I want to create artwork based on copyrighted photos of public figures
September 8, 2011 7:38 AM Subscribe
I want to create artwork based on copyrighted photos of public figures. Can I do this?
(YANML) I have an interest in working on a graphic novel as a hobby. I am thinking of something set in the modern world and that would maybe include some characters that are actual, recognizable people. If I were to base my sketches on actual photographs (photographs I do not own the copyright to), would that be okay? I mainly need photo references for faces, and would not simply be recreating the entire photo. I do not intend for my drawings to look photo-realistic; they will be stylized.
On the one hand, I don't want to infringe upon the hard work of the photographers or the property of copyright owners. On the other hand, I would never have the opportunity to take my own source photos of political figures, celebrities, etc. I am rationalizing using online photo references because the people involved are public figures and therefore their likenesses are hardly private.
Can anyone recommend an online resource that explains the copyright issues associated with adapting photographs to original artwork? (I'm mostly finding crap message boards, and the people answering seem less than credible.) Or, does anyone have personal experience with this type of thing?
(YANML) I have an interest in working on a graphic novel as a hobby. I am thinking of something set in the modern world and that would maybe include some characters that are actual, recognizable people. If I were to base my sketches on actual photographs (photographs I do not own the copyright to), would that be okay? I mainly need photo references for faces, and would not simply be recreating the entire photo. I do not intend for my drawings to look photo-realistic; they will be stylized.
On the one hand, I don't want to infringe upon the hard work of the photographers or the property of copyright owners. On the other hand, I would never have the opportunity to take my own source photos of political figures, celebrities, etc. I am rationalizing using online photo references because the people involved are public figures and therefore their likenesses are hardly private.
Can anyone recommend an online resource that explains the copyright issues associated with adapting photographs to original artwork? (I'm mostly finding crap message boards, and the people answering seem less than credible.) Or, does anyone have personal experience with this type of thing?
Depends on how close you wanna hold your feet to that fire.
posted by jay.eye.elle.elle. at 7:55 AM on September 8, 2011
posted by jay.eye.elle.elle. at 7:55 AM on September 8, 2011
Included for reference: Thierry Guetta (from Exit Through the Gift Shop) sued for copyright infringement
posted by sharkfu at 8:05 AM on September 8, 2011
posted by sharkfu at 8:05 AM on September 8, 2011
All three of the above examples just took the original image and modified it slightly. If you're just using a photo as a reference for a drawing, and the drawing doesn't look like a direct lift, you should be okay.
If you want to be really safe, try and find a few photos (by different photographers) from roughly the same angle, and sort of average them out in the drawing.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:19 AM on September 8, 2011 [4 favorites]
If you want to be really safe, try and find a few photos (by different photographers) from roughly the same angle, and sort of average them out in the drawing.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:19 AM on September 8, 2011 [4 favorites]
the kind of bloop image wasn't "modified" it was created by hand, using the original as a reference.
posted by nadawi at 8:29 AM on September 8, 2011
posted by nadawi at 8:29 AM on September 8, 2011
Yes you can. Yes it's legal. No it's not crystal-clear indisputable, there is grey. No, it doesn't entirely matter whether it's legal or not; anyone can still sue you for anything, regardless of whether they'll succeed.
Simplest advice: If you only use the face (not the pose and body) as reference, and the resulting faces are indistinguishable in style from your other depictions of other people, and you have other depictions of other people - some joe-random characters drawn with your own photos, and different depictions of the same character, and there is lots of art other than just faces, and they are public figures (ie a politician, not an actor, unless the actor were also a high-profile publically politically active), and you don't tell anyone that stock photos were used, then no-one will know, no-one will be able to tell, and it would be difficult to show even if someone wanted to.
Also, use lower profile stock photos - ultra-famous photos are more recognisable, and are a more valuable property that may be more worth it to the right-holder to invest more effort into whatever their perception of "protecting" that value happens to be.
The stakes are high simply because you're betting a lot of hours of your work on this, but I would say you are quite safe. The biggest threat would be if you make such a pile of money that you drew greedy interest, and frankly, that's the kind of problem you wish you had :-)
posted by -harlequin- at 8:50 AM on September 8, 2011
Simplest advice: If you only use the face (not the pose and body) as reference, and the resulting faces are indistinguishable in style from your other depictions of other people, and you have other depictions of other people - some joe-random characters drawn with your own photos, and different depictions of the same character, and there is lots of art other than just faces, and they are public figures (ie a politician, not an actor, unless the actor were also a high-profile publically politically active), and you don't tell anyone that stock photos were used, then no-one will know, no-one will be able to tell, and it would be difficult to show even if someone wanted to.
Also, use lower profile stock photos - ultra-famous photos are more recognisable, and are a more valuable property that may be more worth it to the right-holder to invest more effort into whatever their perception of "protecting" that value happens to be.
The stakes are high simply because you're betting a lot of hours of your work on this, but I would say you are quite safe. The biggest threat would be if you make such a pile of money that you drew greedy interest, and frankly, that's the kind of problem you wish you had :-)
posted by -harlequin- at 8:50 AM on September 8, 2011
Your work might fall under parody, but you'd still have the problem of including "actual, recognizable people" in your work without asking their permission. I'd think you would have to worry about how you portrayed them in your work, or you might get a lawsuit slapped on you.
South Park has a long history of openly mocking real people and institutions, but they've also got a lucrative franchise with a team of lawyers To defend them when Tom Cruise objects to being portrayed as gay, or George Lucas doesn't like being universally acclaimed as a rapist for his latest, utterly derivative movie.
posted by misha at 8:55 AM on September 8, 2011
South Park has a long history of openly mocking real people and institutions, but they've also got a lucrative franchise with a team of lawyers To defend them when Tom Cruise objects to being portrayed as gay, or George Lucas doesn't like being universally acclaimed as a rapist for his latest, utterly derivative movie.
posted by misha at 8:55 AM on September 8, 2011
This is protected as Fair Use under transformational use.
IF you're just using the photos so you can draw celebrities and public figures w/o having to see them in the flesh, I'm sure you're fine. And there's quite a few places to see public domain photos of politicians.
Google Fair Use transformational use.
posted by Ideefixe at 9:17 AM on September 8, 2011
IF you're just using the photos so you can draw celebrities and public figures w/o having to see them in the flesh, I'm sure you're fine. And there's quite a few places to see public domain photos of politicians.
Google Fair Use transformational use.
posted by Ideefixe at 9:17 AM on September 8, 2011
I've never heard of Greg Land getting sued by a photographer. Of course, with him, the likeness issue isn't as obvious, since he's using the photo to represent an X-man, not to represent the subject of the photo as a character.
posted by RobotHero at 9:31 AM on September 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by RobotHero at 9:31 AM on September 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Well, so far nobody has answered either of the poster's questions, although nadawi does point you in the direction of a mefite who has been sued (and settled) for commissioning design work based on a famous album cover despite the likelihood that had his case gone to court he would have won. Other people have pointed out cases where artists or illustrators have been sued for copyright infringement if their work is adapted from a previous image source - as -harlequin- points out, anyone can (and unfortunately more often than not, will) sue. There's a bit of a chicken and egg problem right now- fair use is only determined on a case by case basis when tested in court against guidance factors put forth in copyright law. Given how expensive it is to fight lawsuits many artists decide that even though they'd have a strong legal case to use photo references, proving fair use would bankrupt them.
Anyway, to answer your main question:
Can anyone recommend an online resource that explains the copyright issues associated with adapting photographs to original artwork? (I'm mostly finding crap message boards, and the people answering seem less than credible.)
Overview of Copyright and Fair Use from Stanford University Libraries
Stanford Library's main chapter on Fair Use
As a bonus, a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education that addresses the backward slide of fair use due to a growing reluctance of artists and academics to invoke it- mainly because there's so much fear-mongering and misinformation about the limits of Fair Use (see above).
posted by stagewhisper at 2:21 PM on September 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
Anyway, to answer your main question:
Can anyone recommend an online resource that explains the copyright issues associated with adapting photographs to original artwork? (I'm mostly finding crap message boards, and the people answering seem less than credible.)
Overview of Copyright and Fair Use from Stanford University Libraries
Stanford Library's main chapter on Fair Use
As a bonus, a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education that addresses the backward slide of fair use due to a growing reluctance of artists and academics to invoke it- mainly because there's so much fear-mongering and misinformation about the limits of Fair Use (see above).
posted by stagewhisper at 2:21 PM on September 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 7:50 AM on September 8, 2011 [1 favorite]