The Theft Of An Image
What photographer doesn’t like to have their work admired, or serve as inspiration for someone else? What photographer hasn’t used or sought inspiration from other peoples work? Indeed, I would imagine that most photographers at one stage or another would have copied another photographers work, if even just to learn how a certain look or feel has been achieved. But where does inspiration become theft? And when boundaries cross between a photograph and a painting are things more or less clear cut?
I am in the privileged position that my “day job” affords me the luxury to indulge my photographic hobby. I do not look to make any financial gain what so ever from my work. But just because I do not look to make money from my images, does not mean I do not assign a value to my photographs. If I am not gaining financially from my work, I certainly don’t want someone else to 
Yesterday I was made aware from Chloe-Jasmine (the model in the shot above) that artist Sam Shaker had used my image as the basis for one of his paintings. This was carried out without Sam having sought my permission, so the first time I became aware of this, was when I saw a camera phone picture of the portrait, posted on my FaceBook wall.
Whilst this sort of thing goes on quite a lot, the norm and indeed the right way to do it, is for the artist to seek the consent of the photographer. And indeed, in the past artists have contacted me, seeking my permission to use my images and in virtually every case, I have been more than willing to oblige. An example is the image of Kayt-Webster Brown above that was created by TheSigner over on Deviantart. Indeed when I found out initially about the painting, my initial reaction was to be flattered. But it is a different story entirely when a commercial artist, who sells oil canvases for 1000′s of pounds, copies your work without consent and then passes it off as their own, with no credit given to the original photographer and no offer of financial recompense.
Once I discovered this infringement, this theft of my work, I was assured (again by the model, not the artist) that the work would not be exhibited without my consent. However, this morning, I found the work displayed on an online portfolio for the artist, clearly marked for sale This prompted me to contact the photographer and what surprised me was their reaction. They seemed to feel there was nothing what so ever wrong with them stealing my work and that there was not theft of copyright.
Subsequent to this conversation, the artwork has been removed from the portfolio site (an admission of guilt??), but a lot of his other work are also based on the work of other photographers. This prompted me to contact Mario Testino’s office relating to his version of the portrait of Prince William and his fiance and they have since replied, thanking me for pointing out the infringement…. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that one.
What is also very interesting about this just how closely the painting resembles/matches my original photograph. In the image above, I have overlaid the painting on top of my portrait (using the eyes as the reference for alignment) and set the opacity to 50%. They are remarkably similar. Obviously I was not there during the painting of the portrait, so I can not comment with any authority, but this certainly looks to me to be an “over painting” of the image. Where the photograph was some how sketched/traced exactly. Does this make it any more of a theft than it already is?
What do you think?
I find photography as an art form is dealt with as a nonsense – anyone with a “good camera” can take a photograph, surely? You know the stories and I’m sure you’ve received requests based purely on your “good camera”. But it is nice now and again to see people oblivious to copyright and the effort to produce such stunning imagery finding out that there is more to it than the camera and also having to accept that they are wrong. Nice going Ciaran…especially the follow up actions!
That is a mean thing to do. I is clearly overpainted. What kind of an artist does someone like that think he is. Just a living copier. I have no idea if it is possible to claim your copyright. But is shows how “dangerous” it is to put your photos on the net.
This is a case you noticed, how many cases are there unknown?
I certainly appreciate that putting images on line, you are opening yourself up to image theft. Every day, I see images of mine on other sites (some not very savoury). I don’t have the time, energy or motivation to chase every single one down and just accept that this is the nature of the internet.
Of course we can protect ourselves to some extent by limiting the resolution of the images. Other photographers try and discourage image theft by using hideous water marks or fancy web coding to “disable ” people saving images.
But when it comes to commercial artists blatantly copying your work and then selling it on, I will do everything in my power to stop it. I would LOVE to see the outcome of the investigation into infringement from Mario Testino.
Very sad to see this happening. This also raises the question about another William & Kate image that looks very much like it’s a screen grab from a Sky News interview….
, although permission may have been sought in that case.
Ciaran,
You know how I feel regarding image theft. Most offenders do it in the knowledge that the original author will not /cannot follow up. Unfortunately watermarking is a necessity – it won’t stop the practice , just slow it down. Plagiarism is rife and we could counter it in some small way by publishing the offender’s names on social websites or wait for one to come into the radar (within the EU) and sue. Gather enough photographers to place messages on the offenders site and cause them to crash. Complain to PayPal / Visa and close their accounts. When the income stops they will begin to feel some pain !
Infringement does happen all too often. I have been made aware of a third level educational institution using some of my pictures for educational purposes without permission. I was flattered at first, but at the same time annoyed that my permission was not sought. So I put pen to paper and by return have been assured that they would not be used again, however I did not receive an apology. They did write and ask would it be possible to use the images on an ongoing basis, I agreed enthusiastically, pointing out that all it would have taken was a simple request at the outset to avoid formal letters in both directions. I think they got the point … Case closed. C
I think it’s worth placing a discreet but noticeable copyright notice on any image you place online. It won’t stop the image theft, and if you do it along the edge of the image so as not to detract from the image too much, it can easily be cropped out, so you may ask what’s the point? Well for one, you’re asserting your copyright in the image and making it known that someone can’t just take it. And if someone does take it, they are making a conscious decision to steal the image and when they are found out they can’t just claim that they “didn’t know” and it strengthens your case against them.
I have had this a lot with painters copying work I have been featured in (photographers work) I had to put a note on my profile to say I was happy to be asked but permission needed to be granted FIRST. Most people do contact me, and I point them in the direction of the photographer. Or sometimes they have agreed it with the photographer and then show me the image to get the final okay, which is nice even though I’m not anything to do with copyright.
But sometimes I find images that are complete copies, with no credits or links, I enquire to check permission was granted and it turns out not. They say they will ask, and apologise as if they didn’t realise. They then go on to write an email to the phoptographer – ‘I hope you feel honoured about our collaboration’ in some cringy artist talk, which invariably enrages the photographer with their assumptions. Of course most people like the paintings, but how self absorbed to expect someone will be ‘honoured’ when you are admitting you’ve stolen someone’s image for your own artwork. I have had to get really angry at some artists, and the work has been taken down, I feel bad because most of the time I do like the work, but on behalf of the photographers I have to make it clear it is not acceptable to ask AFTER it has all been finished and displayed to the world. Even if they are not selling the image, they are still using it as promotion and own personal gain if it is anywhere on their portfolio. These people give a bad name to artists and it’s a shame because they just spoil something that could have been wonderful.
Thanks for all the input. The whole thing is a great shame. Had the artist sought permission before hand, then none of this would have arisen. As it is now, he has assured me the painting will be destroyed by painting over it and he will provide proof of the same. It’s a petulant reaction but c’est la vie.
Thorsten, I had always resisted the urge to brand my images with a copyright but I am now seriously rethinking this. Certainly I am stil going to resist large water marks, but a discreet copyright along the bottom/edge of my images may soon be making an appearance.
Holly, it’s pretty sad that this is so endemic. As Alan said above, and as was certainly evident in my discussion with Sam, painters seem to be blind to the fact that photography is also and art form.
That is terrible that someone has to stoop to that level, well done for the follow up.
Its makes you wonder how many people have gotten way with this in the past, both with your work and with photographers in general. Sites like flickr, 1x.com and maybe facebook to an extent, while providing a platform for photographers to store and showcase their work, also provide great material for the likes of this painter to copy and make money from. But its not just this photographer. How many web designers,advertising agencies or graphic artists have stolen images from the internet knowing the likely hood of ever being caught it so remote it is not worth considering… and if they are caught.. what is the penalty… NOTHING. Will adding a copyright water mark to an image really stop people stealing an image ? its unlikely.. but i do hope it stop’s some people… IF i found one of my images being used for commercial gain could i afford to take that company to court? could most people? probably not.. but should it be done.. most defiantly. If you walked into that photographers studio or gallery and walked out with one of his paintings would you get more than a letter saying you should have asked before stealing it ? ya.. i think you would
Hi Ciaran
I’ve followed your blog for quite a while and felt compelled to post a reply to this topic. In my opinion this is a clear case of plagiarism and congratulations on your actions to follow it up and challenge it.
I own an art gallery and have a look at the recent case of alleged plagiarism brought against a Belfast artist, Martin Bradley for the original artwork of American artist Tim Rogerson.
Not to play devils advocate, but what about the other way around? If a photographer sells a photo of another artists piece without permission…is that fair game? What if that piece is a sculpture or a statue? What if it’s a painting, or even architecture? Should a photographer seek permission before selling a photo of it?
Trust me, I am not defending this, I have had photos of mine reproduced in paint, sometimes with permission, others without. I still have mixed feelings about it though.
@cmpx: I don’t think it’s any more or less excusable a photographer copying another artists work, than the other way around. I think record shots are “ok”, but I have big problems people taking straight forward shots of things like statues and then entering them into competitions or for publishing. This is effectively robbing/copying someone elses art.
@Niall: I’m sure it goes on quite a lot. Every day I see my images on other websites (tineye can show some interesting results). But I don’t have the time, energy or motivation to chase these down. Where I will put up a fight is where I see someone selling my work… a different matter entirely
stealing… robbing… i think your are wrong. you’ve propably never been robbed before. robbing is an act of violence. the only harm here is done to your ego. money-ego-money-ego this is what makes the world go round? how do you care? you’re saying, that you don’t need to sell your stuff. so what? let them copy-rip-off-adapt-remix. even if they are bada**. enjoy you’re creativity – nobody can take that from you – just you yourself. enjoy making great photos, enjoy beeing their muse. don’t be closefisted…
I couldn’t disagree with you more.
If you left your car door open, or car window down and someone stole a phone from it, is it not stealing simply because it’s not violent?
Theft is where someone takes someone that does not belong to them, without the permission of the owner. This is EXACTLY what Sam did to me.
And if it was an ego thing, I would have been only too delighted to have MY image hung in the NPG.
yes that phone-from-car is a theft. it’s lost. but you still have your image. it was not stolen from you. someone created a new picture from your picture. i think, this is a big difference.
i think your ego is hurt, because it’s *not* your pic hanging in the NPG, but someone elses. someone, you think doesn’t deserve it, because *you* made the original artwork.
So now you’re changing the definition again? Your first argument was based on violence and now you are suggesting another definition of theft.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with what the law considers (copyright) theft: http://www.copyright.org.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works.en.htm or http://painting.about.com/cs/artistscopyright/f/copyrightfaq5.htm
Funnily enough, I tend to agree with the law. And the NPG also agreed with me, disqualifying the shot from submission due to this theft.
i’m not a native english speaker, but according to my dictionary theft = stealing things from others, robbery = stealing things while threatening someone with a weapon. both words were used by you in this discussion.
derived art is a wide field. virtually everything can be cleared by lawyers. but that has nothing to do with art. art must be free. everything else is secondary.
So it would be OK for me to take a picture of a painting and sell it as my own?
This is blatant and outrageous theft, obviously. Thanks for pointing it out.
Going at a tangent – I hope all the outraged photographers are paying the Performing Rights Society or using copyright-free/licensed music on their websites and slideshows?
I think that’s a very fair point Andrew. Similarly, you would hope that the photographers complaining about copyright are equally diligent when it comes to having fully paid up/licensed versions of Photoshop etc.
I’d imagine the model/subject of any copied image would have a lot more legal leeway, no?
@Andrew, photographers just shouldn’t use music on their websites. Regardless of licensing, it’s just wrong. No matter how good the images may be, playing music will almost always drive me away.