After...
 

I know the proper way to sign a Master Copy is, Your name After (the name of the original artist).

I was recently told by a photographer to put his name on the painting because it was his reference photo that was used. I find this difficult to do. He also said that anytime the painting is used in an advertisement or in my portfolio, that he receive equal credit. I told him that I would not be placing his name on the painting, but he still required photo credit for any print or web usage of the painting.

Has anyone else had this happen?

Yet another reason to use your own photos and paint from life.

I believe that he is absolutely entitled to make this request. I understand your dilemma. The paintings I made before I knew I was infringing on copyrights have now been discreetly hidden away. If you object to sharing the credit, do not use or promote that painting.

Best
Lisa

Maybe one of the pros here can give you guidelines for a written contract that would spell this out before the work is done.

Photographers are artists, too. When you work from someone else's photos, it becomes a collaboration. Still, I've never heard of this kind of request.

You might want to take a look at this excellent thread which goes into many aspects of the release question. Especially deeper into the thread.

Put simply, you can't use someone else's source material without their permission. Under copyright law, it's illegal. This use can be negotiated, of course, but most times expect to pay a fee. They may also require a credit line, as in your case. And get any agreement in writing, in advance. If you try to negotiate this after the fact, the photographer or artist can ask for anything they want, or prevent you from using it.

Also by law, you must get permission to reproduce someone's image from the person themself or their agents--not just permission from the person who took their picture. This doesn't just apply to celebrities or public figures, it applies to anyone. And it doesn't matter if they're gone. Elvis may be dead, but Lisa Marie and Priscilla are very much alive and so are their lawyers.

If you are in the portrait business, you must know the law. If you circumvent it, and are found out, you are exposing yourself to major lawsuits and heavy fines that could put you out of business. Don't expect to hide it by working "under the radar." It's a small world, especially if you post your work on the web.

Be professional. And be smart. Nobody will accept "I didn't know."

I second Tom's advice. Well put.

Thanks everyone for the great responses!

I did do a portrait about a year and a half ago where I was required to put the photographer's name on the painting under my own. That felt really weird, but that was part of the deal.

This truly is a collaboration and I very much respect the talent and skills required to create an excellent photograph.

The photographer in this case will not require his name on the painting, but in any print or reproduction, "Resource Photo by..." will be included. Wonderful deal. No fee. I'm very happy.

I am also very aware and proponant of signing releases. Get it all in writing! I used to publish a small newspaper for the pageant, talent and modeling industry and would constantly be running articles about copyright issues and releases.

As of yet, I have not been required to pay a fee for the use of a professional's image. They are usually more than thrilled with the compliment.

Julianne--

Sounds like you're pretty well up on these issues. And if your photographer isn't charging a fee, it is a good deal.

I know in this post I sound like a noodge, but honestly, in an earlier incarnation as an illustrator I saw colleagues here decimated by copyright suits and tax penalties. I actually had a friend tell me, "I never charge sales tax," and he was proud of it! It later came back on him.

Folks, you've gotta know the law and follow it. The information's out there.

Best to all--TE

A district judge told me that If a client insists to use a photo, you may ask client to sign a paper which states that they take the responsibility. This will protect you from copyright accusation.

Unfortunately, SB, the peril would remain. All that such an agreement would provide would be in the nature of a "hold harmless" provision, meaning that in the event of legal action against the artist, the artist would have the right to attempt to recoup his losses from the client. As between the copyright owner and the artist, the agreement between the artist and the client would be without effect.

Anyway, a client who would insist that the artist commit a copyright violation, with or without the promise to indemnify for any liability, is a client to walk away from.

Statute of limitations.
 

Steven, or anyone elso who might know the facts......

How old must a picture be before the copyright expires? I've done many pieces from photos that were in excess of 40 years old, and really have no way of finding the photographer or their heirs.

Thanks

Renae
 

I did not see an email. Could you write me, I have a gallery question about your town.-Tim

ReNae--

My reference published in 1987 states that copyright extends for a period of the artist's (or photographer's) life plus fifty years. If the work was created anonymously, under a pseudonym, or as a work for hire, the copyright term extends for 75 years from the work's first publication, or 100 years from its creation, whichever is shorter.

So in most cases, a safe assumption would be that the copyright would be still be in effect unless the artist or photographer has been dead a long time.

I know that this all was discussed by Congress again in the 90's, but I've been remiss in not getting a more current reference. Thanks for reminding me to do so.

Anyone got a later word on this?

Ah, the wonders of the web. Here's a link to the website of the U.S. Copyright office with the recent laws explained.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc

In particular it states that the law now covers works for the author's life plus 70 years. In the case of work for hire it is now 95 years or 120 years, depending on whether the image was published.

This site also explains much more about what is and is not copyrighted and what does and does not protect someone in wanting to use another person's work.

Thanks, Michele!

I had a feeling that copyright protection had been extended since my reference was published.

This is a terrifically helpful link.

The 17-page print-out of the information at this copyright site has been twice posted on our studio bulletin board in the past month (no, not by me -- there are other suspicious lawyer types in the building), and has yet once again gone missing. I assume that it's because copyright law is such a fascinating page-turner -- I know I can hardly put it down. The bulletin board "borrowers" were probably up all night with it, and beside themselves as well (right where they belonged).

But anyway, all artists and other creative folks owe it to themselves to acquire their own copy -- preferably not by stealth -- for a quick read and then ready reference in their art files, not only to avoid copyright infringement liability, but to understand their rights in their own creations.

And since this has slightly skewed the thread away from the topic, I'll just add that most of the world, and its inhabitants, have not been photographed, either exhaustively or at all, and even if they have, it wasn't with our own unique perspective, intuition and talents. It's worth creatively considering that trove of subject matter, and skipping the photograph copyright hassles entirely. Or at least just insist on working only from your own photographic creations.

That'll keep the lawyers out of it, and as the legally-beset Martha says, "That's a good thing."

Steven has a good point about working from your own references. I personally would never agree to put a photographers name under my own on a painting... ever. I would however gladly agree to give them full credit, in a permanent way, on the back of a painting right in there with the materials list etc. as that is the appropriate place for basic source material in my opinion.

Carl, how do you notate this sort of information? On a backboard? On the linen itself?

Michele,
The back of a panel (which I prefer) or a lower corner of the canvas on the back, small.

Usually the Title, a number that identifies it and lets me know the date, pertinent materials. It's done in hard enough charcoal writing and is fixed with fixative. That's where I'd agree to put a photographers credit.

In the end it