That Ol' Can-o'-Worms: the sources of my drawings

What I want to know is, is no news good news? I had to send physical letters to the publishers of the books in question, whom I have every intention of extensively crediting in my text. But one source was an on-line one: Celtic Art & Cultures. I wrote a polite e-mail explaining how I'm using the images in drawings to publish to one of the overseeing professors, & it's been like a week & no response. I'm going to try the other e-mail address; meanwhile, if I don't hear back from people, should I just go ahead & assume that publication is ok?

Remember the school quarters, one ends and another begins in March, so the professors may have their hands full with student testing and any email will wait till the heavy workload is done.

If you don't hear back within a month, send another email or a letterletter, reference your first contact (sent Feb. __ to you addressed to _____ College...etc.) and include your phone number, address and email address as well. Don't assume it's in the free and clear though, the professor may hold copyright or the school may, you won't know till you talk to them.

That's just what's so frustrating, I wish someone would just talk to me about this!!! Well, I'll try the other address.

I don't have the date & stuff of the 1st e-mail, my e-mail doesn't keep track of that stuff. But I'll make a note of when I send this next one. Thanx, HG!!

danubhe said:

What I want to know is, is no news good news? ...it's been like a week & no response. I'm going to try the other e-mail address; meanwhile, if I don't hear back from people, should I just go ahead & assume that publication is ok?

Click to expand...

If the material is already copywrited, NEVER assume that publication is okay. That animal will come back to bite you when you least expect it.

I once worked in the ad department of a food wholesaler. We decided to create a circular based on USA Today's design, complete with a map on the back that showed where our various foods were produced. Within two weeks we received a very polite but firm letter from the USA Today legal offices that basically said they were very flattered by our work, but if we EVER did it again we'd be in court before you could say "Perry Mason".

So tread carefully where copywrites are concerned.

How vital to your work are these drawings? How long are you willing to wait for responses/permission? Can you formulate a back-up plan?

Just my two cents...

Wow, I really don't know how closely drawing & photos are related copyright-wise... It could be termed "fair use", but I'm not sure. If I do it myself, I'll just wait & see if anybody gets bent out of shape - but how could they even tell it was *their* photos? There are only so much in circulation, I suppose, however. Well, I'll wait & see, I have to - too much riding on it.

I'm trying to think what the equivelent is---if you did a drawing of Stonehenge based off three pictures in books (all taken by different photographers) and didn't include details like people standing in front or the sky shown in the picture..basically just the structure...nobody would claim copyright infringement. It's a public place & you wouldn't be copying the exact photograph with the surroundings.

If the picture is of an item in a museum, one they sell slides or postcards of after asking a photographer to take the images for them, and you drew something off that....I don't know where that stands. You can do copies of the Mona Lisa (well, that's art, not an artifact) if you only do the picture & frame, not the art gallery wall it's hanging on next to the other pictures.

So......???

Best to check with the professors. Ask who owns the copyright & how they feel about an artist version done off the images you've been able to find of their item. I think it's going to be the only way to stay in the clear. I'll ask over on one of the art boards I frequent & see what they say.

Just fyi

Hudson Gray asked:

If the picture is of an item in a museum, one they sell slides or postcards of after asking a photographer to take the images for them, and you drew something off that....I don't know where that stands.

From what I know of a straight 'poster' of a fine art image:

The teacher of my Renaissance Studies in his "Making of the Western Mind" series had a print from Raphael and it was the often-discussed "School of Athens". The museum that houses the art owns all reproduction rights and because it was recognizeable, to even do a poster to sell for the nonprofit/school he was setting up required a fee and proper recognition.

From what I heard of web/other artists:

If you make the image up to 80 percent your own with major changes in color, style, adding or subtracting elements, it is likely to be recognized as yours.

Now this is me:
I would obsessively redo studies even if they originally came from three different sources even if 60 percent was from older work of mine (say a portrait from a fine art image; a posed photograph from an out of print photographer; my own sketches) until I or someone says, "hey, that looks like your style."

My Queen of Swords for the last Aeclectic.net deck was one of those decade long projects, even though the majority of photos were of my own family and my own sketches. I've included in different style collage or study ideas and redrew it as well or added details...

If you have your own backgrounds, calligraphy or characteristic line-work to add, this also makes the image more your own. I winced once when I recognized a Western artist selling a not-her-own combination from a commercial rubber stamp with recognizeable rubber stamp calligraphy and translation. It is considered illegal now, unless you use rubber stamps from people who guarentee copyright free or allow you to use their 'angel' image..Her collage of papers was fine, but she used it as a backdrop for the stamp that was easily obtained at a drugstore, local artstore or fine stationery store. Many Asians who frequent the same stores would pay five to seven dollars for the stamp and paper scraps they could pick up for two or three dollars..., not seventy-five dollars for what the artist wanted.

I don't know if this information helps.

BTW, I had seen watercolor and line drawings done by this published artist decades before, so I felt like what I saw in the store was not a good thing.

Best wishes,

Cerulean

Well, this is more what HG had to say: not "reproduction" as such, but rather artistic interpretation with drawn lines. I will wait until I hear, of course, but I really don't think I have to worry too much.

I still have to go back & re-e-mail "Celtic Art & Cultures" - maybe I'll get an answer. When I do, I'll be sure & report it.

The latest on permission:

A very nice professor connected with the "Celtic Art & Cultures" site contacted me; he said that unfortunately he isn't in a postion to give specific permission, but he said that "an artistic interpretation should be all right". I think that probably my drawings don't really fall under the jurisdiction of copyright infringement, but of course I will go on making sure. Just a little update!

Make sure you keep both sides of the correspondence (with dates) 'just in case' for later. It may come in handy in case you had to submit proof, even if he did seem to be guessing. At least it does show he didn't have a problem with it.

Museums are weird. Some pictures are in public domain, some have reproduction rights assigned to the museums or to surviving 'estates'. The Mona Lisa is ok to use (and it has been used ad infinitum), but as Cerulean says, some are not.