[Closed] Mrs has painted someone else's photo...

Sounds like a shitty situation, I would have thought he would have had to prove some form of loss if he was to take it further. iANAE

I would tell him the image has been removed and don’t give him the money - he’s just trying it on for some easy money. I had a similar issue on a website once with someone asking for like a grand or so because we’d accidentally used an image that was not free to use. Just removed it and ignored the request. Nothing more happened.

It’s a straight up breach of copyright, if one print was for your wall then no problem, selling them changed things.
“I found it on the web” is no excuse.
Either pay or just say they will no longer be sold.
It’s not worth the time to chase somebody for £100 but be aware there are services now where you give them access to your image library and they look for rights infringement and chase for the money (taking a cut) these people are more persistent.

I found somebody selling a pencil drawing for £1500 of one of my photographs.
I told him I wanted a case of very good wine if he sells it, still waiting but I hope it sells!

he’s just trying it on for some easy money. I had a similar issue on a website once with someone asking for like a grand or so because we’d accidentally used an image that was not free to use. Just removed it and ignored the request

I think it would have been better to have not acknowledged him in the first place and just taken it down. Never admit anything, never lie, just ignore everything and make them chase you. The cost of litigation isn't worth it if the picture has been removed.

I think it would have been better to have not acknowledged him in the first place and just taken it down. Never admit anything, never lie, just ignore everything and make them chase you. The cost of litigation isn’t worth it if the picture has been removed.

She's a worrier - would have meant sleepless nights if she just ignored

If I've got this right that he takes photos for money and your wife paints photos for a living then yes you should pay.

Sounds reasonably commercial to me

If I’ve got this right that he takes photos for money and your wife paints photos for a living then yes you should pay.

Yes indeed - however, can he justifiably demand £130 for a photo that she's made about £25 profit from and now removed from sale?

I'm going to pay it anyway

I hope someone is factoring in a carrot* for the hare to their calculations. Sounds to me like the hare is the exploited party in all this.

*Or whatever hares like to eat. Or a big wadge of cash so it can buy its own carrots.

Just say sorry and say you have made £25 and will gladly pay them £25.
If that’s refused then do nothing.

If it was my image I would have a different approach if it was a bigger company making more money with greater reach of the imagery.

She doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53998711

“ In the UK, if convicted in a magistrates' court of copyright infringement you could face six months in jail or a fine of up to £50,000”

I found somebody selling a pencil drawing for £1500 of one of my photographs.
I told him I wanted a case of very good wine if he sells it, still waiting but I hope it sells!

I remember that. At least it was a good pencil drawing 🙂
If it was a crap one you might never have known. It did look liked he'd simply traced your photo it was that close.

Worst I had was an Italian magazine that copied our text and translated it into Italian and then scanned photos out of our magazine. Stupidly they seemed to forget we were on an exchanged copy deal so a month after our very expensive test trip to the Red Sea was published by us a magazine ended up on my desk with photos of me windsurfing in their test.
They thought we would be flattered.

She's in the wrong she should pay something. It sounds like she's admitted liability so two choices, try to negotiate down or ignore it and see if he gets bored.

Don't think it's necessarily that clear cut.

If the photograph was used as a reference for a painting, and it's not a slavish photorealistic copy, then copyright is harder to claim.

Further muddied by the fact that if the photograph is of a 'generic' subject, taken in a 'generic' way, then again copyright is more problematic.

If the photograph has a distinctive composition, colouring, etc. then it's much more clear cut if the painting uses those features too.

If in any doubt, then don't do it.

@colournoise source? Sounds VERY clear cut to me https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works

Obviously the guy is trying it on at the moment with a figure plucked out of the air, but he’s also in the right... who knows what figure might be arrived at if he goes down the legal route? I think the suggest to negotiate is a good one... nothing to lose! If you explain you’ve made £25 total, he might be reasonable! Otherwise I’d probably just pay it, £130 actually sounds pretty low compared to some of these cases that I’ve read about!!

Read that BBC link. Lots of no win, no fee companies who will chase. Sounds like liability has already been admitted so do not just ignore and hope he goes away.

Make him an offer as a gesture of goodwill for your wife to carry on using the image since they’ve both put time and effort into it.

I’ve bought the licence to use images in the past from Shutterstock, maybe have a look on there and see what a similar image might cost for guidance.

Tell her not to worry it was a simple error.

The grey area is determining that the painting is based on THAT specific photograph. Obviously without seeing both we can't make an easy judgement.

I've seen loads of photographs of hares that look similar enough to each other to make claiming derivation problematic unless there's something distinctive about this particular one.

I'd never condone knowing copyright infringement outside of fair use, but the burden of proof is initially on the photographer here (although if liability has been admitted that's moot).

OP. Get your wife to look at Unsplash.com for photos to use freely and without worry.

Tom Scott does a good discussion on this on YouTube

somehow found one of her images

There are lots of AI methods to recognise images, and third party companies offering it as a service to find images being used in an altered format.
I use a raspberry pi with a camera and simple algorithm of image comparisons to check I haven't left the garage door open at the end of the day.

Good luck sorting it out... personally, I think you're doing the right thing

I would aim to settle this with the photographer rather than their lawyer. Much easier to come to a compromise with a fellow “artist”. offer him a contra deal on some other bits of his work? Is he selling his work offer that out on his behalf if he isn’t already. Flattery is always an option!

Pay him the £130 for his photo, just to stop your wife being stressed.
But now you “own” it, stick her pictures back up for sale .
Hopefully in time it will pay for itself, if not then lesson learned ?

And I’d be selling direct copies of the photo too 😂

As above, if you are paying (and I understand it is the easy option, low stress option) does that give you rights to sell more? I'd certainly be asking for that. You might not get all the money back but hopefully she'll sell a few more

Yeah, as above. Pay the £130 and then absolutely rinse it with paintings, cups, t-shirts, key rings, canvas prints, the lot. If it's a halfway decent image I imagine it will pay for itself fairly quickly.

Doing your own version of someone else work doesn't give you the copyright protections you'd hope. I work in film and TV and a big chunk of work - in the sense that its a dedicated role - is getting clearance and permissions to use an image of anything that appears on screen even incidentally. If you see a room or a street scene - everything in it that's a product or brand or designed object or image.... someone has had to identify the rights holder for that and do a deal to allow it to be seen - Its more cost effective to create and manufacture  new versions of bottle labels, packaging etc than get permission to use them. Creates all sorts of fun if you're creating, say, a teenagers bedroom covered in posters and flyers.

During a course recently we were given an example of a graphic designer on a production basing these inverted posters etc on bits of photos they'd cribbed from the internet and altered...... ended up costing the production half a million.

I remember the first Jurassic Park getting in trouble over use of a Microsoft screen saver in one of the lb scenes.

But, if you want to post a pic up here of your wife’s version I’d be happy to buy a copy if it’s ok, maybe contributing to the £130 if a few of us do it

But, if you want to post a pic up here of your wife’s version I’d be happy to buy a copy if it’s ok, maybe contributing to the £130 if a few of us do it

Thanks, but it's staying off the internet until resolved 😉

£130 doesn’t seem unreasonable for copying someone else’s work, the fact the your wife only made £25 to date is irrelevant. Good that they’re now withdrawn but you may still need to pay. For them to recognise the work it must have been very similar.

OP. Get your wife to look at <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">Unsplash.com</span> for photos to use freely and without worry.

I'd look at the not to obviously positioned T&C's

"Photos cannot be sold without significant modification."

So in the OP's case the modifications weren't so signifcant that the photographer couldn't readily find and identify it.

Its also worth noting with these free image sites (and also free font sites) that you're taking it on trust that the people who are uploading the images or other content have sufficient rights of ownership over the material to do so

Yes indeed – however, can he justifiably demand £130 for a photo that she’s made about £25 profit from and now removed from sale?

Depends on how you determine it's worth.

If the photo was taken in Glencoe, and he's based in London:

500miles each at 45p = £450
2 nights in a basic hotel @£110 = £220
3 days photographer rates @£400 = £1200
"kit hire" @£50 = £150

And that photograph you just sold for £25 actually cost £2k.

If you think that's a joke, I drove from London to Glencoe, and spent two nights in a basic hotel, all for a 20 second video clip of a kitten* (and I think the bill came to quite a bit more than £2k).

If some scrote stole your bike and sold it down the pub for £25, and offered you the £25 would you consider that the end of the matter?

*it was a Scottish wild cat, so the effort was somewhat justified

If you think that’s a joke, I drove from London to Glencoe, and spent two nights in a basic hotel, all for a 20 second video clip of a kitten*

You should have just took one off the Internet you’d saved £1975.

If the photo was taken in Glencoe, and he’s based in London:

Are there no photographers closer to Glencoe ? 😉

It would only be a 1500 quid painting of a photograph someone else took then.

As you've admitted it, your snookered.

Make sure when you pay the money you get something in writing to say you either own it out right or you can use it unlimited in any way shape or form and you don't have to pay any further royalties.

If he's a reasonable person and a good photographer maybe you could get a deal with him for his other work? £1 for every sale etc? And then link his original work so he can get sales too.

When it's sorted, post a link, it sounds interesting.

The rod you make for your own back with this kind of very photorealistic work is you create a faximilie of the original that's so difficult to distinguish from the original  that -  as has happened  for the OP's wife - people doubt that the work has even been done then despite going to a the manual effort of producing the work yourself the end result is the same as if you'd just made a mechanical copy. That means you've not made a new artistic work, you've recreated an existing artistic work.

That original image has appealed to your wife because the guy has taken a really good picture, and her buyers have bought it because its a really good picture - but its his not hers.

Lots of artists work from pictures but there's a defence between using pictures as a reference and basis for a newly imagined image and faithfully recreating the original.

If the OP's wife wants to paint from pictures that's fine but as soon as she's selling or publishing them (even publishing for free)  she should be painting from pictures she taken herself or that she's agreed with the owner to use. Once things involve money its far cheaper and easier to ask permission than forgiveness.

Minor hijack as we have a few knowledgeable people in. Someone has done a painting of my house and put a picture on Flickr. It's quite nice so I've messaged them to ask about buying it, or a print but not had a response. I presume I can print something out to go on the wall but I do have any other rights as I own the "original"?

I presume I can print something out to go on the wall but I do have any other rights as I own the “original”?

Only if they’ve signed the rights to you buying the original does not allow you to make copies.

Are there no photographers closer to Glencoe ? 😉

We had hired the kit and shipped it there for the crew to use, but a day before they were due to film it turned out the kit was all stuck at Heathrow as some over zealous baggage handler decided that "batteries" weren't allowed on a plane (they were lead acid, expensive to ship but not so explodey on a plane). So I had to drive up a spare kit, and once I was there it seemed rude not to just carry the kit across a bog and film it myself rather than sit in the hotel for 48h!

I presume I can print something out to go on the wall but I do have any other rights as I own the “original”?

No, the original is the painting/photograph, not the subject.

There are specifics around certain subjects but for the most part, if you take a photograph it's yours to do with as you wish.

*models/people, trademarks, other art** etc.

**actually, now I'm doubting myself. If a sculpture is placed in public then generally the public are allowed to photograph it. But you can't necessarily sell those photographs without the artist/owners permission. Just as you couldn't take a photograph of a Nike swoosh, and print it onto a t-shirt. No idea how that would apply to architecture?

Are there no photographers closer to Glencoe ?

Photographers closer to Glencoe would know to ask for danger money 🙂 Cheaper to get an out of towner to run the risk 🙂

Theres quite an angry guy up there who gets very in your face when there's any commercial filming and photography going on. I've only had shouty encounters with him on shoots - for the audacity to be seen taking some equipment out of a van in layby - that very nearly turned violent but there have been some serious assaults and prosecutions.

Only if they’ve signed the rights to you buying the original does not allow you to make copies.

Slight misunderstanding, I mean I own the original, as in the house. So it's the artist that has made a copy. This is a bit tongue in cheek, I just wondered how it works. When does it count as copying? If a painting of a photo is, what about a painting of a sculpture, or a painting of any object?

Make sure when you pay the money you get something in writing to say you either own it out right or you can use it unlimited in any way shape or form and you don’t have to pay any further royalties.

If he’s a reasonable person and a good photographer maybe you could get a deal with him for his other work? £1 for every sale etc? And then link his original work so he can get sales too.

When it’s sorted, post a link, it sounds interesting.

Yeah, he's selling a licence, so she can use it. He's now asking for more than one, I've taken over messaging him as Mrs is getting stressed. The bloke is a bit of an arse tbf, but maybe he gets this a lot - his initial message seems like he has a standard procedure.

The rod you make for your own back with this kind of very photorealistic work is you create a faximilie of the original that’s so difficult to distinguish from the original that – as has happened for the OP’s wife – people doubt that the work has even been done then despite going to a the manual effort of producing the work yourself the end result is the same as if you’d just made a mechanical copy. That means you’ve not made a new artistic work, you’ve recreated an existing artistic work.

The hare isn't particularly photorealistic, the dog portraits she does are - had people on here bending themselves out of shape to try and prove that she was a fraud and that I was a liar for saying I've actually watched her draw them

Bizarre situation - the photographer didn’t do the painting and thats the thing with value.
To keep him happy, once the £130 is paid, couldn’t you offer him 10% of the profit from each sale of the item. (When he gets his 60p cheque at Christmas, he’ll realise how much he’s wasted his effort 😆 )
Oh, and next time the wife should change enough things in her copy so you can tell the claimant to do one.

Theres quite an angry guy up there who gets very in your face when there’s any commercial filming and photography going on. I’ve only had shouty encounters with him on shoots – for the audacity to be seen taking some equipment out of a van in layby – that very nearly turned violent but there have been some serious assaults and prosecutions.

This has piqued my interest, can we have some more info for entertainment value please. I'm imagining a long bearded club wielding kilt wearing old fella stalking the Glencoe valleys laying claim to ownership of the views, bellowing against the unworthy attempt of mere mortals to capture the essence of the place. Are you saying it was the landowner shoeing film crews away, can they do that?

Bizarre situation – the photographer didn’t do the painting and thats the thing with value.

The painter didn’t make the photograph and that’s the thing with value. Otherwise why would she have copied it?

It’s easy to make either of the above conflicting statements but at the sharp end it all comes down to what is decided to be ‘fair use’, so the ultimate decision lies with copyright law. Almost every country is signed up under the Berne Convention which itself has been updated for digital works.

Whether or not something is protected isn’t dependant upon whether you personally see ‘value’ in this medium or that medium, in this work or that work.

Artworks such as paintings, graphic works, photographs, sculptures, collages, and works of artistic craftsmanship are covered by copyright. Copyrighted works are protected from being represented in any medium. This means that a sculptor cannot copy a 2-D artwork, nor a painter copy a sculpture. An exception is made for works of art that are incorporated into public spaces, or permanently on display in publically accessible buildings. In this instance, anyone is allowed to make graphical representations of it, as well as include it in photos, films or broadcasts.

A copyright owner of an artistic work has an exclusive right to communicate the work to the public by broadcasting or electronic transmission, right to lend or rent the work to the public, right to distribute and to issue copies of the work to the public, the right to reproduce and to copy the work.
A copyright owner has the right to decide whether any other person can do any of the above stated with their works.
When a person carries out any the copyright owner's exclusive rights without the permission of the owner, then the owner's copyright has been infringed. It could either be the whole work or a substantial part of it.

https://www.loxleyarts.co.uk/understand-artists-copyright/

Bizarre situation – the photographer didn’t do the painting and thats the thing with value.

They did take the photo which has value and was copied enough to allow them recognise their work, which the painter admitted to.

The £130 is an extreme price and one I wouldn't be paying. I would counter with the money made and leave it at that.

Pay the £130 and then absolutely rinse it with paintings, cups, t-shirts, key rings, canvas prints, the lot. If it’s a halfway decent image I imagine it will pay for itself fairly quickly.

Just to note ^ this would of course depend on the terms/extent of any license. Licensing varies from strictly limited rights of use to exclusive rights of use, to outright ownership.