Friday, May 27, 2016

Copyright confessions

Copyright is tricky. I deal with it all the time.

Who would have thought being an artist would lead to such a concern for the law? Spirit of it, at least.

Will my own images be used without my consent?
Am I taking advantage of any photographers by using their work?

I try, very hard, to be respectful of photographers. They work to get the subject, the perfect shot, and they work to make it better, and then they put it online for all the world to see, hoping, just like I do, that no one will steal their work.

Usually, I get my images from sites where photographers post their photos for free use. Sites like, or, when usage has no conditions, Wikipedia. Occasionally, I remember to cite their names, even when the sites doesn't ask for that. Seems like the least I can do, and, all too often, more than I do.

Some photos on Wikipedia have a share and share alike term of usage, meaning that, if I paint one of the animals from one of their gorgeous photos, I would have to make the image of my painting free, too.

Not the painting itself, but still. That's days worth of work. Not feeling that generous, apparently.

Here, I listen to the counsel of my savvy neighbor: what if an editor wanted to publish an anthology of paintings, but the share freely clause meant copyright issues?

Share and share alike beautifulness, by Henry Whitehead, on Wikipedia:

Nullarbor Dingo

And the Paul Copeland photo I ended up using, from, also beautiful:

Thank you, Paul! And maybe I will paint Henry's photo, too, because I just can't help myself...

Question: Am I not being supportive of the photography community by using photos people post for free?

No comments:

Post a Comment