Request by artist to copy photographs

Anyone had artists asking to copy your photos for their paintings.

I've had a request and after the initial shock of being asked I'm not sure how to respond. I guess that they could just copy the photographs without asking and I would probably never know. So provided they were not going to be sold on for commercial gain I don't see the harm and it's good of them to ask.

On the other hand, I've spent a tidy sum on equipment and put in a lot of time and effort researching/travelling to locations. Why should I just let someone copy my work.

I'll get back to them and ask what their plans are but just wondered if anyone else has been asked this.

 

An interesting one, I think if it were commercial I would ask 5-10% to go my chosen charity/cause. Then make sure I was mentioned somewhere.
Non Commercial I would let them

 

I don't think I've ever been asked by an artist for such re-use. Generally, I have a simple charge schedule for commercial exploitation of my photographs, which I apply or waive depending on the specific circumstances. The charge schedule is based on the size in sq cm of the final published output. If the re-use is not for commercial exploitation, then there is no charge. Have a look at Creative Commons licences http://creativecommons.org/ which may be a useful way of licencing your works.

Steve
(WSW)

 

It's an interesting question. The copyright of your original photograph belongs to you until such time as you choose to dispose of it , by sale or by any other means the choice whether to do so or not is yours. Likewise with a painting created by an artist. Does the artist who has contacted you want permission to work from your original image, or has your picture already been published somewhere and the artist saw it in a book or magazine? If that is the case and I'd received some form of credit or even payment from a publisher then like you I would probably say 'thanks for asking, OK by me'. As you say, what's to stop an artist seeing someone's photograph and using it as the basis for their painting without the phtogapher ever knowing. Lots of railway paintings are based on photographs and they are frequently published with credits in a form such as 'Painting by ABC from a photograph by XYZ'. Where does the originality rest if a painting is based on a published photographs but the artist has changed the engine's number or livery, for example?

 

I think there are copyright restrictions on going out to recopy a photo. Like on the geograph website viewtopic.php?f=33&t=20423 there was a discussion about this. Several people have been told off for recreating Francis firth photos and the company has asked them to be removed from the site, bonkers if you ask me. http://www.francisfrith.com/

 

Oh dear, then I have to plead guilty. Not to infringing Frith's copyright, though I suppose it would depend on what you intended to do with the picture if you recreated one of their images. That might be difficult for those taken in years gone by. But where's the harm in going to the same locations as in Frith's books to take pictures for personal use? Many's the time I've been out to take photographs because I saw a nice published shot by someone else at the same location. Many railway photographers will admit to having done just that. RM even ran a series which more or less encouraged it. Surely what matters is what you intend doing with the picture?

Is there a lawyer in the house?

 

Thanks everyone for your thoughts on this. I've been contacted again by the artist who says 'personal use only'. In which case I'm inclined to say okay go ahead.

I guess an artist could either set out to make an exact copy of an image or could change any number of details to produce an abstract almost unidentifiable from the original image. Where would you draw the line (pun intended) as far as copyright goes. As 50002 says the important action seems to be an acknowledgment of the original image by the artist.

Any more thoughts welcome.