Portraits of famous people
DJ
are the copyright problems connected with this? Can I paint a photograph
taken by someone else? What about a still from a movie scene? (Hate to think
what they would look like if I did it from memory) Also, based on
copyrights, what are the options, if any, for selling such a painting?
Thanks
DJ
Peter H.M. Brooks
"DJ" <de...@webetal.com> wrote in message
Copyright is only on the original - if you change anything it becomes
your orginal work. So, if you paint a photograph it is certainly your
work and there are no copyright problems. There might be trademark or
patent infringement problems, but, as you can see from Andy Worhol's
pictures of Coca Cola bottles this isn't much of a problem either.
--
non illegitimi te carborundum
Wilfred Luvew
says...
Artists do this all the time. Whether or not you
leave yourself open to a law suit is a ticklish
one. People who have been depicted "badly" or in
"bad" situations by artists have sued, and some
have won judgements. But these are so few and far
between that I'd not worry about it. On the other
hand, if you PUBLISH your work, you increase your
risks. Photographers particularly are liabel if
they publish photos of people without that person's
permission.
A classic case of infringement of copyright was
Jeff Koons' depiction of some dogs. He took someone
else's photograph and recreated the image in a 3-D
sculpture. The photograher sued and won. But I
don't imagine you're going to be seen by as large
a public as Jeff Koons.
When in doubt, get permission if you want to rest easy.
You can write directly to "the famous person" or to
their agent.
Erik A. Mattila
Peter, remind me not to retain you as my lawyer - just kidding.
Warhol was probably guilty of trademark infringement, it's just that the
owners decided not to sue.
But I'm wondering if coypright law differs much between the US and
Britain. Here, the 5-20% rule applies. If you change 5 major elements
or 20% of the minor elements (and I have no idea how a court would
quantify this, but they do) your work is considered original and not a
rip-off of someone elses.
The other thing is that the copyright laws have changed radically in the
past quarter century. Let's say you create a completely original
painting of Elvis - the trademark owners (Elvis' face) can sue you.
What it boils down to is that there are tons and tons of copyrite
violations all around us, and in most cases the violatorsa get away with
it. But then, they are also vulnerable to law suit. As long as you are
poor, there's not much problem, as lawyers will advise their clients not
to sue, since there's nothing to be gained. But if you're suddenly
selling painting for a hundred grand, watch out - the hounds will be at
your heels.
There is also a lot of information on the net about copyright. I don't
think it would be a waste of time for any visual artist to spend some
time boning-up on this topic. For example, when you do a collage using
magazine pictures you're violating copyright laws. But if you are a
student in an art school and you do this, and only use the collage in
class critiques, it's ok. But once you make a public display of the
same, you're guilty.
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>
> Warhol was probably guilty of trademark infringement, it's just that
the
> owners decided not to sue.
>
and might well have won.
(as I am doing now, though you, Erik, own the copyright of the text
above) when you make a reply. If I included all the above text in a book
and published it, unchanged, I could be sued.
However, now this article is my copyright. The 5-20% rule is a rough
guide. If, as is the case here [and the courts agree], this is a
separate article, then it is all my copyright. They might argue that it
isn't. It will never go to court, so we don't know.
RBrac53660
>Peter, remind me not to retain you as my lawyer - just kidding.
>
>Warhol was probably guilty of trademark infringement, it's just that the
>owners decided not to sue.
Bzzzt wrong Cambell's Soup did sue Warhol and lost.
Nikolaus Maack
> I would like to add the portrait of a famous person to my portfolio. What
> are the copyright problems connected with this? Can I paint a photograph
> taken by someone else? What about a still from a movie scene?
The Church of Scientology threatened to sue me for my portrait of L. Ron
Hubbard. When I talked to a lawyer about this, she told me that an artist
can paint a portrait "inspired by" a photograph, and that it's only a
violation of copyright if my finished work is (more or less) recognizably
identical to the original piece.
If your work varies from the original photograph or painting or whatever
it was that "inspired" you, you're free to do what you'd like.
Then there's the whole concept of satire and charicature.
By the by, here's the L. Ron portrait:
http://www.nikart.com/old/pics/11.html
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>
> The Church of Scientology threatened to sue me for my portrait of L.
Ron
> Hubbard. When I talked to a lawyer about this, she told me that an
artist
> can paint a portrait "inspired by" a photograph, and that it's only a
> violation of copyright if my finished work is (more or less)
recognizably
> identical to the original piece.
>
>
portrait of L. Ron Hubbard - he was a caricature of a person and a
satire of himself.
Peter H.M. Brooks
bought with the cult money and filled with bimbos to live on whilst
avoiding tax.
Andrew Werby
> I would like to add the portrait of a famous person to my portfolio. What
> are the copyright problems connected with this?
[It depends on what the person is (or was) famous for, and how long he or
she has been dead. There is an exception for "public figures"- ie
politicians. You can do anything you want with the image of George Bush, for
instance (although if you copy a copyrighted photo of him you can still get
in trouble.) But if the person is celebrated for, say, film work, then that
person (or the heirs of his or her estate) have an economic interest in any
exploitation of that person's image, even if it's not based on any
copyrighted work. This means that if you're using an image of Fred Astaire
to sell vacuum cleaners, you need to get permission from Fred's estate. But
you'd probably be safe portraying John Wilkes Booth, even though he was an
actor...]
Can I paint a photograph
> taken by someone else?
[No, that would be a derivative work, and is prohibited under copyright law.
If the photo's over a certain age, though, its copyright protection may have
lapsed. A model release may also be necessary. ]
What about a still from a movie scene? (Hate to think
> what they would look like if I did it from memory)
[Movies are nearly all copyrighted, so making a work derivative of a movie
scene would be a violation. Some very old movies are just now emerging from
copyright protection, but there's a move afoot in the US Congress to extend
their copyrights another few decades (to protect, among other things, the
image of Mickey Mouse.)]
So, based on
> copyrights, what are the options, if any, for selling such a painting?
> Thanks
> DJ
>
[As long as you kept it in a curtained room of your own house and didn't
show it to visitors, you could probably get away with creating a work that
violates copyright laws. As soon as you start showing or, worse, trying to
sell it, you would be guilty of copyright infringement, which is a criminal,
as well as a civil offense. Imagine your place in the prison hierarchy if
you got sent up for something like this...]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
RBrac53660
has something to say
Erik A. Mattila
>>Peter, remind me not to retain you as my lawyer - just kidding.
>>
>>Warhol was probably guilty of trademark infringement, it's just that the
>>owners decided not to sue.
>>
>
> Bzzzt wrong Cambell's Soup did sue Warhol and lost.
Could you give me a citation on this, just for curiosity? I'm not
doubting you, but I can find nothing about this - other than a few
quotes saying that Campbells never sued. Warhol foundation was sued for
using the Jackie Kennedy image recently.
Erik
Wilfred Luvew
>> Bzzzt wrong Cambell's Soup did sue Warhol and lost.
>
>
>Could you give me a citation on this, just for curiosity? I'm not
>doubting you
Well, I'll play the "doubting Thomas" then. I never
heard of any lawsuits against Warhol, period. I
would guess he was careful to obtain consent from
those subjects he chose to depict that would involve
copyrights. He was a business person first and
foremost, and not a stupid one at that.
Wilfred Luvew
>Well, I'll play the "doubting Thomas" then. I never
>heard of any lawsuits against Warhol, period.
I was too hasty in writing that. I meant to write
that I'd never heard of anyone WINNING a lawsuit
brought against Warhol. In fact there are documented
cases of suits involving Warhol that were either
dropped, thrown out of court, or settled out of court.
Here are a few bits and pieces from various sources
on Warhol and his art, and a couple of copyright
article excerpts of interest to this thread:
Meanwhile, in a Tokyo courtroom Thursday, Lennon's widow Yoko Ono sued a subway
operator in that city for selling a rapid transit ticket with an image of
Lennon on it. The Teito Rapid Transit Authority responded by saying that the
image of John -- as painted by Andy Warhol -- was provided by a local art
museum in conjunction with a Warhol exhibit. Ono is seeking $130,000, according
to Japanese news reports.
For some dated but interesting commentary on Warhol, read:
http://www.suck.com/zerobaud/96/08/22/
Warhol Quote from the web site:
http://www.perform.utas.edu.au/gallery/when_is_art/essay_Maria_Kunda.html
"Business art is the step that comes after Art. I started as a commercial
artist, and I want to finish as a business artist. After I did the thing called
"art" or whatever its called, I went into business art. I wanted to be an Art
Businessman or a Business Artist. Being good in business is the most
fascinating kind of art." 1
1. The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (From A to B and Back Again), New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975, p. 92.
There is another irony about the theft of the Brillo motif. It was designed
only a couple of years earlier by a James Harvey. On learning of the existence
of the copies Harvey threatened Warhol with a lawsuit, and thus catapulted the
boxes into notoriety. The New York Times-no less-reported the issue in an
article entitled "Boxing Match", describing Harvey as an artist "who draws his
inspiration from religion and landscapes...At night he works on muscular
abstract paintings that show at Manhattan's Graham Gallery. But eight hours a
day, to make a living, he labors as a commercial artist." 2
Who has heard of James Harvey? Yet his Brillo box design has been made into
something of a classic. We can look at it now, even though it was only a soap
box design, as a sign of its times.
2. Benjamin Buchloh, "Andy Warhol's One Dimensional Art: 1956 -1966", in Andy
Warhol, a Retrospective, Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1989, p. 86.
TIGER WOODS' REP LOSES LAWSUIT AGAINST ARTIST
Sport artist Rick Rush's publishing company, Jireh, has won the first round of
a lawsuit filed by a company created to market golfer Tiger Woods' name and
likeness opposed to the artist's use of Woods' image on a serigraph. ETW Corp.
had claimed the series of prints caused "consumer confusion" and violated the
golfer's trademark. An Ohio judge dismissed the case, holding that Rush's
paintings were protected by the First Ammendment and ruling that the use of
Woods' image was not trademark infringement and the use of the athlete's name
constituted fair use.
Woods had previously won a lawsuit against the Franklin Mint over an
unauthorized souvenir featuring his likeness; the suit was settled in 1998 with
the golfer receiving a permanent injunction barring the company from using his
name and likeness.
Excerpted from this site:
http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf1999/landes.html
One is more sympathetic to the claims brought by commercial photographers
against Rauschenberg and Warhol for making prints based on copyrighted
photographs. Commercial photographers are in the business of licensing their
photographs. Allowing artists or others to make unauthorized copies-copies they
haven't paid for--could significantly effect the incentives of photographers to
create their works in the first place. But that is not the end of the story. In
the language of fair use, the prints created by Rauschenberg and Warhol are
clearly productive not reproductive uses. They add substantial original
expression to the original image and are unlikely to substitute for it. These
cases were settled so we don't know for certain how they would have come out. I
suspect, however, that a court would have rejected the claim of fair use
because transaction costs were low enough to make a negotiated license the
likely outcome.
RBrac53660
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not able to cite cases or docket numbers also I left
the University a long time ago. However Campbell's soup did sue Warhol over
the Tomatoe Soup can image and lost. And then they did the very same thing he
did which they had done previously in the commercialzation of the afore
mentioned image.
I wonder who had more smarts? Warhols cynical pov or Campbell's industrial
pov?
Erik A. Mattila
> I'm not a lawyer and I'm not able to cite cases or docket numbers also I left
> the University a long time ago. However Campbell's soup did sue Warhol over
> the Tomatoe Soup can image and lost. And then they did the very same thing he
> did which they had done previously in the commercialzation of the afore
> mentioned image.
Heck, I'm not asking for anything as elaborate as that - I mean you must
have some basis for saying that Capbells sued...that's what I mean by a
citation.
Erik