Copyright Applies To Photos Too
Friday August 12, 2005
The question about whether you can make a painting from any photo has come up again, with someone emailing me saying: ”I was told, as long as it was a photo and one that doesn't say ‘do not duplicate’, that anyone can paint a picture from a photo. You can't reproduce the photo and say its yours, but you can make a painting from the photo and say it is your painting. One hundred people can paint from the same photo and they would all be different and unique, totally separate from the photo.”
It really does fascinate me that the misconception persists that photos aren’t subject to the same stringent copyright rules as paintings. It seems that all too often artists, who would scream if someone copied their paintings, don’t hesitate to make a painting of someone else’s photo, with no thought to the creator’s rights. (And I don't mean to imply the sender of the email does; I commend them on pursuing clarity on the subject.)
You wouldn’t say “as long as it was a painting and one that doesn't say ‘do not duplicate’, that anyone can photograph it and say it’s their original creation”. The absence of a copyright statement doesn’t mean that copyright doesn’t apply.
And if a copyright statement says ©2004, this doesn’t mean that copyright expired at the end of 2004; it generally expires several decades after the creator’s death.
There’s a huge difference between using a photo for reference (e.g. to see how many toes a bird has and how it arranges them when it sits on a branch) and copying a photo (i.e. whole elements of the photo are reproduced such as the bird, the branch it’s sitting on, the clouds in the photo, or the light quality).
The ideal is to use your own photos, but this isn’t always possible, in which case you should use several photos for reference and inspiration, creating a unique work from them, not copying any single one (unless, of course, you have the photographer's express permission).
As for ”One hundred people can paint from the same photo and they would all be different and unique, totally separate from the photo.” How's that saying go? “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
• For further info: Copyright for Artists FAQ
It really does fascinate me that the misconception persists that photos aren’t subject to the same stringent copyright rules as paintings. It seems that all too often artists, who would scream if someone copied their paintings, don’t hesitate to make a painting of someone else’s photo, with no thought to the creator’s rights. (And I don't mean to imply the sender of the email does; I commend them on pursuing clarity on the subject.)
You wouldn’t say “as long as it was a painting and one that doesn't say ‘do not duplicate’, that anyone can photograph it and say it’s their original creation”. The absence of a copyright statement doesn’t mean that copyright doesn’t apply.
And if a copyright statement says ©2004, this doesn’t mean that copyright expired at the end of 2004; it generally expires several decades after the creator’s death.
There’s a huge difference between using a photo for reference (e.g. to see how many toes a bird has and how it arranges them when it sits on a branch) and copying a photo (i.e. whole elements of the photo are reproduced such as the bird, the branch it’s sitting on, the clouds in the photo, or the light quality).
The ideal is to use your own photos, but this isn’t always possible, in which case you should use several photos for reference and inspiration, creating a unique work from them, not copying any single one (unless, of course, you have the photographer's express permission).
As for ”One hundred people can paint from the same photo and they would all be different and unique, totally separate from the photo.” How's that saying go? “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
• For further info: Copyright for Artists FAQ
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment