Journal entry for October 4, 2001

Today's summary: Rant on why not to copy from other people's photos.

I hear this a lot from other artists, especially those new to the field.
"Is it okay to copy from photos to make my artwork?"

Copying... it's not just about whether people 'feel' it's right or not, although the ethics are important.

Copying without permission is also illegal. And it's not fair to the original photographer. (another obligatory disclaimer: but this doesn't constitute Legal Advice!)

That's what 'copyright' is. The 'right' to 'copy'. Of course artists look at other people's photos for reference, and sketch. They might be trying to learn more about say, the anatomy of horses, or the way flower petals fit together, or how a hummingbird's wings look. I'm pretty sure there's nothing wrong with _learning_ from photos.

In my opinion, when you start copying the actual, specific, identifiable image from copyrighted material into a final product, that's when it's not fair. Even when people copied from the masters, they did that as a learning experience (and ONLY as that). Copying the old masters is only legally acceptable nowadays because there is no copyright on works that old.

Saying 'But I could have gone and taken that same photo myself, so it's okay to copy it' isn't fair either -- if that's true, then go take the photo yourself. Or get rights to use it from the original photographer.

That might sound overly harsh but it's true legally, and I also think it's true from a moral standpoint. (But this isn't legal advice! I can't officially give that...)

Part of being an artist is being able to use your powers of observation to learn about your environment, and then apply it creatively. So... be creative. If you're learning from reference photos, then take what you learn to make something original and different as your final piece, using those lessons as guidance. If you really can't paint from imagination or a concept in your head, and you don't want to pay the original photographer, then get public domain photos and paint from them.

Basically: no. It is not 'okay' to copy, especially for a finished work. It's not 'okay' if you know you're copying, but you deliberately changed just enough to avoid getting pinned legally. To overexaggerate, that's kind of like saying 'Is it okay to steal from Mom's wallet if I make sure she doesn't notice?' or 'Can I lie to my wife as long as she never finds out?'.

Perhaps that first example isn't so much of an overexaggeration. What it's saying is, "Is it okay to steal from the photographer's wallet as long as I make sure she doesn't notice?" basically. Because that's what it is, when you use a copyrighted photo without buying the right to do so, even if you do a convincing job of hiding what you're really doing.

There's PLENTY of ways to get reference photos that you CAN legally copy without ripping the original photographer off. Maybe some public domain photos aren't as dramatic or 'special' as the one you saw in that magazine or calendar, but... that's why people get paid to make those photos, and that's why they're copyrighted. Because they're worth something to the original photographer, and it took effort.

As for how original your "original" work must be, there is no one answer, no percentage of the source material you have to change -- despite many rumored claims to the contrary. For me personally, it's not original if I _know_ I'm copying elements, compositions, or details from somebody else's work, period.

I'd like to think that art is NOT an exercise of hiding how I cheated somebody else. Art is supposedly a method of self expression, not expression of how I can splice together the best elements of somebody else's hard work.