Err the main difference is is your picture is way better than the painting…
Not a copy at all!
In the photo the singer is playing a Martin D-45 Dreadnought whereas in the print he has a Collings SJSB. Although the 16 inch lower bout is slightly wider than a dreadnought, and the sides almost as deep, the tight curve at the waist creates in a very different sound chamber. SJs, especially examples in maple, typically have a more pronounced midrange response when compared to a dreadnought, making them ideal candidates for a rounded cutaway. Players looking for the bass and overall volume of a large guitar, but with lots of treble clarity and midrange crunch, often find just what they need in the curvaceous SJ. Also his glasses change from Police 1716s to S1668s!
I made this all up, of course - I say sue!!
Colin
Agree with you, intellectual property should be respected in which ever form. David Rosemont's point on PI demonstrates how one should protect oneself and how necessary it is. Its not greed but protection in both commercial and moral terms, plagarism is just all too common.
Hey Gary - that sounds like a plan. Do you fancy going halves with me on a sweet shop! Love the Picasso quote by the way. On a serious note I do understand your point, but still get a bit hissy when I spend a long time crafting a piece only to find it appearing somewhere else without permission or payment - it's difficult to retain much control in these days of social media and yes its great to know that one's work is appreciated - but it doesn't pay the bills! Cheers.
I should add that as architects we took out Professional Indemnity Insurance (architects are required to do so in law) and as an adjuct you can add fee recovery insurance which includes copyright infringement actions. With architects designs are usually fairly specific site related so it's blatantly obvious. We had not been paid for the planning oermission by a developer who went bust and then somebody else developed to our designs. On another subject I found somebody selling our drawings on the internet and had a go at them- but as it was for the benefit of a museum I let it go. Quite frequently we got planning permission for the first home extension in a London street and then the design was then cribbed by hordes of others- some quite blatantly with snopaked copies of our drawings!!!!! People crib and steal all the time- the worst culprits are frequently lawyers who having not paid you use feeble excuses to avoid payment often inviting action as they know they can draw it out and it will cost them nothing to defend. Other problem areas were our clients (housebuilders) getting design awards (for our designs) and then not mentioning us as designers, and not even inviting us to the award ceremonies or including our name in extensive publicity. (We know who you are!) Once we successfully sued a client who was a well known sailor by serving a writ on his yacht in the USA which did the trick nicely - AH AH Jim Lad! The other trick of many such people is that they hide behind £100 limited liability companies in Panama or somesuch place and that does make claims very difficult indeed.
Hi Stuart
Point Taken, My mention of greed was in connection with remarks that encourage litigation. If the artist or his agent are resonable then they will apologise and make an offer
BTW Colin i earn my living through my illustration. I don't think its the same as if i ran a sweet shop. Probably a lot easier to run a sweet shop
What would a sweet shop owner do if someone figured out the recipe for his best selling bon bon , changed the colour and started to make and sell his own> Do bon bons have copyright? I bet they do
Nothing comes from nowhere. Stories, music, artwork or bon bons.The question is at what point does plagiarism end and originality begin. One might ask where does one day end and another begin? And the answer is not midnight.
gary
One last thought "I don't borrow. I steal". Picasso
@Gary Waters
Sorry if thais sound rude but please read all my messages before talking about greed. I have not requested money, simply some form of recognition, and a couple of free tickets. Not much to ask. I think the greed is clear, 187 500$ could be made if they sell all 250 of the limited edition. Joe has a very big following all over the world and I think they will sell. By the way, as I said earlier, I don't even think he is aware of all the sales etc. Someone else runs the FB page too.
I also posted that a frined of mine would pay to have his photos painted by Peter Max., and I am flattered that they are using the photo.
However, it would have been nice to be involved in the creative process and to have been informed before the fact.
Gary - You're certainly right than in the scale of world events then theft of copyright may not seem too important. But for those of us for whom writing, drawing, photography etc. are our principle livelihood it can be an important issue. Problem with copyrighting photos, writing etc. is that it's not tangible. If you owned a sweetshop and somebody kept stealing your stock you would soon complain, I think. In practice there is little difference. If somebody chooses to steal my stock then I get pretty cross with (I think) some justification.
I am in a similar position, but so far have done nothing about it as I don't really know what to do and how to prove sales on their part. My father was an Illustrator and portrait artist, he loved to paint scenes of the American West and portraits of indian chiefs.
One of the online 'buy framed art prints' companies has one of his indians, Sitting Bull I think, and is selling copies for upwards of £40. As I understand it, the artist's copyright remains with his estate for 70 years after his death, and these people do not have my permission to use this painting.
My father was Frank Humphris, some of you might remember his work on Riders of the Range for Eagle Comics, Blackbow the Cheyenne for Swift, or later on, Ladybird books. His work is being sold on Ebay, I understand that's okay but the copyright, ie the use of his work, remains with me?
Stuart, why not ask to become his official gig photographer - you did pretty well on that photo!
WOW!
Huge amounts of debate on this one. It seems to be bringing out peoples anger and greed!
Its only a minor injustice in the great scheme of things. There are more things going on that deserve attention>
You could use use this incident to feel honoured someone likes you work so much they are prepared to steal it.
BTW did you know that the smiley face is copyright? :) OOOPS be careful
gary
Theft. Pure and simple. I note you've written to the singer and his agent as well as the artist. Here's hoping you get some satisfaction. If not, then I strongly suggest you do your utmost to get the singer and agent on your side. With combined effort and resources you may be able to flush out this apparent con-artist. As to getting compensation well you're unlikely to get any legal help for free and if the "artist" pleads poverty then you'll end up out of pocket. I was in a similar situation a couple of years ago when a rogue website published some of my writing without permission. Luckily I had a big hitter on my side and got it taken down fairly quickly. Good luck!
I suggest looking at My Sweet Lord vs He's So Fine. George Harrison was deemed to have copied the original accidentally and still a shed load of royalties were forfeited... Big money - by accident, whereas your adversary has deliberately stolen your work! He should be made to pay.
I did once successfully sue for copyright infringement in the UK. Before suing most jurisdictions require you to have proof or service of a notice requiring payment and giving full details. I suggest that any such notice is served by recorded delivery. Keep evidence of service. Note that interest is payable at say 3% over your bank's base rate plus legal costs of course. You need to be sure it was your image- have the date it was taken, photo reference number etc. Be prepared- it will take a long time and if the jurisdictions are different I dare say longer. 20 years ago when we sued we took all the necessary steps but did have to eventually spend £10k on lawyers fees to get there. We did eventually get paid twice what we would have settled for and they had to pay our legal fees and theirs too. So it cost them £40k and not £10k. That was long before the internet I should mention and involved a building in London. Be aware that the legislation in the UK is The Copyright Designs and Patent Act. I can point you to a copyright lawyer there if you need one and a specialist is required in my opinion. The value of a photo is based on a reasonable interpretaion of the fame of the photographer and the rarity of the picture. Consider that there may be lots of similar pics around.
Hello everyone.
Just to make it clear, there is little chance I would consider taking legal action. I am an amateur photographer and all I asked for was recognition ie if it had been an album sleeve then the sleeve notes would say photos by Stuart Wilson. I also requested some tickets. So far they have offered me a draught of the Lithograph. Now if that means an artists first attempt at painting the photo and it's signed by Peter Max, then why not?
I'll keep you updated.
Well. I have sold a few of his Lithos way back and have to say that he hardly paints anything anymore. His factory style set up makes it for strictly commercial success. The cash is in the trash.......
Hi Stuart,
I'm an illustrator and have had some experience with copyright issues(both sides). It's a minefield! and if you are going to take legal action be prepared for a long and expensive battle. Of course the artist is wrong in using your work without permission.
Theres no question about that He seems to have just added some colour> I think that the image has to have 20% difference before the law is broken. 20% ????? What does that mean? So lawers will really go to town on this one and will be the only ones to come away with some money. You can see where the problem lies.
May be the thing to do is ask the artist for a 50% cut on his earnings from the print. If he's not happy kick up a fuss with his agent. But don't expect too much
gary
Hi Pamela
Maybe my headline is misleading. I sent them the photos and said they could be used on condition that recogntion was given and I would get an example of whatever was done with them etc.
The thing they have not respected is to give the reciognition.
They are also using this image on Facebook. I am flabbergasted!
I've just written a second mail to the agent quoting previous e-mails when I originally sent them the photos at the same time requesting recognition and "payment". I put payment in inverted commas because all I was asking for were to ickets to the Royal Albert Hall show and "another" meet and greet.
I already met the artist in Toulouse and he's a genuinely nice guy. I'm sure he knows nothing of all this.