| Wed 14 Jan 2015 - 19:51|
So this person from my class earns so much money colouring on top of photographs of celebrities.
I mean Andy Warhol did it too for lots of money.
And it's so not fair because according to GASR this is against copyright. Yet Andy Warhol is famous for it?
So clearly it's not against copyright to colour on-top of a photograph or trace a photograph.
I thought it was copyright too.
Then I had a friend say that viewers care about how realistic and good it is. If you do cartoon work sure someone will like it but if you can make photographs look artistic then stop being jealous.
BUT ANYONE CAN COLOUR ON TOP OF A PHOTOGRAPH. I COULD EASY BE RICH BY DOING IT. BUT I DON'T BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL AND JUST NOT ART.
Or are you telling me heavy referencing/tracing is allowed to be sold?
And if it isn't allowed.How can I get her reported?Click here to see her illegal heavy referencing/tracing work.
It's making me so angry ! My friend is sticking up for her heavy referenced work and always says I am absolute crap because I can't make anything look really good like that. IT'S HEAVY REFERENCED. IT'S NOT ALLOWED.
And she says sarcastically "Then contact the art police then. Who cares if it's traced or copied or whatever. It looks good unlike yours."
My art tutor saw it and said it was good. It's like Andy Warhol.So if heavy referencing isn't illegal to re-sell, and is allowed why do you guys not let it on GASR?Though I really think it is and even if it wasn't I don't believe copying someones photograph is art. How do I report against it?
| Thu 15 Jan 2015 - 0:07|
- Copyright.gov wrote:
- "Copyright Registration for Pictorial, Graphic, and Sculptural Works Copyright is a form of protection provided by U.S. law to authors of “original works of authorship,” including “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.” The owner of copyright in a work has the exclusive right to make copies, prepare derivative works, sell or distribute copies, and display the work publicly. Anyone else wishing to use the work in these ways must have the permission of the author or someone who has derived rights through the author. A work is automatically protected by copyright when it is created, that is, “fixed” in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. Neither registration in the Copyright Office nor publication is required for copyright protection. There are, however, certain advantages to registration, including establishment of a public record of the copyright claim."
Under US Copyright laws, even unregistered works are not considered public domain, but you are more likely to be able to prove ownership of the work by registering the piece(s) officially with the Copyright Office. Only the creator of the works has the right to sue. This is why you see a lot about DMCA laws on sites like IMVU.
The exception to all of this Fair Use. Basically, you can't copyright an idea, and you can be influenced by the art piece. This is very limited, and do not protect you from being sued by the artist.
Technically, she could still be sued, but she could appeal the case under Fair Use. Fair use does not support copyright infringement, but it protects artistic growth and freedom. She could use the word within her piece, but she can easily be sued by the original creators/photographers. Some businesses (like Disney) will claim the art in a heartbeat in a court case if money is being made and the image is still the same. Others businesses are more lenient until a certain point.
In summary, GASR likes to protect what our community creates as well as protect the rights of artists outside of our community. While technically some instances are not illegal, they are unethical and frowned upon.
**Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor studying law, so take this with a grain of salt.
Here is a similar thread were we had some good discussion and explanation (that is much easier to understand than mine, but mostly focuses on fanart, but has some of the same ideas behind it).
| Fri 16 Jan 2015 - 6:52|
Actually your art teacher must be shit cause even in the art world they are really against heavy referencing / tracing.
It depends on the artistic context.
Also there is a difference between doing it for person use and selling it.
On GASR, if you post heavy referenced works (like showing off your stuff) because you just like heavy referencing things it's fine.
(even if you don't own the picture you're heavy referencing)
It becomes another matter all together when you try and sell those things for a profit and claim to have painted them from scratch.
Andy Warhol didn't claim he drew the picture of Marilyn Manroe
Also a significant number of the prints he made where of photos he took
| Fri 16 Jan 2015 - 12:44|
I know he didn't... And you're telling me things I already know Bedlam and Kore. I did a higher in Information Systems and know the copyright designs and patents act. And I wrote an essay about Andy Warhol.
I know my art tutor is wrong but I'm just a student. I can't exactly give a lecture to my tutor on how selling drawings of celebrities is unethical.
I said doing it for personal use is okay. But selling is not okay. And that's what she's doing.
But I guess there's nothing to be done. i warned them and I got the entire class against me and she walked up to me and was like "Um the art tutor says it's okay to sell drawings of celebrity photographs for re-sale. Soooo."
And it got me so angry because he's giving false information on legislation.
I was just wondering if there was a way to stop her doing it.. But I guess I just have to let her do it. So many draw from a reference of a celebrity and make it exactly like the photograph and sell and get away with it because the photographer that took the picture of the celebrity isn't exactly going to find their work unless they're famous. And only the owner of the art can make a claim.
But I just hope I missed something in the copyright act that could get someone reported. I find it so unfair how millions don't get caught for this and earn so much money from fraud.
She even blocked me from "her illustrations" page. So I couldn't do anything.
| Wed 21 Jan 2015 - 23:36|
Yeah I really wish I could help you out D;
I remember one time i was going to an art festival and there was this booth that was selling pins made up of various pictures I had seen on deviantart / all over the web
And it's just ugh little people can't do much to stop people like that
I just thought your message was meant to challenge GASR's notions of copyright (which if you plan on using this forum will not change)
I wish I was more well versed in laws about this sort of thing if they exist but I have no idea.
I wish you luck though :c