I've seen this question on here before, but I cannot find a reference to it in the site search engine.
I've had several requests from artists who want to use my photos for illustration. One person was smart enough to ask ahead of time if he could use them.
I just got another request from an artist who already did a drawing based on one of my photos that appeared in a magazine. She now wants to "give it away" to a calendar company "for free". This is the first I've heard from her. She asked me if/how I wanted to be acknowledged. She's not asking me for marketing advice, or I'd tell her not to give it away, but that's a different topic!
So, the question is, what is the currently accepted view of how to handle requests to illustrate from a photo. I feel as if someone who requests permission to illustrate for their own personal use gets the okay, no charge. But if a person wants to use the illustration they create from my photo for self-promotion or wants to sell it, then I need to charge a licensing fee.
It's real easy: Require payment whether the use is 'personal' or for some type of resale or subsequent use, and also that you receive credit.
As to the person who already used your work, you should either require payment or insist she not use it. This is a clear violation of copyright and intellectual property laws.
As to the person who already used your work, you should either require payment or insist she not use it. This is a clear violation of copyright and intellectual property laws.
Amen. Give her a double broadside of your LUV. I'd let her know you've got a spot on your wall that will look really good with her hide mounted on it for all to see.
A drawing of YOUR photo ended up in a magazine that the other artist got paid for? And that person didn't even ask you? Grrrrrrrr-RRRRR! And then she wants to GIVE IT AWAY to yet another source? IT'S NOT HERS TO GIVE AWAY!! Here's another vote for 'em to pay up or cease and desist. While you're at it, have THEM pay your attorney's fees!
Am I the only one who considers this a form of stealing?
I've never seen Hank write like that, so he must be even more mad than I am. We're going to take a deep breath and really hope you follow up with the artists involved. And plan to collect some $$$ for future such requests. Here's a resource that I've found to be eye-opening: fotoQuote® is image pricing software that suggests how to set/negotiate prices for usage rights for your photos. I'm sure there are other such products out there, too… This one is reasonably priced and thoroughly researched and updated on a regular basis. Has a category for just this kind of use, too!
Catherine, To clarify what I meant - my photo was in a magazine, and the lady used the photo in the magazine to create her illustration.
Thanks for the tip on fotoquote, I use it and other sites like it to price out my work. Just wasn't sure what to do with illustrators since all of a sudden, I'm being hit up by them.
Thanks to Hank and Preston, also.
Nancy
Posted by Jim Bullard on October 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM
To play devil's advocate: What quality makes a nature image my intellectual property? If I stand in a particular spot and photograph a waterfall for example, and someone else comes along minutes later, stands in the same spot and takes another photo of the same waterfall, then an artist comes by, stands in the same spot and draws or paints the same view (which the artist is free to do), how is that different from using one or both of the photographs as reference? I'm thinking in terms of public spaces that are open to everyone. I don't own the waterfall. Don't I have to do something unique in making my image that sets it apart from other images made from that same vantage point of the waterfall and then have the artist repeat my unique interpretation in his or her work in order to be a violation of my copyright? FWIW I am both a photographer and an artist (I do graphite drawings).
Good point Jim, but in this case the "artist" acknowledged copying from the photo. The devil in that is to be found in law and by lawyers in a courtroom.
The "artist" was perfectly free to go to the same place and take her own photo. She didn't.
Posted by Bill Maile on October 20, 2010 at 12:46 PM
This question again??!! (not toward you Nancy, I've had similar situations)... I can't believe the arrogance/ignorance or combination thereof. It's amazing this still goes on so regularly--and will probably get worse.
Posted by Jim Bullard on October 20, 2010 at 2:25 PM
I brought that up because it is common for artists, especially illustrators, to accumulate what they call "Swipe files", a selection of images that they can work from. They don't copy the images but rather use portions of them as reference to subject matter that is not readily available in order to incorporate it into their own work which is uniquely different. For example I've had artists use some of my flower photos as reference for paintings of flowers that were not available for them to find and photograph themselves. The paintings bore no relationship visually to my photograph beyond being of the same variety of flower from a similar viewpoint. I do notice in some of these discussions a touch of over-possessiveness of images (IMO) and I think perhaps before we get too worked up at an artist we should determine just how similar to our original photo is the drawing or painting that they made from it. I can assure you from doing work in both fields that artists are not getting rich at photographer's expense and over a half century of experience tells me that most "creative" photography is based at least in part on other photos or art that the photographer has seen. "We stand on the shoulders of giants" and all that. My recommendation is to take a deep breath or two and check our own arrogance level before calling an attorney.
They don't call them Swipe files because the photographer gets to swipe their credit card. I'll leave it to your imagination how they're using the word "swipe."
If photographs are valueless, then certainly they can go take their own photos for reference.
My deep breath is taken in order to get a really loud noise out of the whistle I blow every time I find my photos have been swiped rather than the artist's credit card.
Posted by Jim Bullard on October 20, 2010 at 5:31 PM
Hank, "Swipe" refers to ideas and inspiration. Consciously or unconsciously we all build on what was done before. The point is whether we make it our own. I agree that if the work is a straight copy it would be a violation of copyright but we shouldn't assume that everything that is derived from our photographs is necessarily a violation of our right or that the person doing so is "arrogant". Note that in this case the artist came forward and asked for permission, yet the immediate assumption was COPYRIGHT VIOLATION! All I'm saying is that we should approach these situations less judgmentally. Sometimes it is better to listen before leaping.
In the first case mentioned, the person did ask for permission to use one of Nancy's images. No violation, so far.
In the second case, the image was used without permission and a derivative work created. This is a violation of copyright and intellectual property rights.
If I take a shot of a waterfall, and another takes a similar photo, there is no issue because the rights belong to each individual image and photographer.
If I take a photo of a waterfall, another person takes a similar image, and I then use all or part of their image without permission to create a different image, I have a created a derivative work. This is a violation of intellectual property rights.
A few years ago I used 4x5 to make some transparencies of oil paintings. The artist paid for the film, processing, and my time. Even though I made the photographs, they were derivative works to which I had no rights what so ever. If I wanted to use them to advertise that I shot paintings to be used for an artist's marketing, and I wanted to include one of the shot I made, I would be legally bound to obtain permission (and possibly pay a royalty) because the original work did not belong to me.
A few years ago I used 4x5 to make some transparencies of oil paintings. The artist paid for the film, processing, and my time. Even though I made the photographs, they were derivative works to which I had no rights what so ever. If I wanted to use them to advertise that I shot paintings to be used for an artist's marketing, and I wanted to include one of the shot I made, I would be legally bound to obtain permission (and possibly pay a royalty) because the original work did not belong to me.
Zakly Rite!
Posted by Lon Overacker on October 20, 2010 at 6:20 PM
What quality makes a nature image my intellectual property? If I stand in a particular spot and photograph a waterfall for example, and someone else comes along minutes later, stands in the same spot and takes another photo of the same waterfall, then an artist comes by, stands in the same spot and draws or paints the same view (which the artist is free to do), how is that different from using one or both of the photographs as reference?
Let's flip this around and see how you feel about the argument. With this logic, I could set up my camera in an art gallery, snap some images of some beautiful paintings, reprint them and sell them as my own work? What's the difference if a photographers "work" is copied?
Now, I understand and we may be talking semantics here when you use the word "reference." Preston and others used the word "derivative." These are two very different animals. If you choose to allow someone to use your image as a reference to lets say for an example, to let the painter/illustrator know what a daffodil looks like or what the bark structure of a cottonwood tree is like, or how broad is Half Dome vs. it's height.... and then the painter creates their OWN, original art work that has nothing to do with the original photograph (only informational reference) then I may understand your point. If, however you "swipe" an image and then attempt to reproduce the photograph (as much as oils or watercolors on canvas can "reproduce" a photograph,) then one is creating a derivative. Clearly that is a copyright violation, just as it would be if I photographed and copied "Moonrise over Hernandez" and attempted to use and sell as my own work. At a minimum, your use of the word "reference" would still require permission if let's say you lifted that image off a website.
I don't believe the argument or discussion has anything to do with who or how many artists where standing in front of the original waterfall. In fact, if the painter/illustrator was standing in front of the waterfall, they wouldn't need the photograph..... :-)
I hardly see this as any arrogance on the part of photographers. I would go as far as saying that it is the painter/illustrator that has the gall and arrogance to assume they have a right to copy someone elses art. Again, I draw the distinction between "reference" vs. "derivative."
Lon
Posted by Bill Maile on November 5, 2010 at 6:07 AM
Haven't seen this in awhile but Jim, uhhh, but when a painter asks if he and a group of 10 other painters can use your (in this case "my") image (The Footbridge) to do their interpretations of, and then exhibit and sell them to the public, with absolutely NO payment in return, nor plan for recompense to the original artist (me, the photographer), I'd call that simply complete pompous arrogance. And then for said painter to get upset over the photographer's refusal (mine!) to allow that to happen, the case is closed. I offered some very reasonable solutions so that I could get paid SOMETHING after sitting on a site for nearly 9 months until the conditions were just right to photograph. I think that was clearly a case of arrogance, and I took several long pauses and did the right thing IMO.
Discussion
14 repliesI've had several requests from artists who want to use my photos for illustration. One person was smart enough to ask ahead of time if he could use them.
I just got another request from an artist who already did a drawing based on one of my photos that appeared in a magazine. She now wants to "give it away" to a calendar company "for free". This is the first I've heard from her. She asked me if/how I wanted to be acknowledged. She's not asking me for marketing advice, or I'd tell her not to give it away, but that's a different topic!
So, the question is, what is the currently accepted view of how to handle requests to illustrate from a photo. I feel as if someone who requests permission to illustrate for their own personal use gets the okay, no charge. But if a person wants to use the illustration they create from my photo for self-promotion or wants to sell it, then I need to charge a licensing fee.
What do you think?
Thanks for the help,
Nancy
Seattle, WA
www.NancyWagnerPhotography.com
It's real easy: Require payment whether the use is 'personal' or for some type of resale or subsequent use, and also that you receive credit.
As to the person who already used your work, you should either require payment or insist she not use it. This is a clear violation of copyright and intellectual property laws.
--P
Amen. Give her a double broadside of your LUV. I'd let her know you've got a spot on your wall that will look really good with her hide mounted on it for all to see.
Am I the only one who considers this a form of stealing?
I've never seen Hank write like that, so he must be even more mad than I am. We're going to take a deep breath and really hope you follow up with the artists involved. And plan to collect some $$$ for future such requests. Here's a resource that I've found to be eye-opening: fotoQuote® is image pricing software that suggests how to set/negotiate prices for usage rights for your photos. I'm sure there are other such products out there, too… This one is reasonably priced and thoroughly researched and updated on a regular basis. Has a category for just this kind of use, too!
Thanks for the tip on fotoquote, I use it and other sites like it to price out my work. Just wasn't sure what to do with illustrators since all of a sudden, I'm being hit up by them.
Thanks to Hank and Preston, also.
Nancy
The "artist" was perfectly free to go to the same place and take her own photo. She didn't.
If photographs are valueless, then certainly they can go take their own photos for reference.
My deep breath is taken in order to get a really loud noise out of the whistle I blow every time I find my photos have been swiped rather than the artist's credit card.
In the first case mentioned, the person did ask for permission to use one of Nancy's images. No violation, so far.
In the second case, the image was used without permission and a derivative work created. This is a violation of copyright and intellectual property rights.
If I take a shot of a waterfall, and another takes a similar photo, there is no issue because the rights belong to each individual image and photographer.
If I take a photo of a waterfall, another person takes a similar image, and I then use all or part of their image without permission to create a different image, I have a created a derivative work. This is a violation of intellectual property rights.
A few years ago I used 4x5 to make some transparencies of oil paintings. The artist paid for the film, processing, and my time. Even though I made the photographs, they were derivative works to which I had no rights what so ever. If I wanted to use them to advertise that I shot paintings to be used for an artist's marketing, and I wanted to include one of the shot I made, I would be legally bound to obtain permission (and possibly pay a royalty) because the original work did not belong to me.
Does this help? Clear as mub?
--P
Zakly Rite!
Let's flip this around and see how you feel about the argument. With this logic, I could set up my camera in an art gallery, snap some images of some beautiful paintings, reprint them and sell them as my own work? What's the difference if a photographers "work" is copied?
Now, I understand and we may be talking semantics here when you use the word "reference." Preston and others used the word "derivative." These are two very different animals. If you choose to allow someone to use your image as a reference to lets say for an example, to let the painter/illustrator know what a daffodil looks like or what the bark structure of a cottonwood tree is like, or how broad is Half Dome vs. it's height.... and then the painter creates their OWN, original art work that has nothing to do with the original photograph (only informational reference) then I may understand your point. If, however you "swipe" an image and then attempt to reproduce the photograph (as much as oils or watercolors on canvas can "reproduce" a photograph,) then one is creating a derivative. Clearly that is a copyright violation, just as it would be if I photographed and copied "Moonrise over Hernandez" and attempted to use and sell as my own work. At a minimum, your use of the word "reference" would still require permission if let's say you lifted that image off a website.
I don't believe the argument or discussion has anything to do with who or how many artists where standing in front of the original waterfall. In fact, if the painter/illustrator was standing in front of the waterfall, they wouldn't need the photograph..... :-)
I hardly see this as any arrogance on the part of photographers. I would go as far as saying that it is the painter/illustrator that has the gall and arrogance to assume they have a right to copy someone elses art. Again, I draw the distinction between "reference" vs. "derivative."
Lon