Copyright

[Téa_Passer]

Sorry if this has been posted before. Please feel free to move/merge this if necessary :)

This question has been bugging me for a long time: how would one use internet or printed images for reference? In other words, how much likeness is considered legal?

Currently I don't have a camera to go and shoot things for myself or not enough money to pay models, so I have to use the web or mags for reference pictures. And there are a bunch of free stock floating in the web, but sometimes it's not enough or not pretty enough, so to speak. Sometimes a particular picture in the National Geographic is exactly what you need, but then what if your pursuit of artistic expression leads you to shame or even disaster?

[Baron Impossible]

I don't think there's a definitive answer. Depends how close your copy is, what the copy is of, what you intend to use it for, etc. If you start selling Mickey Mouse posters then you're buggered, so to speak, but if you reference some girl or guy out of a catalogue nobody's going to notice or care. Best thing is to be on the safe side and make some changes in your reference and not reference anything too obvious.

[Flake]

Sometimes a particular picture in the National Geographic is exactly what you need
Widely circulated images by famous photographers are a bad idea.
Currently I don't have a camera to go and shoot things for myself
Someone you know probably does though, borrow that. It doesn't have to be a great one either.
A crap camera shooting exactly what you need is more useful than a beautifully shot ten megapixel image that's not quite what you had in mind...

Another addition to free stock can be artists figure reference books/CDs, your library may have a couple and they're legal to use for your work.

Like Baron Impossible said though, nobody will notice if you swipe some pic from a clothes catalogue if you change it up a bit.
The cover of National Geographic, Vogue, Rolling Stone or similar, well that could be a problem down the line..

[Baron Impossible]

Oh aye, I forgot to say that what I sometimes find useful - and often untraceable - is referencing from movie DVDs, especially for poses. If you don't reference a well-known actor in an obvious way it's likely nobody would ever know and even if they did, they wouldn't do anything about it. It's useful for those poses you can't do yourself. The references aren't detailed, of course, but I personally like it that way.

[Grief]

draw from life and use a mirror.

if youre just doing explorations and sketchbook doodles go ahead and copy existing work. you are not selling it and there's really nothing wrong with a copy so long as you are not making a profit off of it. i have the right to draw my own mickey mouse picture, why wouldnt i? but when i paste that drawing onto a t-shirt or CD album and distribute it and/or make some coin off of it, things change.

there is no equation for "if i take photo X and change it by ____ % it will now be my own" it differs from situation to situation. its best to err on the side of caution and not risk using copyrighted material in your own professional career, unless you have obtained permission from the owner of the source of the reference.

if you plan on selling the work play it safe and get permission from the original owner, or better yet use your own photos for reference. get a camera, its by no means an unrealistic goal.

hopefully arttorney will post some legal knowledge for us.

oh yea and read this thread:
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=123346

[arttorney]

Well, the first thing I was going to post was "Gee whiz! You can get a disposable camera down at the grocery store for six or seven bucks."

Since my name got brought up in a serious way, though, I will add that there is not, in U.S. copyright law, what we call a "bright line rule" defining the boundaries of what you can get away with. You just need to stay out of the generally bad neighborhoods described above (meaning don't swipe obvious images in an obvious way). I would hope that, as an artist, you want to create and make the image your own rather than slavishly copying it. (If you use the disposable camera method, the image is your own anyway.)

This is basically the same as what Grief was saying. The thread he linked shows how to go about pouring yourself into the image and make something new with it. Nobody can tell you how much change, as a percentage, you need to make. That inherent uncertainty, plus the things you'll learn about composition and cropping, are what make the disposable camera idea so useful.

[So-naa]

I was going to do a similar thread, but this might be a place to post it!!
o.o I was recently reading articles on " Plagiarizing art " and found many artist that are beloved ( some by me as well ) had same/similar poses as other artist and sometimes used photos to reference.
One very popular artist Luis Royo was one of these folks that people were in an uproar.. What do you think about this :

fallen angel by Luis Royo (http://www.sensual-arts.com/students/tracepages/trace09.htm)

And another example: Luis Royo (http://s303.photobucket.com/albums/nn123/palammbo/?action=view&current=tyler.jpg)

For me, I don't work well in a vacuum and once found that I had the exact same pose as another girl and we hadn't seen these pictures previous before each other. They were only slightly different and of course had different contextual meanings.

[Téa_Passer]

Grief, thank you for the thread link, that's what I was looking for!

Oh aye, I forgot to say that what I sometimes find useful - and often untraceable - is referencing from movie DVDs, especially for poses. If you don't reference a well-known actor in an obvious way it's likely nobody would ever know and even if they did, they wouldn't do anything about it. It's useful for those poses you can't do yourself. The references aren't detailed, of course, but I personally like it that way.

DVD's are a good idea, I also thought of this at some point, but then I'm big on details, so this didn't work as well for me.

Well, the first thing I was going to post was "Gee whiz! You can get a disposable camera down at the grocery store for six or seven bucks."

Since my name got brought up in a serious way, though, I will add that there is not, in U.S. copyright law, what we call a "bright line rule" defining the boundaries of what you can get away with. You just need to stay out of the generally bad neighborhoods described above (meaning don't swipe obvious images in an obvious way). I would hope that, as an artist, you want to create and make the image your own rather than slavishly copying it. (If you use the disposable camera method, the image is your own anyway.)

This is basically the same as what Grief was saying. The thread he linked shows how to go about pouring yourself into the image and make something new with it. Nobody can tell you how much change, as a percentage, you need to make. That inherent uncertainty, plus the things you'll learn about composition and cropping, are what make the disposable camera idea so useful.

Purchasing the film and developing it is what I'm worried about. I had 2 film cameras which broke, and I still have 5 rolls of film undeveloped. So I'd like to get a digital camera later on.

And Grief's thread link does explain it very well.

Widely circulated images by famous photographers are a bad idea.

Someone you know probably does though, borrow that. It doesn't have to be a great one either.
A crap camera shooting exactly what you need is more useful than a beautifully shot ten megapixel image that's not quite what you had in mind...

Another addition to free stock can be artists figure reference books/CDs, your library may have a couple and they're legal to use for your work.

Like Baron Impossible said though, nobody will notice if you swipe some pic from a clothes catalogue if you change it up a bit.
The cover of National Geographic, Vogue, Rolling Stone or similar, well that could be a problem down the line..

Clothes catalogue and figure ref lit are good ideas, thank you!