After...

[Julianne Lowman]

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

[Jeff Fuchs]

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.

[Mike McCarty]

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.

[Tom Edgerton]

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."

[Michele Rushworth]

I second Tom's advice. Well put.

[Julianne Lowman]

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.

[Tom Edgerton]

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

[SB Wang]

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.

[Steven Sweeney]

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.