Selling a photo for art use

[kathiemt]

I've got an image of a sulphur-crested cockatoo up on a stock photography site. Someone has emailed me asking if they can use it to make a drawing for tshirts. I have no idea what to charge or even what to say to this person.

Do you have any suggestions? I have no idea if they'll only sell 1 or 2 tshirts or tons of them.

[lonni]

Generally people ask to use a photo to make a drawing from as a matter of courtesy as the final image will be more than the required % difference to satisfy any copyright issues, they dont really need to.

Images used on saleable items like tshirts mugs etc attract a higher charge as the person will be making money from your image, but in this case there is a question of is it really your work etc.

I think the best you could do is ask for a credit eg "drawn from a photo by ...."

HTH

[LeeR]

I am surprised the person even asked and suspect that the most you could hope for is a free Tshirt.

[dakwegmo]

Originally Posted by lonni

Generally people ask to use a photo to make a drawing from as a matter of courtesy as the final image will be more than the required % difference to satisfy any copyright issues, they dont really need to.

Is that really the way it works in Australia? Under US copyright law a drawing based on a photo is considered a derivative work and would require a license/release to use.

[gturner]

Originally Posted by dakwegmo

Is that really the way it works in Australia? Under US copyright law a drawing based on a photo is considered a derivative work and would require a license/release to use.

try proving it was your cockatoo they copied!

[Jim Poor]

Not hard in this case since they actually asked.

Originally Posted by gturner

try proving it was your cockatoo they copied!

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by gturner

try proving it was your cockatoo they copied!

If the drawing is from the photograph, chances are it'll look EXACTLY alike. Regardless, unless the photo is under a creative commons, a release is needed. Even in Oz.

I also have to disagree with LeeR. Just because some people do that kind of thing doesnt mean the best the OP should hope for is a free shirt. That's BS.

I'd go for an up-front cost and a % of profits.

[lonni]

It is a grey area that involves Intelectual Property as well as Copyright. I think the issue revolves around the % difference for copyright and the fact that the resulting artwork is the artists IP or under their copyright protection.

Yes there will be similarities, perhaps the pose will be the same, but change the background, open the beak, change the crest slightly, closing the gaps between the feather, perhaps splaying the tail more for example will result in enough difference, the change in meduim will help too.

You can not own the image of cockatoos in general which is where the % comes into play as the artist can say that the image she drew was a made one comprised of the many cocky images she researched and the live studies she made and any similarities are coincidental and unintended, if push came to shove.

I can also tell you that no matter how unique you think your cocky photo is i can find a dozen more just like it. So you can not realy do anything unless you trade mark the photo, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

So unless they take your image, photoshop out the background and stick it on a Tshirt then there is not much you can do.


Working as a graphic designer for the last 10 years has taught me alot when it comes to this area, i have done logos of business cards for people, shown them the proof only to have them draw a simmilar one them selves and i cant do anything cause is was just enough different.

HTH

[dakwegmo]

Curious that Australia had such a regulation, which would explain why so many people in the US think there's such a requirment here, I googled it. According to this Australian Copyright Council Info Sheet (pdf), no such law exists in Australia either.

Can I use someone else’s photograph in my work if I change at least 10% or make 5 changes?

There is no rule in copyright law that permits reproduction of an image if a percentage of it is changed, or if a certain number of alterations are made. If you can put the two works side by side and identify important parts from the original that have been copied, it is likely that you need permission.

That's essentially how it works in the US. If you can identify significant parts of the image in the derivative work, your copyright has been infringed. It's one thing to use an image to get an idea of what the bird looks like, and another thing to use it as a model for a drawing or part of a drawing.

[lonni]

Thats beceause we are taught that as a rule of thumb 30% should be enough to change the image enough to not infringe copyright.

We also are told that you cant use the most identifiable of most unique part and that this info is supposed to apply to the concept of the image. It is supposed to ensure we dont copy images blindly, but people dont understand and just assume the law is change it by 30%.

Example: I see an image of a pair of bare feet standing on tile with water running down the drain from above. I also see a photo of a balerinas feet in point slippers in first position from above.

I like the images so i take a photo of my own bare feet on tiles, in a ballet pose, no drain, but in a colour washed tone similar to both shots.

You could pick similarites in the photos but it is not a copyright breach.

The whole issue comes down to the argument that there are no original images left anymore and you can find several more all similar if you looked adn that you can not own an idea, just a specific image.

I hate this, my work is ripped off al the time and wish people would stop. Its a pet peeve of mine.