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.
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?
