Photographic Reference
A Story In Three Parts.
Part 1
So I had a few free moments last week and went to check out Katherine Tyrrells blog Making A Mark. She is one of the few blogs that I keep tabs on for business purposes. One of her recent posts regarding the latest winner of the Gold Medal Award for the American Watercolor Society. Or rather the furor surrounding the winning painting which was a hyper realistic painting derived from two royalty free online photos.
It is a stunning painting, and it is easy to see how it won. But once you have the knowledge that the painting was created using two photos from someone else. And though it is painted exquisitely, from what I understand all she really did was put them together relatively unchanged. The question then becomes should it have won?
I had one of those “Damn, I wish I had done that!” moments.
Part 2
When I first started working on my lambs painting I was uncertain what color palette I should work in. My reference photo was a cold blue gray and had no life. Finding contrast in black faced sheep is easy, but for two all white lambs . . . urm, not so much. So I went online to see how some other artists handled a similar situation. Turns out I got no help. It is apparently a rare thing to paint a close up of all white sheep.
But I did run across a sheep portrait done by a daily painter. It was stunning. The color and brush strokes, the cropping and sheep’s expression were all really well done. I had one of those “Damn, I wish I had done that!” moments.
Later on in my rummaging I came across the stock photo she had used for her painting. Her painting was exactly like the photo image. Yes, it was her color sense and brushwork but everything else, the composition and cropping were the same. She didn’t so much a flick an ear in a different direction. I suddenly lost a whole lot of respect for the artist.
Now I am not saying that she did anything wrong. She may well have gotten all the copyrights and stuff. What lost me was all she really did was copy something someone else had done. Yes, she infused her painting style but that was the extent of it. Even if it had been a photo of a full sheep and she then cropped creatively it would have then spoken more of who she is as an artist.
Part 3
One last story to drive the point home. Recently I signed a contract that said I was the legal copyright holder of all my artwork being submitted. And that any lawsuits raised in regards to copyright infringement were my responsibility. I signed it without a single qualm because every painting from long before I turned art into my profession, (with the exception of two) are derived from my own reference photographs.
I have spent decades building my photo library and fortunes on film and developing. But I rest easy knowing that if someone tries makes a claim against me, I have my own reference material to back me up. It does mean I am limited to what I paint, because I have to collect it. But I also get a sense of pride knowing that I participated in the process all the way through.
The moral of the story:
If you have not already done so, start to build your own reference library by taking your own photos. Old National Geographics or any other mag, (no matter how obscure) don’t count, except as illegal.
Also, if you feel you must use someone else’s photos, know the difference between royalty free and copyright free.
Note: Of the two paintings I created using someone elses photos. One was a fellow artist and friend who kept saying I should paint from a couple of shots she took. So I did.
And the other was a portrait of a horse that had passed away. I had used a professionally taken photograph for my primary reference. But before I agreed to use it, I got a letter from the photographer (which I still have on file) stating that it was okay to use his photo and any derivative works were mine to copyright.
Tags: business, photography
Thank you for this informative post. I still do use photos from wet canvas and the pet portrait and wildlife forum for references, on occasion — these are stated as dedicated for artist use. There was a controversy however about a wet canvas photo being used for a painting that won a Colored Pencil Society of America award — their rules require the artist to use their own sources exclusively.
Mostl pet portrait artists state that once they do someone’s pet from the photo supplied, the copyright for the portrait belongs to the artist — which is confusing — but the source needs to agree.
Much of my artistic training banned use of reference photos at all (much of it (not all, though) also banned realism, LOL). I am sensitive about this photograph issue, as I found it refreshing to share doing a photo on wetcanvas as a fun and educational exercise. I know your point is about copyright and I will stay aware. However, I hope all this controversary does not lead to considering art done from photos as lesser art or nonart, as I have seen many people saying that sort of thing lately in forums, also. Angela
Hi Angela, It is a fine line about photographic reference and opinions do vary. Not only about using photos but as to the fact so many artists trace the image via projection. Most of the “realistic” artists I know do this as that is how they were taught to do it in school. (School meaning the art college where they earned their degree.)
My guess is your training that banned photos was either life drawing or for non-representational works?
I think the difference with using the wetcanvas photos for an exercise is that is what it’s intentional purpose was. (and of course that you didn’t become famous for it and make millions.) If that should happen, something more might rise from it’s usage. So yes, my post was about copyright issues. As someone who creates work for resale owning copyrights to what I produce is my number one priority.
But as to photo usage, people ask me ALL of the time whether I use photos. Of course I say I do. I mean seriously. . . if a WCP piece takes 6 weeks to complete exactly how am I supposed to do it without reference. In general I find that it’s the artists who work non-representatinally who make the biggest stink over using photographic reference. They don’t need them so no one else should either.
There is definately a bias, even among my own art group between representaional work and non-representational. I accept it as part of the whole world I live in. There are galleries who tend to prefer the contemporary and abstract and though I attend their shows I never expect an award.
On the flip side, I get awards every year and I have been offered numerous solo exhibition from many well respected art centers and galleries, (some even that my art group applied to as a group and got rejected) so don’t for a minute believe that everyone shares that opinion.
Angela I just got my latest issue of ArtCalendar magazine today and it is all about doing commission art, including an article or two on pet portraits. Not sure if there is any “real” information there but thought you might want to go get a copy (or peruse one) at your local Barnes&Noble. They do have one article online if you want to check it out. artcalendar.com
Thank you again Mona, for much food for thought. I guess art schools go through many phases — I never knew they advocated projectors.
When I first started college, as an art major — later changed, we had life drawing — but most of the professors at that time, believed only the nonrepresentational could be art in modern times. I remember some fellow student, who already could draw quite well, being mocked by the professor for saying Andrew Wyeth was his favorite artist. Long time ago, but something that kept me from showing anybody my work for a long time.
Thanks for the article information, I went to the site, and will certainly look for that magazine at Barnes&Noble. Angela
You know, I am not sure the college was saying “go out into the world and use projectors.” I think they had life drawing classes. then later in class thought in order to save time trace it, and that just became the norm. People got comfortable with the idea. We have a art college within an hour from here and so I know many graduates. I was totally surprised that projecting was part of the curriculum.
Ooh, all interesting stuff. I wonder how I stand with my Bob Marley piece? I mean, I obviously can’t take my own photo because the man is dead! I found one online to use, but the finished result is obviously not a lot like the photo! (if you look you’ll see what I mean!)
Interestingly though, I’m happier with the Yoof painting I did than the Bob Marley one, simply because I know it is completely original because it was painted using a photo of my nephew. So there’s something to be said for using your own reference photo’s. My 9 year old nephew doesn’t have many fans yet though so I’m not sure how popular that painting will be in comparison!
Very cool painting as usual! I am afraid to say that though I don’t know what the original photo looked like I am pretty sure that your likeness could get you into trouble if anyone was watching. Very few people actually prosecute especially if you aren’t making money off the image. That being said I know of an an equine photographer that goes after infringers with a far less derivative looking piece of work.
My point being there is always somebody looking to set an a example. Just be careful.
I really like your newphew painting as well. I think you get a feel for him.
Glad to see you back.
Been searching the blogs for you, hoping all was well.
Oops. I was actually hoping to make some money from this one. Not serious money, just a bit of paint money from selling prints to the local lads. Oh well, I have faith that you would write to me in prison
Thanks for looking out for me. I’m glad you like the paintings
Well, I would say the next time you paint someone famous using someone elses photo, perhaps you shouldn’t post it on the internet.
Justa thought.
Other than that, “You go girl!”