[Closed] My new MTB Pencil art piece

Anyway, I guess I know what the next drawing needs to be like if I am to get some buyers from here....

Just some inspiration (and can I bagsie a signed print):

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Just some inspiration (and can I bagsie a signed print):

if somebody sells a direct facsimile of a photograph then it’s copyright theft.
i shot a high end (250k) watch for a magazine and somebody did a crappy pencil drawing and had it up for sale on his website that was directly traced from my work and between me (the copyright holder) and the publisher we decided to educate him on copyright.
let him keep it up for sale but £600 was going to be spent at my wine merchant on some decent barolo/rioja/Tiganello if it sold!

MrSmith - Member

if somebody sells a direct facsimile of a photograph then it’s copyright theft.

That would be for a court to decide and is open for interpretation, there's a lot of grey area between "direct facsimile" and "crappy sketch". From the sounds of it I would probably take your side but who knows what kind of judge you might get. For £600 I'm not really sure it would have been worth your while at any rate.

That would be for a court to decide and is open for interpretation, there's a lot of grey area between "direct facsimile" and "crappy sketch". From the sounds of it I would probably take your side but who knows what kind of judge you might get. For £600 I'm not really sure it would have been worth your while at any rate.

if you overlay the original image and it fits the drawing exactly then it’s a facsimile and it’s beyond doubt. there have been quite a few cases where the ‘artist’ has ripped off a photographer and had to pay (that string of puppies in the arms was a high profile one) i get free legal advice with my trade association from an IP legal firm, it’s usually an obvious yes/no if my copyright has been impinged. things rarely go to court because the ‘artist’ knows they will never win.

you can copy photographs, it’s just when you try to sell your prints/drawings that it becomes illegal.

MrSmith

if you overlay the original image and it fits the drawing exactly then it’s a facsimile and it’s beyond doubt.

In your own words it was a "crappy sketch". Unless your photograph looked like a crappy sketch then it it can't have been a facsimile - an exact copy. And it doesn't change the fact that you would still have had to go to court to prove this. The sketch artist may well have argued in court that by producing a deliberately "crappy sketch" of your photograph of a presumably nice watch he was commenting on increasingly materialistic and shallow our society has become and a judge might have agreed with him assuming he had a body of similar work parodying consumerist society.

I agree with you in principal and am merely playing devils advocate here , it sounds like you were in the right but you can't say you would have taken his money unless you actually did take him to court and win.

[i]I'd like an unfinished one. Something like the cassette with the bottom 1/4 unshaded.[/i]

Yeah, I thought that looked cool too. On the Instagram feed there are a lot of in progress drawings that look amazing.

JimJam he was just a graduate with time on his hand copying my photograph to sell (for £1500 but it’s no longer listed for sale), i actually took the time to point out where he could find info on the copyright designs and patents act and exactly why he was in the wrong.
could i have taken him to court? yes
would it have been worth it? no because it’s a wast of time and money. had it been a company/corportation and a bigger infringement then it’s an entirely different proposition.
the images in question:

[url= ]pencil drawing[/url]

[url= ]my photograph[/url]

but the fact remains copying other peoples work and trying to sell prints is illegal and i’ll take the IP lawyers view when it comes to things like this rather than a layman view of what a judge might or might not do.
i have successfully recovered monies for infringement of my image rights in court before so know how the system works.

That drawing wouldn't identically overlay your photo. The perspective on some of the screw heads is wrong. So does that mean it's not a facsimile?
[i]trying to sell prints[/i].. and was it a print? Would anyone buy a "print" that could've been made on a computer from the original?

it’s copied directly from my drawing.
a few screw heads might have been changed but, serial number, escapement and balance wheel are all in the same place.
if somebody would buy or not is irrelevant, it was advertised for sale that’s all that matters .

Rogers v Koons is worth a look, arguing over the position of screw is meaningless

So if the artist had changed one number from the serial, he'd have got away with it?

let him keep it up for sale but £600 was going to be spent at my wine merchant on some [s]decent barolo/rioja/Tiganello[/s] wine if it sold!

Pretentious? moi?

Pretentious? moi?

sorry, too late to edit it to fat bike from the LBS

Crappy sketch

Really.

I have neither the education nor inclination to argue the legal points and yes, it certainly looks like a copy or rip off of your photo, but it certainly doesn't appear to be a "crappy sketch"...

I see the skill in it much more than the original photograph. No offence but beyond access to the watch, it seems to be a fairly easy (and common) shot to achieve.

I love the photorealism, i love the fact you have to really study it to see it isn't a high quality photo and I love the pieces which are unfinished that make it glaringly obvious but you still can't believe it.

I also love the Thomson stem photo - that (to my untrained eye) has a myriad of texture and detail that would be perfect for a pencil interpretation. I'd have a print of that.......

ideally without Binners riding away from greggs on the top cap

it seems to be a fairly easy (and common) shot to achieve.

No i didn’t find it difficult, and it didn’t take long.

https://cpyrightvisualarts.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/art-rogers-vs-jeff-koons/

[i]. Once Rogers discovered the existence of these sculptures he went on to sue Jeff Koons[/i]

Holy shit! Surely this is because he's American and saw some money in it! Why the hell would you sue over that?
Must have a proper read when I've got time.
Maybe professional photographers are frustrated artists and it's a jealousy thing 😆

Maybe professional photographers are frustrated artists and it's a jealousy thing

or maybe they don’t like freetards and wish to protect their IP?

Anyhow, OP, this is what we do here. Cool, eh? 😀

Debate is good!

I totally agree on the copyright thing - I only use my own photos now, or I pay others for copyright use. I once drew the racehorse Frankel as a bit of a trial in equine pencil, and then someone wanted to buy it, so I eventually uncovered that The Racing Post owned copyright!
They were kind enough to let me sell it without any cut for themselves, but only the original, no prints allowed.

[img] [/img]

Besides, if you work from other people's photos, the creativity is theirs. This is one of the reasons I amalgamated the riders and the components...to get away from a simple photographic image.

bearnecessities - Anyhow, OP, this is what we do here. Cool, eh?

Call me tipsy but this really tickled me.

@MrSmith

I certainly didn't mean to insult what is a lovely image. If I owned the rights to it I'd want to protect them too.

I thought the watch sketch was good. What the artist seems to lack is patience. He can 'see' the subject, but doesn't spend enough time reproducing it...if realism is his aim??! Maybe it's not and I'm wrong..
😀

Excellent understatement from bearnecessities

As Pencilartbloke says, discussion is good. I'm certainly interested in understanding MrSmith's point of view, cos it's a bit beyond me.

[i]or maybe they don’t like freetards and wish to protect their IP?[/i]
Pretty much answers my question 😉

I only use my own photos now, or I pay others for copyright use.

Oof, that's going to burn the professionally self-righteous.

OP, your work is amazing.

That is all.

Indeed it is..

Final word from me on the Koons thing: " He sought at least $375,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.5 million in punitive damages. ". says it all.

Isn't that photograph of the watch a facsimile of the original watch? Like taking a photo of a painting the copyright would be held by the original artist, in this case the watch maker.

What would happen if I tried selling photographs of your photo of the watch?