Winning a Prestigous Contest with Questionable Artwork

[madster]

We all love the stories about artists and works that are not really theirs...

What about using stock photography to make a painting, entering it in a contest, and then winning the Grand Prize, money, and having your painting part of a travelling exhibition?

Read this (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=dad20f2a-afb8-422a-a45c-3906169aa648) and this (http://www.manuelavalenti.com/blog/2008/09/do-artists-have-to-prostitute-themselves-to-sell-art/).

The ONLY remaing web images (which may not exist for long - She's trying to eliminate any and all discussion and images from the web) are here (http://www.americanwatercolorsociety.com/diva/divaPOP/divaPOPgold_img.htm?i=http://www.americanwatercolorsociety.com/images/2008_exhibition/AWS_Luxenburg.jpg&c=&a=&h=&n=1&x=) and here (http://www.americanwatercolorsociety.com/images/2008_exhibition/ASW_AD_Lunenburg.jpg)

The stock photos used for that painting are here (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=2339560) and here (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=1222217).

Now, there are a lot of questions to be answered ~ Did she purchase the stock photos for use? Supposedly the ShutterCock agreement (http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml) prohibits commercial usage, which one would assume includes contest entries, but is a contest prize the same as commercial use???

Also, is the age old question of the usage of photos taken by others than yourself...In today's world, that fine line is getting blurrier by the minute. What if you take a photo in the same spot and time of day as someone else? The photos are virtually indistinguishable, and you make a painting from the photo...lawsuit?

Assuming innocence before proven guilty, what do you think Ms. Luxenburg should do (if anything?) Her "reputation" is currently taking a beating. Deserved?

~M

[stoph]

*shudders* that photo of the "artist" standing with a friend, beaming at the camera... makes me feel really seedy. while the photo's being taken, i can picture her saying through gritted, vasaline'd teeth, "hahaa, i won because my son taught me to use the interwebs and i feel no remorse whatsoever!" :nohope:

now where's that torch/pitchfork emote when you need it..

[Black Spot]

I'm just thinking, 'why did she win?' because the chap looks like he had a ton on pancake foundation on his face.

[Equality72521]

now, ive seen some crazy lifelike paintings, but those have been with slower drying mediums, not watercolor. I cant say for sure if its a hoax or not though, but with her removing all images of the painting and not even acknowledging the question of it being a hoax, when under the circumstances, it is a legit question to ask...its does not set right with me. I think shutterstock.com may have a suit against her if they try.

Another little thing, i recognized that guy from my sociology textbook for school, kinda funny.

[Junck]

Perhaps a demonstration of her in-progress works might easily prove the legitimacy. Though it wouldn't surprise me one bit if it did turn out to be fraud. People will do anything these days for attention/money.

Either way, there's a pretty prime example of how to use reference the wrong way.

[aph]

Surely the real question is who the hell picked that as a winner?

[Anid Maro]

Hmm... well they are stock photographs, so one would think that said pictures are open to this sort of use. Though I must concede that her painting is dangerously close to being a "derivative work", which makes it's own legal scruples aside from whether or not this counts as a commercial work.

Furthermore I do find it strange that for such a major competition that she couldn't shoot her own photographs of a bum and an eroded fence. I work off of pictures from whatever magazine/book/website I can find... for personal use. I'd be pretty leery myself on using such material for a public contest. Besides, while it's a hassle for just regular studies, I'd think for a contest entry I'd be willing to do a little personal footwork.

Whether or not she simply photomanipulated those images and made a glicee print of them... shouldn't one be able to tell by looking closely? Especially considering this is supposed to be a watercolor? I mean really, I'd think a trained eye could tell the difference upon inspection... if she really is a fraud this'll be pretty embarassing for the American Watercolor Society.

One thing is for damn sure though, trying to hide the evidence and blowing off all inquiries ain't exactly the best way to deflect accusations.

[Mirana]

I agree with Anid. I saw lots of prints which were obvious giclee with glaze or paint washes to disguise them in framing. One would think a long standing society would get the difference.

As for if it were totally painted, but the image a rip of reference? Saw LOTS of those too. Especially in the elder artists who did solely tourist/gift shop type work. In that culture it seemed totally acceptable to find a neat photo and copy it as closely as possible (just look at those horrendous "Art Instruction School" commericals). I personally find it stiff and boooooring. Why buy a painting that's a carbon copy of a photo? That's not why you buy a painting.

[Jacob Kobryn]

I've used stock photos for customer work... is that against the law???

[Kman.]

I think it depends on whether or not the images are royalty free or not.. If the images are not free, you are supposed to inform the artist of their use, or if theres an agreement stating you cannot use them commercially, then using them might land you a lawsuit.

I'd like to see the work up close before making any personal judgement

[Samurai_em]

http://www.manuelavalenti.com/blog/2008/09/do-artists-have-to-prostitute-themselves-to-sell-art/
Needless to say this is a clear case of not only copyright infringement at its maximum but an unfortunate and unnecessary case of fraud. Since Mrs. Luxenburg has won many awards for her photorealistic paintings the question arises, are the other images on her website also taken illegally from other photographer’s websites? Apparently yes. Other photographers have found some of their works on her website and even a self portrait from another photographer who claimed never gave out her rights either.

[Equality72521]

is anyone else having trouble finding images of her paintings when her name is googled? not only the one in questions, but all of her paintings she has put on the web are now down. Anyone think this just adds fuel to the fire about her photo manipulation?

[Dstudio]

I dont understand illustrators and painters who want to paint photographs as .......photographs, it would bore the crap outta me! It just tells me that the artist is not very creative and I feel sorry for them not being able to come up with something truly original.

[Wooly ESS]

There seems to be two issues in play here.

1. Did she mechanically duplicate a photo and pass it off as orignal work?

2. Did the photo she used belong to someone else?

If the answer to 1. is yes, then in my opinion she is artistically dishonest. If the answer to 2. is yes, then she is also legally dishonest.

In addition, if the photo she copied is widely available to the public for viewing, then she's not too bright either!

[valentiART]

I've used stock photos for customer work... is that against the law???

Hello everyone. Since my website has been mentioned in this board (sorry tons of hits from this board and the discussion is quite interesting) and since apparently I'm the only website still standing mentioning the issue of this very evident case of fraud, I would like to clear the waters if you guys let me about copyright and royalties which are two different things.

I've been in the business of art for most part of my life and I know the legalities of been an artist upside down, and unfortunately as you read in my article I've also been in the position of the one been blatantly copied twice.

A stock photo by definition can be used by anyone WITHOUT profit, meaning you can use the photo to enhance your website, an article even a flier or any printed material as long as you don't earn any money from it and you paid/requested the necessary permissions to do so.

When you pay to use a stock photo that doesn't mean the rights were automatically transferred to you and that you can reproduce, print for profit, paint a painting out of the image or use it as part of another painting of yours in any way, that means you pay the artist for certain uses (print material, fliers, etc., website or article enhancement) that wouldn't generate any money directly for you, details which are clearly stated on any stock photo website and that you accept at the moment you purchase the photo. The rights of that image still belong to the artist and if the artist finds the image to be misused in any way, he/she has the right to act legally for violation of copyright.

In the case of this person from Canada, she not only violated the terms of use under the stock photo company from where she took the images, she violated the copyright of the artists as she didn't request the necessary permits to reproduce the photos in the form of the painting that was entered in a contest and for which she won a money prize, which apparently happened countless times before since after this incident many photographers found their images reproduced as original watercolor paintings by her.

These two instances are evident, right up to here she has on top of her head 2 obvious serious violations that could cost her up to $150.000 per image in court.

Then there are two more violations pending over her head, one been if the painting for which she won the price is indeed a painting or a print. If the painting was really done by her hand which I doubt for many reasons, she gets kicked out of the WAS and the prize she won withdrawn, mainly because the composition is obviously not hers as she plain took two images that didn't belong to her for which she violated copyright and company policies and put them together, basically saying to the WAS I lied, it was not my composition, my reference photos nor my inspiration. If she printed out the image and made it look like watercolor (which I have the feeling is what is happening) or enhanced it with watercolors (there was a case a couple of years ago on eBay, a guy who did the exact same thing) then she faces fraud charges, gets kicked out of WAS, the price is withdrawn and I can't imagine the consequences, not mentioning the lawsuits by all the photographers who discovered their images on her now taken down website.

In any way you look at it she looses and a lot, not mentioning the humiliation this is causing her and her family.

One thing that surprises me is the fact she also belong to the Federation of Canadian Artists, from where quite a few copycats have come out recently. If I was the FCA I would be sure to check very deep into the people we represent and start kicking out the bad apples before it's too late.

I honestly wish this goes public to teach all those cheaters out there a good lesson.

MV./
www.manuelavalenti.com

[Demo]

i have to admit i used an immage off of google with out checking weather it was royalty free or not or whatever... painted it with water colours and enterd it in a competition and won...am i a terrible person i was only 15 ......... (cry) imm sorryyy

[madster]

Well, according to the artist herself in this article (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/photo+photo+work+work/1013529/story.html#Comments), "a photo is a photo, and art is art..."

REAL profound. Her Gallery Dealer's attitude is even worse...

~C

[TASmith]

"Why buy a painting that's a carbon copy of a photo? That's not why you buy a painting."

I've seen a guy who did it really, really well, and it was fun to stand back, see the photo, then get up close and see the watercolor texture and fine brushstrokes. ... But I've only seen it once.

I don't have a problem with an artist doing anything they want so far as subject, process, creativity. Art can be an outlet and if that's how someone wants to work, whatever. But then GIVE CREDIT, where credit's due, and don't try and make a profit off anything illegal. If you're gonna work from photos, don't be embarrassed about it. Just say it outright, give credit, get permission, etc., and let people think whatever they want.