That's terrible to hear. I've seen it happen a lot, especially with authors. Whether it's on purpose or through ignorance it causes the copyright victim a lot of harm. It's not nice to work so hard on something to have someone swoop in and take the credit. Thanks for your e mail also :-)

Yes it surprises me too Sue, but there is a lack of information out there and a heap of people who don't care anyway. Hopefully this video shares the basics of how to keep yourself right.

Thanks for the feedback! Really appreciate it :-)

It's not so much about repeating ideas that other people have done already as that's unavoidable really. More about not stealing photographer's work and not asking permission to use images directly in your work. But of course we all inspire each other too and that's great.

Thanks Rudy! Trying to :-)

Glad you found this helpful. I'm looking into NFTs also!

That's a good point and thanks for commenting. I think it's just always best to seek permission or go for royalty free in the first place. Just because many are doing it doesn't make it right.

@@EmmaColbertArt so true

Painting the band portraits is sometimes my guilty pleasure, too. Of course I'm not gonna sell it. But, I was always wondering how is it possible someone sells it, or sell prints of that portrait, or last but not least, they even organize an exhibition and it's promoted by regional media! I find it quite rude and also surprising, the galleries are OK with it.

I agree, those are always my favourite paintings when I've started from scratch. But not to say you can't be original with found photo reference. Glad this helped :-)

As I mentioned copyright is automatic. But in some cases if your work is very commercial and you do need court cases to sort out copyright infringements against you, having the work registered makes that easier. But it's best to do your research in your country as everywhere is completely different.

hohoho hehehe writes, “On the government website it states clearly that you do not have to pay any fees to copyright your artwork. The minute you create your work it is copyright protected automatically. (UK law)” Your UK “automatic copyright protocol” also applies to the US and all other *Berne Convention* member countries (UK, EU, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan, etc.). *Keep this important fact in mind:* If your UK-created work has been stolen/exploited by a US-based copyright infringer, and you want to pursue him/her for money damages, you’re NOT required to register your work to have legal standing in a US federal court. HOWEVER, you (as well as Americans!) will only be able to pursue *“actual damages”* (typically the missed licensing fee you would have charged and/or the cost of the unlawful copies) and the *“disgorged profits”* the infringer made (if any!). Both the missed licensing fee & disgorged profits are, too often, low fees that will NOT cover your US attorney fees. If, on the other hand, your infringed work was *“timely”* registered with the *US Copyright Office* (USCO), either BEFORE the infringement began OR registered WITHIN three-months of its first-date of publication, you can pursue statutory damages (US$750 to US$30,000 and up to US$150,000 for willful copyright infringement) and your attorney fees & legal costs against the infringer. Your timely registered US copyright claim provides your US attorney with the necessary *LEVERAGE* to push American-based (non-Fair Use) infringers to settle out of court. If the infringer doesn’t settle, and you prevail at trial, the infringer is now liable for your attorney fees & legal costs. If you choose not to quickly register your works with the USCO, and unless you’re WEALTHY, you have to hope that your actual damages + the infringer’s unlawful profits are *SUBSTANTIAL,* like your work was exploited in a US advertising campaign, on (Campbell) soup cans, on apparel/merchandise, and in other commercial media. This general rule applies equally to US, UK, and other Berne Convention creatives: Your un-registered works are pretty much NOT enforceable for money damages against US-based infringers, as any money you receive from trial or an out-of-court settlement will NOT likely cover your attorney fees, making it un-economical to pursue copyright infringers located in the United States. This short law article explains why international Berne Convention creatives (including UK creatives), and especially those who are licensing, selling/listing, distributing, sharing their works in the US, should timely register their copyrights with the USCO (just replace the word “companies” with “authors,” “illustrators,” “photographers,” “artists,” and other creatives” to get the point): donahue.com/resources/publications/copyrights-registered-u-s/

I'm not a digital artist, so I'm always dealing with physical original pastel paintings. What I'm talking about is when you post your work on social media, or sending a preview to a client to approve before payment. If you're a digital artist you should wait until you're paid before sending your high resolution image to the client. I think that's what you mean?? My actual original goes to the client and I sell prints of some work. But always low resolution posted on social media and website.

Again, thank you for this comment. I agree that using Pixabay is not fail safe. I never use sites like that as my main point from this video is that your work will not be original. Too many other artists have already used those images. If using other photographers' work I always contact a photographer and offer them a fee. That's if I don't use my own photography in the first place, which is what I do a large % of the time these days. To ensure you're original, I think it's better. But thank you again for these tips, especially about reverse image searching to double check the source. Great information!

Thank you again! If I took a picture of a statue in the city, can I sell it or I should ask the permission?

@@HappyYana wrote, “If I took a picture of a statue in the city, can I sell it or I should ask the permission?” Per USA law: In general, city, park, and publicly displayed statues and other art pieces are copyright protected. And unless those works are in the Public Domain, you really should seek a permission license from the artist or copyright owner to license any of those images commercially. When you take a photograph of a sculpture, you’re creating a *derivative,* and the artist owns derivative rights to his/her sculptures (artworks). On the other hand, if the photograph use of the statue is for an editorial, news, historic, and other non-commercial media (magazines), then permission may not be necessary. Curious, if your artwork was displayed in a park, would you get upset if I and others took photographs of it for profit (making t-shirts, posters, cups, etc.)? There’s your answer! :)

It totally depends where you're getting your reference from. It's difficult to create 'fan art' or have famous faces or characters in your work. I see it all the time but I think many people just do it without considering copyright.

Yes I agree, but like in everything, there are those who don't care. More than disrespectful, it's illegal. But a lot of people also seem to genuinely not know this stuff, hence my video :-)

isanosaurus 2018 wrote, “I’m in high school and I saw a drawing and sketched the silhouette from it and then changed it up would that still be copyright [infringement]? Could I get in trouble or not because it doesn’t look the same I just needed the general shape that I was struggling with” Without seeing your finished “work,” it’s hard to say if your use of the silhouetted drawing is a copyright infringement. If the use of the silhouette is for a high school project (that’s not being sold or licensed), then you’re probably OK. *You could also contact the copyright owner and ask if it’s OK to make a silhouette from the original work to include in your school project.* Speaking in general terms, if you take, say a photograph, and change it into a drawing, sketch, or illustration, that’s called a “derivative” work. The photographer owns the right to reproduce the original photograph and all its derivative formations, unless you’ve changed the photograph so much that you really can’t see the original photograph or your changes fall within copyright’s *Fair Use* exception. *Fair Use:* copyrightalliance.org/?s=fair+use and www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

I'm not sure I understand. If you draw images from tutorials you mean? Then yes those images are copyright of the artist who created them. Making money from other peoples' images is what copyright is there to protect against. You could learn from the tutorials and then create different drawings that are similar as long as they are your original ideas and images. Then you would be able to sell the product and own the copyright.

Hi Laura, I think I put a little snippet showing the site in the video but it's Pixabay

Kassey Z wrote, “This is probably a dumb question but do you need a copyright *[registration]* for each piece produced for *profit* or is it just one to protect any pieces you’ve created.” That’s a really great question! If you’re selling, licensing, and/or sharing your creative works for profit or publicity AND you want to receive the *best/strongest copyright protection,* you have to “timely” (quickly) register EACH of your artworks with the US Copyright Office (USCO). Once you’ve registered a work, you can make some (minor) changes to it without having to register it again. For example, you create (and register with the USCO) a colorful sketch of the skyline of New York City. Using Adobe Photoshop or another editing program, you remove all the color to create a b/w version of your original color sketch. The b/w version is a derivative of your original work that you would not have to re-register with the USCO. If, however, you make *“significant and/or substantial”* creative changes to your original work (that’s also called a derivative work), then you may have to register this derivative copyright-protected work to be best protected. The USCO writes, “For instance, simply making spelling corrections throughout a work [in a novel] does not warrant a new [copyright] registration, but adding an additional chapter would.” For more information see Circular 14 (Copyright Registration in Derivative Works and Compilations) www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf If you’re unsure if the changes you made to your original work are minor or substantial, I would err on registering it as a new derivative work just to be best protected. Of course, you can always contact a copyright attorney in your city/state for a legal opinion on which works need to be registered (I’m not a lawyer). Write back if you need tips & tutorials on how to register your creative works with the USCO.

You can use whatever you want if it's just for private use and not being published anywhere. I would still recommend being careful about publishing online. You may never get caught, but technically you're still publishing someone else's work. If you're clear that it's work not for sale and for practise only you should be fine, but in the eyes of the law it's still putting it in the public domain. Hope that helps.

The copyright issue comes from the photo reference you use. If there is another creator involved in your work then there's possible copyright problems. You see this art a lot which is why that seems confusing. It's also possible to source the photographer and ask permission sometimes though. If it's your photo, you have nothing to worry about.

@CHRISMED2 wrote, “I have some of my artworks from 1997 that I would like to copyright *[register]* now. When I put in for my copyright would I add in 1997 the year created or the year im copyrighting *[registering]* the artwork?” For US created works, you would enter the date (year) the artwork was “FIRST-published.” If it’s un-published, enter the year the artwork was “completed.” *“Publication”* typically means you’ve offered or made available your artwork for sale, licensing, sharing, or for further distribution to the public. If you’re just “displaying” your artwork, like in a gallery show or on a portfolio website, AND it’s NOT for sale (no price tags), then it’s likely an un-published work. If you’re officially *“registering”* your artwork with the US Copyright Office (USCO), it will ask you what year your artwork was published or created. To save money on USCO registration filing fees, you can “group-register” from two to ten UN-published artworks in one *“Group Registration of Unpublished Works” (GRUW)* on-line application for a total fee of US$85. There are other requirements to qualify for the GRUW application. As of March 2024, the USCO is “proposing” a NEW on-line copyright registration option that would permit artists to group-register up to ten of their *PUBLISHED two-dimensional artworks* (including paintings, illustrations, sketches, collages, cartoons, character artwork, logos, commercial art, textile designs, and representational or abstract artwork) that are First-Published within a 30-day period. The USCO is seeking comments from artists and others about this new registration application. Write back if you’d like to receive a link to make your comments known to the US Copyright Office.

Many thanks for a very detailed answer. I am not an expert on the individual laws in different countries surrounding this.

@@EmmaColbertArt Emma wrote, “Many thanks for a very detailed answer. I am not an expert on the individual laws in different countries surrounding this” Hi Emma: The next time you explore copyright, perhaps invite copyright attorneys from your country and the US to answer your and your subscriber’s questions via a LIVE discussion.

This is a tricky one that I also face which is why I try to limit my use of other people's photos. It makes life easier so I can give my Patrons full use of the photos I provide. In cases where I have used another photographer I've included the information that I intend to make the image available as a tutorial. But then I also make it clear to my Patrons that the image is only for practise purposes. They are not entitled to sell it. It's important to pass on the copyright information to artists who are learning. I feel responsible for the images of other photographers when I give them out to Patrons. In this case if it was me I'd probably contact them and ask. If you make it clear that other people will only be allowed to use it for practise they are likely to agree and appreciate you asking.

@@EmmaColbertArt thanks!

As far as I'm aware, old paintings are usually part of the public domain and not covered by copyright. I would research any artist you're planning to copy and then you'll know for sure. It will likely be all art before a certain date for example.

@@EmmaColbertArt thanks 🙂

@@EmmaColbertArt what if I want to paint one of Picasso paintings? Is copyright infringement if I mention is a Picasso imitation?

That's a good question actually. I would say no because few artists own any kind of copyright over a technique. We have all picked up techniques from other people and I think that's the kind of 'borrowing' that legitimately happens in the creative world. Where it infringes copyright is in the use of actual images from the artist. It starts to become problematic if you're recreating a very recognisable style using almost the same type of images. For example, the artist paints only hares on black backgrounds and you start to paint very similar hares on black backgrounds. But on the whole I think most techniques are there for the taking.

@ezoji wrote, “Does teaching an artist's technique include copyright?” If we’re discussing *US copyright law,* a technique, like a style or idea, is not copyrightable. I can copy other artists’ techniques & painting styles; I just can’t duplicate their expressed, finished work, especially if my work looks *“substantially similar”* to the original painting.

Thank you so much for taking the time to add this valuable information here. I appreciate it a lot coming from a more knowledgeable legal stance. I think this is very useful for every artist to read. I also appreciate your comments about a watermark. That is something I had not considered regarding making it easier to prove the person had acted illegally 'knowingly'. In my experience many people can remove a watermark with ease and use it anyway, but I appreciate that it provides you with more of a legal standpoint if taking further action. My main aim with this video is to draw people's attention to the topic from both directions as a creator and a 'user' of other creatives' work. Your comments take it further offering actual legal advice, so thank you!

@@EmmaColbertArt You should *invite/interview an art/copyright/trademark/licensing attorney to answer your and your member’s legal questions.* Many attorneys would enjoy speaking to your 23K viewership.

Very useful information! Thank you !

That's good to know for the US, each country differs. But still, if you have hundreds of artworks like I do, then it's pretty expensive for the average artist to find the money for that. But it's true that it's worth doing and only needs done the once. Thanks for the comment!

Sorry I'm only seeing your comment. My advice is to seek permission before you spend your time painting something as the photographer is not under any obligation to grant permission. But you can still ask their permission if you can track the owner of the image. Otherwise, you are breaching copyright by selling them. As I said in this video, you see it happen a lot, but it's better to keep yourself right and there are loads of royalty free images out there to use. Good luck!

You've completely missed the point of my video. Sourcing reference images that you have permission to use is not copyright infringement which is what this video is about. What you believe art is or isn't is up to you, but art only from imagination makes up a small portion of the art market these days. Room for all.

since when did art get put into your own definition? imagination is not the definition of art whether it is your taste or not. realism goes way back so just stop

I always get written pawmission from the dogs I paint. But really I'm not sure what's laughable about intellectual theft which is literally against the law. Just because there's a bit of a Wild West with AI at the minute doesn't mean we should do the same. Music sampling happened and eventually sorted itself out. This will even out eventually too.

@@EmmaColbertArt Did the dogs give you permission? Did they bark or give written consent? Couldn’t help but chuckle when I read that. When I read a statement like yours about intellectual theft, I can’t help but wonder if people understand that nothing is new. Most (if not all) forms, objects, techniques, subject matter, and materials have been taken from the past and applied to what we call “our” art. It is not that unique. Artificial intelligence does the same thing, it takes parts from millions of references (other people’s art) and applies them in a “unique” way to form a picture. It also sounds arrogant. My art is so amazing I don’t want people to steal it. Really, your art is selling for millions and it created culture shifts? In art, this is a very difficult legal issue to pursue. You can try, but you will probably fail. Rather stay happy and create more beautiful things.