different meanings. If you number your reproductions, you are creating the false sense of scarcity. With reproductions, there is nothing stopping you from producing tens of thousands of copies.