Comments on: My Photo, My Daughter…

By: Margie Cansino

Margie Cansino — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 04:43:38 +0000

http://kevinpetersonstudios.com/?p=50 I guess someone stole some of his crap, and he says it is illegal to steal.
“Due to the theft of several pieces of Kevin Peterson Artwork, I am urging collectors not to purchase artwork from any un-authorized sellers………Artwork does legitimately come available occasionally on the secondary market but please call or email before making any purchases. Buyers of stolen artwork can face criminal charges.”

What a jerk.

By: Leonard O.

Leonard O. — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 02:22:59 +0000

Ha! It’s not a photographer’s duty, or anyone’s duty, to provide or share their work with painters wanting ‘reference.’

As well, most artists can’t afford to pay models? Ask a friend or family member to pose then, it’s pretty damn simple. And photos? Everyone has a camera, take them yourself.

Your real problem, StarSparkle, is not that you can’t afford models or can’t take photos, your problem is that you require and desire someone else to do all the work for you and that’s why you want ‘reference.’ It’s not that you can’t do the things a photographer does, it’s that you don’t want to. You want to browse the internet until you find a pretty picture and then you want to copy it, that’s all you want to do. The idea is done, the composition is done, the lighting, everything is done for you, and that’s where you want to come in and make your lazy copy and sign your name.

By: StarSparkle

StarSparkle — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 17:21:25 +0000

Most artists can’t afford to pay models for photographic reference. Most photographers are too stuck up to share their work with artists so they can both make money. hence, theft.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:30:12 +0000

I know this is old news, but the photographer is the copyright owner of the photograph. The person made an unauthorized copy by painting.

http://norcal.gag.org/legalities/2004/legalities_no07.html

By: Tony Sarkees

Tony Sarkees — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 21:45:52 +0000

A photograph is a creative, protectible work. It can be “expressive” (per copyright law) in three ways: rendition (technical aspects of the shot, framing, lighting, etc.), subject (posing the subject, or dressing her a certain way), and timing (catching a moment in time). This photograph exhibits creativity in all of these ways.

“Appropriation art” was popular in the late 20th century, and while substantial similarity between two works is a case-by-case question of fact, there is a case that cleanly maps onto this one. In Rogers v. Koons (http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/image_rights.htm), a popular appropriation artist rendered a photograph as a sculpture, and this was deemed infringement. The right to prepare derivative works of a copyrighted expression lies solely with the author. Saying “it’s art” doesn’t absolve an infringer of liability. Similarly, the work is not at all transformative, so there’s no case for fair use. Legally, you could recover a lot from the artist– up to $150,000 in statutory damages. I doubt you’d want to go after the kid for that much, but this is clearly infringing.

This isn’t legal advice, though. Just wanted to lay out the law, as people in the thread have just been guessing about what it is up to this point.

By: Awesome

Awesome — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 06:01:05 +0000

The way they both line up like that with minor changes would make the image work really well for a 3D image.
I’m going to steal both images use it as a 3D image and print it onto canvas.
I’m the real winner out of all this

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:51:27 +0000

@Graeme

Yeah, you can – if the painting is out of copyright, or if you own the copyright, or if you have permission. Try selling photos of any living painter’s work (for “prophet” or not) and see how far you get.

By: Quaker Oats

Quaker Oats — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:53:29 +0000

No need to write huge opinions or diatribes on this, it’s so simple even the child in the photo can understand it.

The painter stole the image. He didn’t ask for permission to use it. He should split the money with the original photo taker to be an honorable man, but if he’s a douchebag and won’t do it then write it off as “what a douchebag!”.

Still, the original photographer should be flattered that he thought enough of the photo to rip it off. Take a picture with your kid next to the painting in a gallery and show it to her when she’s older. Let the guy make money for his work, you don’t lose anything and it’s a cool story for your little girl when she’s older.

KTHXBAI

P.S. The “artist statement” is incredibly, incredibly pretentious.

By: BobJ

BobJ — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:18:02 +0000

It just flat out astounds me that someone thinks they can take someone else’s copyrighted image – particularly of this person’s kid, for God’s sake – and make a painting of it (and just because it’s in the hyper-realism style means nothing talent-wise) then profit from it and think it’s okay. Because I’m a lad-di-da ar-tiste. The photographer should be flattered? What a load of crap. I’m a photographer and also a fine artist, and any freakin’ monkey can be taught to copy a photo faithfully.
How about teaching them to pull out the art from within? If that can’t be done, go train to be an accountant (and no disrespect to accountants – often they are more useful than half-witted artists).
I try and be a little more measured and careful in my posts, but we’re in a culture now that thinks it’s okay to steal from others, and the notion of standing on the shoulders of giants is to pee down their necks. And that bugs me.

By: Graeme

Graeme — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:21:08 +0000

@Megumi

your a fool sorry, you can take photo’s of artworks and sell them for prophet, how the hell do you think gallery’s around the world make there postcards/posters etc?
i have a friend who was paid buy the national gallery in London UK to take photo’s around the gallery and of works to put in books, pamphlets, websites etc so they can be sold and given out. making money.