Your example is blatant. It would be interesting to drop one image over the other to see how close, in real terms, the image is... initially it looks to me like this IS Photoshop with knobs on, rather than a re-interpretation of the pose freehand (which is still - btw - infringement). They'd have to have been sitting next to you at the concert in order to have their own photo image as source material when they got home.
Since the advent of the necessary equipment, and the media for reproduction (eg: stock photo sites) theft of intellectual property has become much more prevalent, whether it's sampling of music tracks or lifting/copying of images which were not originals created by the real artist/creator, but by someone else. I've had stuff 'nicked' by one or two organisations who should really have known better. Unfortunately we don't all have the muscle or credibility of Disney in fighting our corner when it comes to being ripped off. When it comes to ripping off a professional, who is making a living from creating the originals is as wrong as stealing their food. Wrong, wrong, wrong... but still tempting because the law isn't strong enough to prevent it. You deserve a big share of the income as the inspiration... Go to the law (or at least pose the threat) and get your 'own' back!
We get requests all the time from people wanting to use photos or images from the woodblocks site. All requests so far have been granted, with a request from us to mention the name of the artist and a link to his website (if this is practical). If we do searches on hubby's name, we find there are many more people using his images without permission - and that really gets my goat. But it does spring to mind a story about when I was studying - a computer course and we all had an assignment to do. Out of a class of 25 people only 4 of us did not 'cheat' - that is, we did not copy and paste directly from a website. It shocked me in one way because I thought the others were pretty decent people (and we were taking an ethics class together as well!) but I suspect the real reason was laziness - why put any effort into an assignment when you can present work from someone else.
It probably is theft of copyright but surely with internet images it happens all the time. An artist wants an image to paint or whatever, they may take their own photograph but I suspect the majority of people scan internet images for one to use and then, especially if they are amateurs, they will get their final image to look almost identical to the photographic image as possible within the realms of the medium they are using. I believe a painting (or whatever) should never look like a photograph and the one in your example certainly does!
While I agree with the opinion of theft, it's a tough battle. Sometimes I like to fight fire with fire. He is already one of the most forged artists around. EBAY cracked down on his lithos a few years ago, as it turned out 80% of all listed pieces were fake or forged....
I completely agree with Harriet. I would send them a strongly worded letter accompanying your invoice for reproduction of the image. (In my opinion it is obviously your image that's been quickly and quite badly altered)
Just had a chat with hubby and he seems to think that it could easily have been done in photoshop with lithograph filter. Also, what is missing from the print is the distinctive numbering which is normally on limited edition prints - it should have something like 23/250 (hand written). As this is not present one could assume the artist (or the agent) has plans to issue more than the said 250 prints. Thumbs down to the person [can't even say 'artist'] on many points!
I'll tell him - I don't recall how many cuts it was, but for just the seed head part it was close to 1,000 - and he did each one twice - once for the grey and once for the black... and yes, it's beautiful (and he has a thing for sunflowers!)
my hubby does woodblock printing, so I know how much time and work there is involved with making these images. However, this seems to be a blatant theft of your image - I'm assuming the artist didn't get your permission to use the image... Not only that, 250 is rather a large 'limited edition' - I suspect a few originals have been made and it's been printed electronically thereafter. And $700 (US?) is also a lot to ask. Take a look at this page and see the work which goes into printing, and you can conclude the artist above didn't do all that by hand: