Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

"CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"
  
 
glort
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


Mike Veltri wrote:
If I worried about people stealing my images, I would not post anything on the net. lol


Exactly!

I see this all the time here.

"Someone used my picture without permission what can I do"
In reality, exactly the same as the other 1000 similar threads, Sweet FA really. The time and effort isn't worth persuing it.

What gets me is people put pictures out there for no real reason. they aren't trying to sell them, they aren't showing off their images in the hope of gaining paid work, they just want to show off their pretty pictures.

Anyone in this day and age that thinks they can put pictures out there without having them used without their known is naive in the extreme and needs to be woken up to the realities of the digital age.

Don't want them stolen, don't put any out there you don't have a real need to.
Simple!



Jul 07, 2017 at 03:04 AM
Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


Colin, I wanted to address a few of your points:

Again, that's not what I'm talking about. Many (most?) artists use a grid system and literally copy the photograph. My friend who has been a very accomplished artist for decades told me that this is how it's done the vast majority of the time. But yes, one does enter a gray zone when the painting is very different from the referenced photo.

My experience indicates that your friend is wrong. I live in L.A., and have had the good fortune to work among some serious talent in film, television, animation, and video games. No one has time for a "grid system." You need to know how to interpret a subject pretty fast when working on deadline. I studied with one professional illustrator (the late Glen Orbik) who would project and trace photo references to get an initial read on a piece, but would then substantially adjust the trace to come up with a result that looked very little like the original reference. And also, that guy could draw.... reference, imagination, life, anything. He (and every other professional artists I know) was by no means tied to a slavish approach to reproduction, such as a grid.

Colin F wrote:
While I generally agree with your latter scenario (as noted at the beginning of my post), you must agree that there are a good number of people who intend on selling their painted piece for often a considerable profit, and given the investment on the part of the photographer, why not demand some compensation, however small? Compensation is demanded for other uses of our work (say - a magazine ad), so wouldn't it logically follow that compensation is deserved for having it used for a painted piece if sold?


Sure, it's uncontroversial to say that one should be comfortable demanding the compensation they think they're entitled to. In cases like this though, I think it it's important to know who is asking. I know a lot of painters, but only a handful who are successful enough to sell paintings at prices high enough to give them a comfortable wage. For those painters, I would say it makes sense to ask for a cut. And if the artist is an open appropriator who actually gains notoriety through controversial verbatim copying, such as Koons or Prince, go after them with gusto. (Though you still may not win - see the cases cited in my earlier post). But most painters aren't earning much from their paintings, so if they approach a photographer asking permission to use something as a reference, and the photographer attaches a variety of onerous conditions to such a use, what will likely happen is (a) they won't use your photo as a reference, or (b) they'll use it without telling you. If you're good with (a), then by all means price the erstwhile artist out of using your images for reference. As for (b), there probably isn't much you can do anyway, since the artists may have pretty decent defenses under the relevant copyright law (see previous post), and you may not want to go through the trouble of investigating the activities of some faraway artist.

I mocked-up this graphic to sort of drive the point home:
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t172/Paddywacked/Fred%20Miranda/Cost%20of%20Photography_zpsurrkpmdo.jpg


This type of argument doesn't make sense to me. Are you suggesting that you are entitled to compensation because you've bought a lot of stuff to take a photo? Seems to me that compensation should track with perceived value of the work, not the tools. After all, it's perfectly possible to generate useless photos of your backyard furniture using tens of thousands of dollars in equipment. It's also possible to be a really crappy lawyer even though you spend over a hundred thousand dollars on a law degree and various professional certifications.

In fact, this type of argument can backfire on you if you want to sell some aspect of your photographic personality that is independent of the equipment you use (e.g., your "eye" or your experience). It suggests that, by simply having enough money to buy the best tools, you can reach a point where you push a button and the resulting photo turns out perfect. Hence feeding into the (wrong) stereotype that photography is just about showing up with the right camera and clicking away.



Jul 07, 2017 at 09:28 AM
Colin F
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


Arka wrote:
My experience indicates that your friend is wrong. I live in L.A., and have had the good fortune to work among some serious talent in film, television, animation, and video games. No one has time for a "grid system."


I wonder if that high-paced LA environment is the exception for what my artist friend was referring to? I dunno. He's a pretty sharp guy, and has been doing this all his life (he's 65 now), so I would imagine that there's some truth to what he said, but hard to know for sure on this side issue.



Sure, it's uncontroversial to say that one should be comfortable demanding the compensation they think they're entitled to. In cases like this though, I think it it's important to know who is asking. I know a lot of painters, but only a handful who are successful enough to sell paintings at prices high enough to give them a comfortable wage. For those painters, I would say it makes sense to ask for a cut.

Ok, so you agree with the principle, and that's what I was getting at. Although, there's another gray zone, for there is a wide range of income among the artists wanting to use one's image, so where does one draw the line?




And if the artist is an open appropriator who actually gains notoriety through controversial verbatim copying, such as Koons or Prince, go after them with gusto. (Though you still may not win - see the cases cited in my earlier post). But most painters aren't earning much from their paintings, so if they approach a photographer asking permission to use something as a reference, and the photographer attaches a variety of onerous conditions to such a use, what will likely happen is (a) they won't use your photo as a reference, or (b) they'll use it without telling you. If...Show more

Indeed, I agree. I would like to be clear though that my point isn't about subsequent litigation or the success that one may or may not have with that, that's a whole other topic, but just the initial request for compensation for work that will be sold.




Re: Graphic:

This type of argument doesn't make sense to me. Are you suggesting that you are entitled to compensation because you've bought a lot of stuff to take a photo?

Absolutely not. It merely drives home the point to the artist that what they want for free, required something of value on the part of the photographer, be it time, skill, travel, gear, whatever.



And to glort's last post, (which, like his first post, also misses the entire point), the request for some small compensation, is for an artist who WANTS TO HAVE IT. Yes, if it's some elderly person who just wants to do a one-off for their own enjoyment, then let 'em have at it, but if it's a person who intends on selling for profit, then it's reasonable to request some form of compensation. It's also OK to just give everything away for free if you want, I'm just not sure why you're so upset with this topic or me in particular. Seems like a disproportionate amount of anger and condemnation on your part.



Jul 07, 2017 at 01:27 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


I feel listing the cost of your gear is a form of insecurity with their skills. Rather than let the image be of value here, the OP is trying to justify the compensation by how much he spent on his hobby. When I helped my Son hire a photigrapher for his wedding, I looked at the photographers past work and spoke with her regarding how she approaches the day. We talked about compensation and options...not once did she try justify her prices using the cost of her gear...rather she let her work speak for the value.

I wonder if the artist uses the cost of 4 years of art school which could easily exceed the cost of the OPs equipment as a way to justify the price for her art?




Jul 07, 2017 at 02:19 PM
Colin F
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


chez wrote:
I feel listing the cost of your gear is a form of insecurity with their skills. Rather than let the image be of value here, the OP is trying to justify the compensation by how much he spent on his hobby. When I helped my Son hire a photigrapher for his wedding, I looked at the photographers past work and spoke with her regarding how she approaches the day. We talked about compensation and options...not once did she try justify her prices using the cost of her gear...rather she let her work speak for the value.

I wonder if the artist
...Show more

I guess you missed my last comment directly above which addressed that:

"Absolutely not. It merely drives home the point to the artist that what they want for free, required something of value on the part of the photographer, be it time, skill, travel, gear, whatever."

edit: And I'm not suggesting that one offers this graphic to an inquiring artist, I just made it up for purposes of conversation among photographers, like here.



Edited on Jul 07, 2017 at 02:50 PM · View previous versions



Jul 07, 2017 at 02:22 PM
glort
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


Colin F wrote:
And to glort's last post, (which, like his first post, also misses the entire point), the request for some small compensation, is for an artist who WANTS TO HAVE IT.


WRONG!
The artist does not want the picture at all! They merely want to draw inspiration from which they will then invest their own considerable, skill, time, effort and money ( IE, the same as you did by choice) to produce a totally and completely different end result.

.
To help me understand what you are talking about as I must be missing something somewhere, show me the pic you were asked for permission to paint so I can google similar subject matter to verify a shot similar enough for a copyright defense has never been taken for said painter to copy from. The fact you skipped right over this point instead of taking the opportunity to slam dunk your position has me curious.

Also, for the painter that wants to make a profit from your image, what would this small compensation you feel so important to get actually be in Dollar ore terms of other consideration be?? It would be helpful to better understand what you think is realistic and fair for you to receive as maybe my thinking and yours is off.







Edited on Jul 07, 2017 at 02:59 PM · View previous versions



Jul 07, 2017 at 02:49 PM
Colin F
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


glort wrote:
....show me the pic you were asked for permission to paint so I can google it to verify a shot similar enough has never been taken for said painter to copy from.


How unique any given image is, or how easy it is to find a similar image is completely irrelevant. The point is, an artist is approaching a particular photographer in regards to a particular image that the photographer has captured, and said artist wants to use that for derivative work for subsequent sale.


Also, for the painter that wants to make a profit from your image, what would this small compensation you feel so important to get actually be?
It would be helpful to better understand whether you are concerned about $5, 500 or 5000 or whatever you think is realistic and fair for you to receive.


That too is irrelevant.




Jul 07, 2017 at 02:57 PM
glort
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"



Sorry, tried to better explain myself and edited my post as you replied.

I don't think either point you dismissed is irrelevant. Completely the opposite.

I really don't know why an artist would approach a shooter to use a pic when they could google so many I'm sure are similar and you fail to demonstrate that is incorrect.
The message you are clearly sending here is don't pay any shooter the professional courtesy of asking ( for whatever reason that may be) to emulate one of their pics, either just do it or Google something else even just for the arse covering exercise you can point to that as the image you drew inspiration from if they do find out.

Yeah, you have disputed that, poorly, but it's the take away you are giving.

As for the compensation amount, how in the hell is it irrelevant?
I get that you feel your efforts are entitled to be justified, but given your strong position on this, I want to know what that justification is?

It's far from irrelevant as you try to dismiss the question when your whole argument is based on that.
-IF- you think that you are deserving of $10 and that means so much to you, then frankly I would have to dismiss you as being extremely petty and a mean spirited scrooge without credibility.

-IF- You think that amount should be $500, then your ignorance and lack of reality would also remove any credibility you have in the argument.

It's not irrelevant to specify what you feel you are entitled to when you are asking said artist for compensation and their next logical question would be " How Much?"
I could not think of a more relevant question when it's exactly what you are demanding as satisfaction.

Maybe I am putting the question to you poorly, let me try and simplify it for you...
I want to use one of you images as inspiration to paint a picture from to sell to a client/ at an art market/ from a local restaurant.
How much do you want to let me paint a picture of your photograph?

Now surely you are not going to argument that is irrelevant when it's the whole basis of your indignation?

Do you even have a figure in mind if someone asked and offered payment or is this whole thing a smoke screen to justify what becomes more likely that you are in fact mean spirited and just trying to screw with people by imposing conditions or fees you know they would never meet?

Time to put up or shut up on what it is you really want.



Jul 07, 2017 at 03:25 PM
Colin F
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


glort wrote:
WRONG!
The artist does not want the picture at all! They merely want to draw inspiration from which they will then invest their own considerable, skill, time, effort and money to produce a totally and completely different end result.


I've underlined the part that you are insisting upon, which is NOT what I'm referring to. It is perplexing why you do this. If they want a "totally and completely" end result (dwell upon those words and their meaning for a second or two) then they likely wouldn't be wanting the image in the first place. If they were to create something from it that was indeed "totally and completely" different, then they likely wouldn't feel the need to ask permission.



Jul 07, 2017 at 03:42 PM
Colin F
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


glort wrote:
I really don't know why an artist would approach a shooter to use a pic when they could google so many I'm sure are similar and you fail to demonstrate that is incorrect.


Your not knowing why an artist would approach a shooter to use a pic is irrelevant. The fact is they did/have/do, so what then are the terms of agreement between the owner of the image and the artist. Are all of the artists who have agreed to pay the photographer an agreed sum out of their minds because they could have done so without paying?


The message you are clearly sending here is don't pay any shooter the professional courtesy of asking (for whatever reason that may be) to emulate one of their pics, either just do it or Google something else even just for the arse-covering exercise you can point to that as the image you drew inspiration from if they do find out.

It could also be said that you are sending the massage to all photographers that your images are not worth anything and that they should all be given away for free (except if you're a wedding photographer of course).



As for the compensation amount, how in the hell is it irrelevant? It's far from irrelevant as you try to dismiss the question when your whole argument is based on that.

No, my whole argument is not based on that. It is based on whether AN amount of compensation is warranted or not in such a transaction where the one party who is asking for something will be then selling that thing. Very simple.

Your level of anger and contempt is rather unpleasant to have to deal with here. I mean, do you talk to people in person like this?









Jul 07, 2017 at 03:54 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



dmcphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


This has been an interesting thread, though a little too contentious for me. No one is required to follow any of this advice so just do what you like. IMO its perfectly reasonable to ask for compensation whenever your work is used by someone else to generate money. After thinking about all of this I came to the conclusion that mentioning copyright law is fairly pointless since anyone asking permission is probably at least somewhat aware already. I also think equipment and other costs involved in making a particular photograph are irrelevant. It is very possible to create a good and unique photograph with very modest equipment, including a cell phone. The harder a photograph is to repeat the less its technical quality, and thus the equipment used to make it, matter. That's especially true when the photograph is reproduced as a painting. No painter cares about lens aberrations or sensor noise.

If a person is asking to use a photograph to make money, that person obviously sees some value in it. The question is how much the reference image is worth to them. If it's a very unusual image and the painting and prints of the painting will sell for a healthy price, it may be worth quite a bit. OTOH if it's a more common image and the painter is selling work at break-even prices it may not be worth much at all. In setting any price for this kind of use I think it's good to take all of that into account, but that's impossible without more information. After getting additional information from the painter you might just ask for a print of the painting as payment. Nearly all artists who sell paintings also sell prints. That's cheap for the painter and might be nice for you to have. OTOH if the painter is charging thousands for the painting and hundreds per print, you might want monetary compensation. With those thoughts in mind I again reworded the OP's post below:
---
Thanks for your interest in my work. I appreciate your asking permission to make a painting from my photograph.

If you plan to make a painting from this photograph that will not be offered for sale, and no prints made from it will be offered for sale, you may use my photograph at no charge.

Appropriate compensation is required for commercial use of my photographs. If your work is made for sale please provide some additional detail including the selling price for the original work, the number of prints to be made from it, and the price of each print. With that information I can reply with a reasonable quote.

Thanks again for your interest.
---



Jul 07, 2017 at 05:58 PM
mdude85
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


Colin F wrote:
this would be the gist of it:

Thanks for asking to paint one of my photos. As you likely know, it is indeed illegal to paint a photographer’s photo without permission, so I appreciate you asking.

Getting that photo required considerable effort, likely some travel, and the purchase of over $25,000 worth of camera gear, so my terms are as follows:

If you sell your paintings, we will need to discuss the size, quantity and the price that you will sell it for, and come to an arrangement for compensation.

If you plan on only painting only one for yourself, and not for


...Show more


That seems like a rather unusual and incendiary email. For one thing, it is not necessarily illegal to paint a photo without permission, although it usually is. (I would also be hesitant to use the word "illegal" because to me it doesn't accurately convey that it's a violation of copyright law). If you went into a store to inquire about the cost of an item, only to be told by the salesperson, "I'm glad you asked, because stealing is illegal!", I'm sure you'd find that a bit odd.

For another thing, most talented painters invest lots of time, effort and money into their craft, just as photographers do.

If I were a painter and I received this email, I would politely say no to your offers and move on. Not because I would not want to pay you, but because your demeanor would not encourage me to work with you in a business transaction. Aesthetically-pleasing photographs of landscapes and wildlife are quite literally a dime a dozen these days.



Jul 07, 2017 at 06:05 PM
Colin F
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


mdude85 wrote:
That seems like a rather unusual and incendiary email. For one thing, it is not necessarily illegal to paint a photo without permission, although it usually is. (I would also be hesitant to use the word "illegal" because to me it doesn't accurately convey that it's a violation of copyright law). If you went into a store to inquire about the cost of an item, only to be told by the salesperson, "I'm glad you asked, because stealing is illegal!", I'm sure you'd find that a bit odd.

If I were a painter and I received this email, I would
...Show more

Yes, but again, this is why I added: "It might need to be softened a bit with some word-crafting"




Jul 07, 2017 at 06:20 PM
mdude85
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


Colin F wrote:
Yes, but again, this is why I added: "It might need to be softened a bit with some word-crafting"



If by "word-crafting" you mean deleting half the copy, then sure.



Jul 07, 2017 at 06:34 PM
Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


Colin, you raise some interesting points that I wanted to address further.

Colin F wrote:
It merely drives home the point to the artist that what they want for free, required something of value on the part of the photographer, be it time, skill, travel, gear, whatever.


But if you don't have the right to prevent the artist from re-interpreting your photograph, the artist isn't unlawfully free-riding, right? As many (myself included) have discussed at length, the law in this area is anything but clear, and the enforceability of a copyright will turn significantly upon whether there has been actionable copying in the first place. If there was such copying, was there any valid defense to such copying? And how were you damaged by it (unless you pursue statutory remedies... if in the U.S., you'd better make sure you register your images with the Library of Congress if you want those).

Colin F wrote:
I've underlined the part that you are insisting upon, which is NOT what I'm referring to. It is perplexing why you do this. If they want a "totally and completely" end result (dwell upon those words and their meaning for a second or two) then they likely wouldn't be wanting the image in the first place. If they were to create something from it that was indeed "totally and completely" different, then they likely wouldn't feel the need to ask permission.


I don't agree with this point. Most forms of expression are inspired by pre-existing works, and various aspects of the U.S. copyright law recognize this. I imagine few copyright regimes prevent significant imaginative re-interpretation of original works, though the law really varies across jurisdictions on this. But artists always have and always will rely heavily upon reference (photographic or life). In the art-centered industries in California, the process of "photo-bashing," wherein a whole reference file of downloaded images is used to embellish or construct a finished piece of concept art for a game cutscene or environment design, is very common. Pro artists are as adept at using Google Image search as they are with Painter, Photoshop, or Procreate. Far from the verbatim copying of a "grid," most digital and traditional painters in this mold completely re-interpret (transform) photographic or life references. But they still need the references.

Colin F wrote:
Ok, so you agree with the principle, and that's what I was getting at. Although, there's another gray zone, for there is a wide range of income among the artists wanting to use one's image, so where does one draw the line?


In my view it really boils down to what it is you want - is it the compensation, the satisfaction of knowing that no one is free-riding on your work, or something else? A few forms of painting appropriation that I think present a decent case for monetization are:
1. Where an artist uses a purely mechanical filter, like an artistic effect, to "convert" a photo into a digital painting. I think this is a good case for seeking some compensation (in the case of re-sale) because the artist is visibly free-riding on your photograph while contributing little of his or her own time, skill, or vision in re-interpreting it.
2. Where an artist reproduces your photo verbatim in his/her own work in such a way that most of the work's visual impact comes from your photo, rather than the artist's additions or transformations. But see Cariou v. Prince, 714 F. 3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013) (holding in favor of the painter, who in that case painted over enlarged copies of the photographer's work).
3. Where an artist uses a "grid" and seeks to reproduce your photo exactly, and then re-sell the painting, I would ask for a percentage, and scale the percentage based upon the expected resale value of the piece, or the typical price the painter charges for his/her paintings.
For anything else, I personally would not ask for compensation. But YMMV.



Jul 07, 2017 at 09:27 PM
secondclaw
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


I am not a pro, so I probably shouldn't be commenting on this topic. But, I have been asked many times by artists to make paintings of my works, at least stuff I posted online. I am a firm believer that art generating more art is a great thing, and if someone is inspired by my work to the point they want to create their own based on it, it's fine by me.
I just state two conditions:
1. Make sure to post the work publicly, so others can enjoy and be inspired by it.
2. Send me a link to finished work.

So far nobody abused - as far as I know - my conditions. And I used to have so many requests I just posted a note below the images that people are free to use them for derivative work, and listed the two conditions. Every so often I get a new link in comments.

But, since I rarely sell photos, I probably don't have the right frame of reference to contribute more, though discussion had been pretty interesting.



Jul 07, 2017 at 10:56 PM
Colin F
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


Thanks for the well-reasoned post Arka.


Jul 07, 2017 at 11:19 PM
glort
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


Colin F wrote:
Your not knowing why an artist would approach a shooter to use a pic is irrelevant.


Seems to be your answer to everything you don't want to acknowledge or address doesn't it?
Every body elses points are irrelevant.
This one I agree with, it is. Curious you take the time to address this yet you dodge the direct and HIGHLY relevant questions questions though. Is that because you don't have the answers to your own arguments or you don't want to admit the answers?



It could also be said that you are sending the massage to all photographers that your images are not worth anything and that they should all be given away for free (except if you're a wedding photographer of course).


Yes, it could be, but I think that would be recognised as the spin doctoring and twisting of what I have said to try and create an argument that was never made. A common tactic with people whom want to argue a flawed position and defend it when called out.



No, my whole argument is not based on that. It is based on whether AN amount of compensation is warranted or not in such a transaction where the one party who is asking for something will be then selling that thing. Very simple.


You already stated that you believe compensation IS warranted. I'm not arguing whether it is or not. I very clearly put the question to you, If a painter wants the to use the picture for inspiration to create a work to sell, How much you going to charge them for it?
There is no ambiguity there, it is a clear question which you are going out of your way to avoid giving your answer to.

The fact that you refuse to even go near an attempt to answer this question indicates to me you KNOW the amount you would seek is either petty and not worth anyone's while which would make you look like a scrooge for even bothering to worry about it, OR, you would ask for an amount that would be laughable in order to massage your sense of superiority with these people.
Your attitude throughout this thread starting with the response you first posted ( word crafting or not) would substantiate this opinion.

What makes me flat out laugh, is that you haven't even attempted to give a sensible answer to my question. If it were legitimate belief, a sensible and satisfactory answer may have been " I'd have to talk to the painter and see what it was they actually wanted to do with it" . Another reasonable answer may have been " It would depend on what the painting was going to sell for"
Other reasonable and logical answers may have pertained to the size of the work, whether it was a private or corporate commission, for on spec sale, to be exhibited in a gallery etc. These would all be things that a legitimate person would think in relation to receiving compensation yet you never went near anything like that.
To me that's extremely telling of your real position.

Your ducking and weaving of any logical and pertinent answer undermines any credibility for your position and the ( thin and unsubstantiated) argument you have made.

Anyone that was so believing of compensation would know what they wanted in return yet all you can say is you want something but what that something is, is irrelevant.
IE, "I am not going to give my work to someone who will profit from my work, I want to be paid for it but what I want to be paid is irrelevant."

Fine. I'm sure most painters will be happy to give you a Dollar in order to pacify you need for compensation and recognition, which , by your own decree will be acceptable because you have specified the amount is irrelevant as long as you get something.... which you are unable yourself to specify.



Your level of anger and contempt is rather unpleasant to have to deal with here. I mean, do you talk to people in person like this?


Oh geez, now you have been called out and not won the social acceptance and support you thought your post was going to get, you're not going to try to play the poor hard done by victim card now are you?

Anger? Yes, I spose it is. I always get angry when people whom want to play tiddlywinks in the sand pit I earn my LIVING from want to come in and shit in it which causes my sandpit to be looked on less favorably or undermines it's value. I get especially annoyed at those that do this because they have another sandpit to make their money from. They come into the one I share with other full timers with all sorts of egotistical and stupid ideas because they don't have the experience and knowledge or balls to make it in the real world of the sandpit that I and others eek our living from not just use to massage our ego's. I have no problem with the people that are realistic and professional but others.... not so much.

Obviously not everyone fits that description but if the shoe does fit..... Don't get all upset and indignant because you don't like the truth being spoken.
Contempt? Always for those that make illogical and irrational arguments they cannot substantiate and cast my full time industry in a bad light and are laughably flawed.

Talk to people like this in person? No, if we were face to face in a social setting and you tried this on with me I would have been far more direct and cut you down much faster. I never say things to people in written word I would not say in person, I don't have to consider any forum rules face to face.

It would seem to me your position is not only seen as being flawed by myself but others whom have mastered the art of Subtlety better than I also have issues with your position.
As such, my stated opinions of your position and motivations remain and will be given the disdain they have well earned.
Any further backpedaling and spin doctoring will only strengthen that position and be rightfully dismissed.








Jul 07, 2017 at 11:42 PM
Colin F
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


Sorry glort, I attempted in my reply to your first rant to thoroughly touch on all your points, but you ignored the vast majority of those comments, and you've continued to display your anger, and abrasiveness, so I have no interest in wasting my time dialoguing with the Australian version of Yosemite Sam.

This has been like having a chess match with a pigeon who knocks over all the pieces and takes a crap on the board and flies back to his flock and claims victory.



Jul 08, 2017 at 01:34 AM
glort
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · "CAN I PAINT YOUR PHOTO?"


secondclaw wrote:
I am not a pro, so I probably shouldn't be commenting on this topic.


I disagree. As a photographer that has had requests made of their work, being a pro is not at issue. I'd guess that the majority of people asked this probably are not pros because there are far more enthusiasts shooting the sort of work that I envisage would be in demand.


But, I have been asked many times by artists to make paintings of my works, at least stuff I posted online. I am a firm believer that art generating more art is a great thing, and if someone is inspired by my work to the point they want to create their own based on it, it's fine by me.

Well said and I admire your selfless and generous spirit. I'm sure we have all been in a situation where someone cut us a break in allowing us to get the images we wanted, seems fair to me to pass that same goodwill on to others.


I just state two conditions:
1. Make sure to post the work publicly, so others can enjoy and be inspired by it.
2. Send me a link to finished work.


More than fair and reasonable requests. I'm sure no one would have a problem with them and in fact feel more than happy to comply.

So far nobody abused - as far as I know - my conditions. And I used to have so many requests I just posted a note below the images that people are free to use them for derivative work, and listed the two conditions. Every so often I get a new link in comments.

Why would anyone not be happy to share their work and show you what they have done?. It was probably their intention all along and they were further inspired by your goodwill towards them.
Knowing what a helpful position you take and the apparent difficulty painters have with shooters over this, I'm sure many would see your work as a source of inspiration and want to honor it through their own visions and creations.

But, since I rarely sell photos, I probably don't have the right frame of reference to contribute more, though discussion had been pretty interesting.


Again I disagree.
I don't think selling pictures is the issue. I make my living selling pics so if anyone should be arguing for compensation it should be me as I have the most to loose.

My position is probably complex but a few thoughts in no particular order.....

The people that have made the few requests I have got over the years are not part of a corporation or company, they are just people like me that have faced difficulties and ignorance before in trying to persue their chosen art and the love thereof. They are not out to make fortunes and to get anything for their work is probably a lot tougher than me trying to get paid for mine.

If they use one of my pics for inspiration and make a buck or 1000, good luck to them!
It wasn't my skill, efforts, investment in gear or anything else that is responsible, it's their skills and efforts in making the sale as much as painting the picture. I have hundreds of thousands of pictures I could copy from or what ever you want to call it, but I sure as heck don't have the skill to make any of them more than a waste of paint and canvas.

The pictures I have been asked about, bar one of a figure nude, were all "there" and had been done a million times before.
Even the Nude was pretty " Done" so I didn't feel like I had any right to ask for anything or deny permission for something all I did, as much as some will take exception, was press the button.

The "compensation" I could expect to get is not an issue to me. $10 or $100 won't change my life or make any difference to me. I rather rack the points up in the good karma department and have teh ego trip of knowing for once I did something nice for someone.

If someone takes the time to ask me to use one of my pics, I don't want to make them regret it. I also don't want to repay their courtesy as coming across as a self centered arsehole, be I one or not.




Jul 08, 2017 at 01:55 AM
1      
2
       3       end






FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password