Is it legal to draw and sell a legally downloaded image? [Archive] - Artist Forum

: Is it legal to draw and sell a legally downloaded image?


Loux
02-10-2017, 03:56 PM
Hi! I'd like to apologise for my english, I'm Greek. Well... I have legally downloaded an image for free and I want to draw it... I also want to sell my artwork, but I don't know if it's legal-even if the image is legally downloaded...Thanks!

Steve James
02-11-2017, 12:31 PM
Do you have written permission to use the image? Has the original photographer been dead for more than 75 years? Is the photograph your own? If you answered 'yes' to any of these questions then you probably can't legally sell a painting based on the image.

You say you legally downloaded an image. If you paid for the image you just need to look at the licence to see exactly what you are allowed to do with it.

Mel_Robertson
02-12-2017, 02:12 AM
If you paint it exactly the same then it's probably not legal, but, if an artist taking a photo off the net and painting it precisely as they see it is copyright infringement, then is the inverse not also?
if I see a tree, river, photograph, person, animal I want to paint I paint it and no one will ever stop me.

If your in doubt just paint your own interpretation of the photograph.

abt2k15
02-12-2017, 05:43 AM
If your in doubt just paint your own interpretation of the photograph.

this does not automatically make it legal. most likely the contrary. you need to check what kind of liscence you purchased when you bought the picture or if possible just ask the owner if you are allowed to do what you want to do with his/ her image.

Steve James
02-12-2017, 12:39 PM
OP, can you explain exactly what you mean by "legally downloaded"?

What license did you purchase when you downloaded the image. Your rights as regards reproduction will be explained right there.

Mel_Robertson
02-13-2017, 12:15 PM
this does not automatically make it legal. most likely the contrary.
Actually.....

"Fair use deals with the concept that even though a work is copyrighted, and the artist, photographer, or writer has exclusive rights, that certain uses do not constitute copyright infringement. Some artists are under the misconception that once a work is out there in the wild, that any use requires permission."
Linkbellevuefineart (https://www.bellevuefineart.com/copyright-issues-for-artists/)

Also, facts have shown that unless your a multi millionaire you can't get copyright justice, an example of this would be how copyright law even failed Barrack Obama RE his HOPE image. Learn more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_"Hope"_poster)

abt2k15
02-13-2017, 03:26 PM
yep if you want to know more you can just watch one of the many videos or articles from that lawyer who owns deviantart ;)

the link with the obama incident just further proves that its not easy to get fair use going since its up to debate what exactly you copied etc and there can be no general rule. hence -like the guy experienced- you cant just do whatever the f you want with other peoples work and just say its fair use even if it is. looks like instead of not permitting the further distribution of the image they were ok with a cut of the profits. lucky fairey. leeches of someone elses work and gets famous and gets away with it.

not sure why i get the disagree vibe when you post proof to what i said :)

Mel_Robertson
02-15-2017, 11:24 AM
You've missed the point totally, he did get away with it, Obama couldn't do a thing about it the copyright laws failed him......
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

abt2k15
02-15-2017, 04:39 PM
On February 29, 2012, Fairey pleaded guilty in a New York federal court to destroying and fabricating documents during his legal battle with the Associated Press. Fairey had sued the news service in 2008 after it claimed that the famous poster was based on one of its photos. Fairey claimed that he used a different photograph for the poster. But he admitted that, in fact, he was wrong and tried to hide the error by destroying documents and manufacturing others, which is the source of the one count of criminal contempt to which he pleaded guilty.[4] In September, Fairey was sentenced to two years of probation, 300 hours of community service, and a fine of $25,000

not sure what i miss. enlighten me~ wtf has obama to do with it other than being the model?

A judge urged a settlement, stating that AP would win the case.[39] The AP and Shepard Fairey settled out of court in January 2011. In a press release, the AP announced that the AP and Fairey "agreed to work together going forward with the Hope image and share the rights to make the posters and merchandise bearing the Hope image and to collaborate on a series of images that Fairey will create based on AP photographs. The parties have agreed to additional financial terms that will remain confidential.

Mel_Robertson
02-17-2017, 02:06 AM
not sure what i miss. enlighten me~ wtf has obama to do with it other than being the model?

The point is money talks & he's worth $12.2 million so if he can't get justice with copyright law what do you think the chances of anyone else are.

abt2k15
02-17-2017, 04:06 AM
Actually.....

"Fair use deals with the concept that even though a work is copyrighted, and the artist, photographer, or writer has exclusive rights, that certain uses do not constitute copyright infringement. Some artists are under the misconception that once a work is out there in the wild, that any use requires permission."
Linkbellevuefineart (https://www.bellevuefineart.com/copyright-issues-for-artists/)

Also, facts have shown that unless your a multi millionaire you can't get copyright justice, an example of this would be how copyright law even failed Barrack Obama RE his HOPE image. Learn more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_"Hope"_poster)

you trolliing me? obama has nothing to do with it at all. the law didnt fail obama. i even quoted where its written black and white. not sure why its so hard for you to accept reality. maybe start reading the post instead of just replying? one final time extra special since you are extra special too :

THE. ARTIST( ART THIEF ). DID. NOT. GET. AWAY. WITH. FAIR. USE. CLAIM. PERIOD.

shepard fairey appareantly was thinking "hey i can take whatever i want - just do whatever i want with it and claim fair use!" (like this is literally what you suggested) and ( surprise ) obviously he could not.

Mel_Robertson
02-17-2017, 12:50 PM
haha so the guy was fined $25,000 but he made millions off it.
he also raises thousands & thousands every year for the foundation ART FOR LIFE online auction, the primary annual fundraising effort that helps support thousands of underserved New York children but you wont read about that in the news, then you ask yourself who's the bad guy?

anyway you may call me a troll but your clearly missing the point so lets end the conversation it's not going anywhere.

abt2k15
02-17-2017, 06:14 PM
oh it already ended a few posts ago since you just brought up irrelevant stuff the last posts- i merelely was polite enough to give you a chance to correct or further explain yoursel which you chose not to~ you are not trolling you just have a problem to admitting being wrong but thats ok for me i dont mind. you can babble all you want but my initial post was correct and you even proofed it with actual events lol. doesnt have to do anything with bad or good guys.. im glad you finally realized that tho.

edit : also you dont know the deal he made with the copyright owner of the original piece so even thats just your fantasy lmao.

Eddieblz
03-02-2017, 07:31 PM
I've always have contacted the photographer. Never had a problem. Except when you start talking politics.