| Author |
Message |
 
marie
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 8:21 am: |  |
Raleigh, copying from the masters is a wonderful and long-standing tradition. I believe that most museums will allow you to copy, although there's usually a simple of registration/permit process involved. |
A.N.
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 6:19 am: | |
I maintain that if I can legally photograph it, I can legally paint it (which is about everything except top secret government installations). |
Raliegh
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 9:20 pm: | |
I've visited a gallery here where the paintings where (as best as they could) copied from the Masters. They labeled them hand copies. I was taught years ago, anything that comes from your own hand is yours.
While in SF I saw artists coming out of a museum with their work, copies of the originals. The museum directors allowed it. I can't think of a better way to learn.
I love the Appalchian lore. |
Grace
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 7:47 pm: | |
I suspect Appalachia. Was raised by my Great-Grandparents there. Wish I could remember the many old sayings. There were a God's plenty. |
Rekha
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 2:27 pm: | |
Oh, I like the expression 'horse of a colour', Grace. What is its origin? |
marie
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 2:00 pm: | |
As I understand it, as long as *you* are on public property or the property owner gives you permission, you're okay -- with the strange exception of the folks who copyright the nighttime lighting. Whether the building or statue is on private property doesn't matter.
As for the cemetery pictures, I haven't had any problems. In fact, they encourage painters, photographers, writers, and dancers. That's part of the reason I like to paint there. |
Grace
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 11:51 am: | |
Of course you can! As long as you are standing on public property and did not cross into any private lands, all buildings you see, you can use. No one has ever challenged the myth {?} of the Chrysler building, but many, many take photos. The rock and roll hall of fame 'tried' to say their building was copyrighted and sued a photographer. The photographer, of course, won. It is hard to take photos inside the Chrysler building, that they can control.
Anything your eye can see can be used as inspiration. But why would you, say, do a Mickey Mouse, except for piracy? That is a horse of a different color. Cemeteries, statues, up for grabs, or shall we say, up for inspirations, as long as they are on public property. I was once told by a nonprofit art center, owned by the city, that i could neither photograph the building nor paint it. I called the city attorney on my cell phone there and then. He groaned, asked me to leave him alone please, and said of course I could, he knew of no law stopping me. I googled this....seems like there are many folks saying you cannot, but none are hard facts from the horses' mouths. |
A.N.
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 10:10 am: | |
Marie--
When I gave an example of a painting of a sculpture, I had your previously posted cemetary works in mind. I don't think doing a painting of a sculpture is any sort of infingement. |
maidensmith
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 8:08 am: | |
I have a photograph that I took at an odd angle. I've always wanted
to translate it into a painting, but the subjest is part of a fountain,
so it includes part of the sculpture. Would it be an infringement? I
have always wondered this. Is it OK if it is only for your own home? |
Rekha
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 2:33 am: | |
I should have pointed out that, as you write Marie, lateral thinking from an existing situation is excluded because no person can really create without the benefit of the experience in front of them.
I am not quite sure that the situations of law you state existing in US also apply to the UK, Marie. I shall look these up which for me at present are irrelevant as I am just painting objects for practice in the art of painting, but no excuse from ignorance. |
marie
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 9:13 pm: | |
I think there are several issues here: creativity, plagiarism, and intellectual property infringement. Whether something is creative is not necessarily related to whether it is plagiarized.
First, I want to address the issue of plagiarism and intellectual property infringement. Many activities can be considered unethical infringement of intellectual property rights without fitting a narrow definition of plagiarism. Some of the items A.N. mentions could be considered intellectual property infringements, at least in the U.S. For example, copying something in a different medium is usually considered a derivative work and not allowed.
There was a major court decision a few years ago where an artist created a sculpture based on someone else's photograph. The photographer sued; the sculptor lost.
Also, creating a painting based on someone else's photograph is generally considered an ethical infringement. I recall hearing about an artist who won a top award in a major national show. (I believe he/she was a pastel painter, not a watercolorist.) When the show opened, someone noticed that the artwork had been copied from a photograph, and the artist was permanently disqualified from the organization.
There are some other rules of thumb, some of which are based on U.S. copyright, and others which are common globally.
* Generic objects -- barns, hats, shoes, vases, and such -- are okay.
* Trademarked objects -- Coca-Cola cans, Campbell's Soup cans, Nike shoes, and such -- can be iffy. Whether it is legal depends on the circumstance.
* Paintings based on photographs you take in public places are okay most of the time. There are occasionally exceptions with buildings and sculpture. For example, you cannot photograph (or paint) the Chrysler Building in New York or the Eiffel Tower in Paris at night. The structures are not copyrighted, but the lighting is. (This is at least in New York and Paris.)
* Paintings/drawings/photographs done on someone else's property require permission from the owner. I have encountered this rule firsthand. There is a house owned by a non-profit group here. I wanted to sketch it, but they wouldn't let me without permission from their marketing director.
Overall, a lot depends on what percent of your painting is a copied from something else.
On to the issue of creativity ...
I believe that many, possibly most, great creative achievements have elements derived from other creations in some way. Art, for me, is all about rearranging things in a unique and creative way. Whether the building blocks of a new creation are natural, imaginary, abstract or man-made (the outcome of some else's creativity) are not relevant. The important words are "rearranging" and "unique." |
A.N.
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 7:16 pm: | |
So painting a barn, a garden, a building, a boat--
plagairism? That flies in the face of tradition. Plagairism is exact copying in the same medium. usually Words copying words. If I lift a passage from your article and represent it as my own, it is plagairism. If I copy your painting and pass it off it is called a fraud or a fake. If I copy the likeness of a statue in paint it is called original art.
The word plagairize is usually confined to words and ideas, not the plastic arts;
From Websters online:
Main Entry: pla·gia·rize
transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own.
intransitive senses : to commit literary theft |
Rekha
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 4:41 pm: | |
Almost all manmade objects are an outcome of someone's creativity. When an artist goes and paints them is the artist being creative or similar to an interior decorator in copying the atmosphere created by these objects? What do you think? |
|
