Posted by Zack Clothier on January 21, 2012 at 9:56 AM
An aquaintance (I'll use that term for use of a better word) of mine wants to use my photographs as examples for painting classes she is offering. She says she will provide credit to me as the photographer of the original artwork in all of her promotional material, but provide no further compensation. I am unsure whether or not she is charging for these classes but I assume that she is. What would you do in this situation?
In my opinion, you should be paid for the use of your intellectual property. Recognition is always nice, but you deserve to be compensated fairly for your work; especially if this person is making a profit from the use of your photographs.
In fact, if the people in the class use your work as a model, and that work is recognizable as your own, they would be in violation of intellectual property rights if they do not have your permission and also give you credit. In my opinion, the students should also compensate you for the use of your work.
Others may disagree, but 'business is business' as far as I am concerned.
I agree with Preston. We have a hard and fast rule. If the other artist is being paid for the use of our photos, we get paid too. If they need free photos, they can steal them out of magazines rather than from us.
Posted by Greg Lessard on January 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM
I agree that you should be compensated. A possible compromise is to request giclees of the paintings if that is possible. I have had a few of my photos painted and it is nice to be able to hang the originals and or a giclee on the wall. Still, it doesn't pay the bills.
Posted by Terry Sohl on January 21, 2012 at 11:23 AM
I get a lot of requests from artists, and my rule has been that I let artists who are just painting/drawing for their own pleasure to use my photos. My only "requirement" for them is that I can see their final piece! I like seeing the amazing variety of work that's done by complete amateurs.
It's a different story if it's an artist who is selling his work. When I first started in photography, I got a request for a photo. Being new, I was flattered and just gave it to him. Then I saw an EXACT duplicate painting of my photo of a Great Egret, on sale by a guy who was evidently a well-known artists...for $75,000!!!
"...and it is nice to be able to hang the originals and or a giclee on the wall."
If you really want to "up" the ante with painters, ask for the rights to duplicate and sell copies of the giclee!
Holy cow!!!!!
Talk about a lot of fussing and snot slinging!!!!!
Painters selling the paintings they copy from your work simply can't imagine a deal that flows both ways like that.
Posted by Basil Greber on January 21, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Terry -
Posted by Bill Maile on January 21, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Been there several times, a cordial explanation no is the standard answer, Unless "we arrange for me to receive...". That usually ends it right there. There are several other threads probably on this topic if you care to look them up, good luck!
Posted by Jim Bullard on January 21, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Hey, why would you want money? All you did was point the camera and push a button, right? To paraphrase Rodney Dangerfield, "photographers don't get no respect".
Tell them if they want to paint that scene, show them a map, here's where it is, go and paint it "en plein air".
Tell them if they want to paint that scene, show them a map, here's where it is, go and paint it "en plein air".
Perfect!
Posted by Nancy de Flon on January 21, 2012 at 1:46 PM
If the instructor wanted the class to paint a live model, you can bet that they'd expect to have to pay that model for his/her time, right? Talk about chutzpah ...
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 21, 2012 at 4:52 PM
I love reading these threads. When I'm asked for a "deal" like that, I get so mad that I become dumbfounded about what to say. You guys always have great comebacks.
The Intellectual property aspect by Preston is right on.
Jim B., has the best suggestion for what the painter can do! Love it!
Posted by Fred Stearns on January 22, 2012 at 12:33 AM
A friend of my sister wanted to use one of my pictures to paint from. She was going to sell the painting. I said sure, but I wanted a percentage of the selling price. Actually, I was rather generous as I recall and my sister agreed. However, the thought of paying to use the photograph to paint from killed the deal. All I can say is that she did ask. She did not paint my picture.
Posted by Don George on January 22, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Many photographs are being painted with a slight adjustment off of websites etc.. I guess the good new's is she did ask. In past years I have sold several images to artist giving them total rights including the negative (film day's). I was compensated well and we both went away happy. Today a large % of artist shoot there own reference work especially since digital was introduced.
You should always charge for your work. I have donated to a couple of charitable organizations who I worked with over the years but those donations were always with stipulations.
Posted by Zack Clothier on January 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM
Thanks for all the great responses everyone, I've emailed the painter and she said she is open to another form of compesation. She says the students will be working from 4x6" prints so I think I will charge per print since she has no idea how many students she is going to have yet. Is it also reasonable that I add some form of use license with a stipulation in there like "no further reproduction for commercial or private gain"?
It's a good thing that the painter is willing to compensate you.
"Is it also reasonable that I add some form of use license with a stipulation in there like "no further reproduction for commercial or private gain"? "
It is more than 'reasonable' to provide a written "Terms of Use" document. Providing such a document protects you in case a dispute arises. I include a "license" with every print that I sell.
--P
Posted by Zack Clothier on January 24, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Deal fell through, even before I negotiated a price..says she is going to use "webshots" instead...go figure.
Deal fell through, even before I negotiated a price..says she is going to use "webshots" instead...go figure.
Translation: "I'm not going to pay for something when I can get a 'suitable' substitute for free."
It would be interesting to know if the "webshots" are in the public domain or if they're going to be used with permission...if they're simply going to be used without seeking permission...
Just to play devil's advocate.. how times have we photographers browsed other photographers' websites for free to get inspiration for images and locations? How different is it to do that for painting? If she plans on copying the photos exactly in the paintings then that may constitute as copyright infringement, but photographers do that all the time and no one seems to care all that much.
Posted by Zack Clothier on January 25, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Are the shots in question on your web site, Zack?
Hank, she didn't specify which images she wanted to use. I asked how many prints she would need for the classes and then told her I would include a "Terms Of Use" document along with each image. That's when she backed out. I'm wondering if I should reply to her email and inform her that she would be violating intellectual property rights if she doesn't seek permission for these "webshots" as she calls them.
Posted by Zack Clothier on January 25, 2012 at 1:16 PM
If she plans on copying the photos exactly in the paintings then that may constitute as copyright infringement
Floris, I assume since she is teaching these painting classes to beginners she is going to have them paint the scene before them.
Yes, but when I took drawing and painting classes we always had material to work with (clipped out of magazines and books), and no one ever copied them exactly because that would be boring, and is pretty much the exact opposite of the point of creating art. But, as is evidenced by all the people copying everything out there, creating art is not a priority in this society.. so that might be a bad assumption to make.
Posted by Zack Clothier on January 25, 2012 at 1:56 PM
This is how the painter put it to me: 'I am hoping to utilize some of your beautiful photography as the subjects for the paintings"
Based on that it would suggest the work is being copied, and that she doesn't want to pay for copying the material either.
The flip side is that photographers don't photograph paintings and sell those images. Might be fun to suggest it to the next painter making such a request.
Posted by David Bostedo on January 25, 2012 at 5:58 PM
The flip side is that photographers don't photograph paintings and sell those images.
That's not entirely true in the "fine art" world. In fact, some people have made and sold photos of photos, Richard Prince most notably.
That's a great example of how non-black and white copyright and fair use can really be sometimes.
By the way, something no one has considered is that fair use covers usage of copyrighted material for educational purposes. If this class is being held at a non-profit educational institution (which I believe any public school, college, or university technically is) they can use your images in class and not be violating copyright. The students can't necessarily sell the work, but they can create it.
[quote]The flip side is that photographers don't photograph paintings and sell those images. Might be fun to suggest it to the next painter making such a request.[quote]
That depends. When I envision a photograph being taken of an art piece there is minimal creative effort in the process - it's as far on the documentary side as you can get. However, when I think of someone painting something, based on a photograph, it implies more creative effort in the loop, and thus, is quite different. Now, a painter can do their best to paint 'photorealistically', and a photographer can do their best to photograph a painting 'creatively', but I think that's stretching it. I really think a more relevant comparison is photographers photographing other photographers' compositions and concepts without payment or attribution. However, there is an unprecedented case that just came out that was brought to my attention by Guy Tal.. interesting, hopeful, and scary all at the same time.
That depends. When I envision a photograph being taken of an art piece there is minimal creative effort in the process - it's as far on the documentary side as you can get. However, when I think of someone painting something, based on a photograph, it implies more creative effort in the loop, and thus, is quite different. Now, a painter can do their best to paint 'photorealistically', and a photographer can do their best to photograph a painting 'creatively', but I think that's stretching it. I really think a more relevant comparison is photographers photographing other photographers' compositions and concepts without payment or attribution. However, there is an unprecedented case that just came out that was brought to my attention by Guy Tal.. interesting, hopeful, and scary all at the same time.
Nah, at least not in my case. I photograph for some unique aspect of light and composition, so a painter working from my work is going to be after the same stuff. If it's just an uninterpreted snapshot of a scene, they could take that themselves and they wouldn't need my shutter release.
As for my example, I'd do the same thing to them that they want to do to me. I'd frame only the painting, preparing to sell my photograph of their unique interpretation of light and composition.
As for other photographers' work, nah again. I have no interest in reproducing their shot, but I might like the place and want to photograph it, but with my own interpretation of light and composition. To follow your line of reasoning, no one can shoot Yosemite now, because it's already done long ago by Adams. Today there's still fresh photography coming out of the same settings Adams shot, with no attempt to duplicate him.
That's what interests me. And it should be the only thing that interests a painter.
I have no interest in reproducing their shot, but I might like the place and want to photograph it, but with my own interpretation of light and composition.
And who is to say that the painter doesn't want to do exactly the same thing? Instead of having to burn lots of gas they may just like to have a reference of a place so that they can apply their own interpretation of light and composition, using an image as a basis. Maybe they would like to combine several images into one masterpiece (that is actually how most schools teach you to use photographic material). Yes, they'd be starting from a 2D image with limited scope, but if a painter can't take a 2D piece, turn it back to 3D in their mind, and then back to an original 2D piece, then they are not an artist, they're just an old fashioned scanning device.
By your reasoning there should be no issue for the painter to use an image as reference material. Just as there should be no issue for a photographer to use the same landscape as another as "material". On that we agree 100%. It only becomes an issue when either the painter or the photographer sets out to copy something outright, and it's not fair to make that assumption for either kind of artist, although both are capable of perpetrating such a crime.
Discussion
31 repliesIn my opinion, you should be paid for the use of your intellectual property. Recognition is always nice, but you deserve to be compensated fairly for your work; especially if this person is making a profit from the use of your photographs.
In fact, if the people in the class use your work as a model, and that work is recognizable as your own, they would be in violation of intellectual property rights if they do not have your permission and also give you credit. In my opinion, the students should also compensate you for the use of your work.
Others may disagree, but 'business is business' as far as I am concerned.
--P
It's a different story if it's an artist who is selling his work. When I first started in photography, I got a request for a photo. Being new, I was flattered and just gave it to him. Then I saw an EXACT duplicate painting of my photo of a Great Egret, on sale by a guy who was evidently a well-known artists...for $75,000!!!
Would have been nice to get a share of that....
If you really want to "up" the ante with painters, ask for the rights to duplicate and sell copies of the giclee!
Holy cow!!!!!
Talk about a lot of fussing and snot slinging!!!!!
Painters selling the paintings they copy from your work simply can't imagine a deal that flows both ways like that.
Tell them if they want to paint that scene, show them a map, here's where it is, go and paint it "en plein air".
Perfect!
Not sure I'd pass up a free paint job!
The Intellectual property aspect by Preston is right on.
Jim B., has the best suggestion for what the painter can do! Love it!
You should always charge for your work. I have donated to a couple of charitable organizations who I worked with over the years but those donations were always with stipulations.
It's a good thing that the painter is willing to compensate you.
It is more than 'reasonable' to provide a written "Terms of Use" document. Providing such a document protects you in case a dispute arises. I include a "license" with every print that I sell.
--P
Translation: "I'm not going to pay for something when I can get a 'suitable' substitute for free."
It would be interesting to know if the "webshots" are in the public domain or if they're going to be used with permission...if they're simply going to be used without seeking permission...
Hmmmm. Just had a thought.
Are the shots in question on your web site, Zack?
Hank, she didn't specify which images she wanted to use. I asked how many prints she would need for the classes and then told her I would include a "Terms Of Use" document along with each image. That's when she backed out. I'm wondering if I should reply to her email and inform her that she would be violating intellectual property rights if she doesn't seek permission for these "webshots" as she calls them.
Floris, I assume since she is teaching these painting classes to beginners she is going to have them paint the scene before them.
Based on that it would suggest the work is being copied, and that she doesn't want to pay for copying the material either.
That's not entirely true in the "fine art" world. In fact, some people have made and sold photos of photos, Richard Prince most notably.
That's a great example of how non-black and white copyright and fair use can really be sometimes.
By the way, something no one has considered is that fair use covers usage of copyrighted material for educational purposes. If this class is being held at a non-profit educational institution (which I believe any public school, college, or university technically is) they can use your images in class and not be violating copyright. The students can't necessarily sell the work, but they can create it.
That depends. When I envision a photograph being taken of an art piece there is minimal creative effort in the process - it's as far on the documentary side as you can get. However, when I think of someone painting something, based on a photograph, it implies more creative effort in the loop, and thus, is quite different. Now, a painter can do their best to paint 'photorealistically', and a photographer can do their best to photograph a painting 'creatively', but I think that's stretching it. I really think a more relevant comparison is photographers photographing other photographers' compositions and concepts without payment or attribution. However, there is an unprecedented case that just came out that was brought to my attention by Guy Tal.. interesting, hopeful, and scary all at the same time.
copyright threat for photographers
In this layman's understanding, copyright protects the expression of an idea but not the idea itself.
Nah, at least not in my case. I photograph for some unique aspect of light and composition, so a painter working from my work is going to be after the same stuff. If it's just an uninterpreted snapshot of a scene, they could take that themselves and they wouldn't need my shutter release.
As for my example, I'd do the same thing to them that they want to do to me. I'd frame only the painting, preparing to sell my photograph of their unique interpretation of light and composition.
As for other photographers' work, nah again. I have no interest in reproducing their shot, but I might like the place and want to photograph it, but with my own interpretation of light and composition. To follow your line of reasoning, no one can shoot Yosemite now, because it's already done long ago by Adams. Today there's still fresh photography coming out of the same settings Adams shot, with no attempt to duplicate him.
That's what interests me. And it should be the only thing that interests a painter.
And who is to say that the painter doesn't want to do exactly the same thing? Instead of having to burn lots of gas they may just like to have a reference of a place so that they can apply their own interpretation of light and composition, using an image as a basis. Maybe they would like to combine several images into one masterpiece (that is actually how most schools teach you to use photographic material). Yes, they'd be starting from a 2D image with limited scope, but if a painter can't take a 2D piece, turn it back to 3D in their mind, and then back to an original 2D piece, then they are not an artist, they're just an old fashioned scanning device.
By your reasoning there should be no issue for the painter to use an image as reference material. Just as there should be no issue for a photographer to use the same landscape as another as "material". On that we agree 100%. It only becomes an issue when either the painter or the photographer sets out to copy something outright, and it's not fair to make that assumption for either kind of artist, although both are capable of perpetrating such a crime.