They all draw from photographs, not from drawings by another artist. But if the artist painted a picture from his own imagination, and someone sketched from his picture, then this is plagiarism! And you can draw from photos!
Clearly, reproducing a copyrighted photograph is a derivative work of it, and according to the law the user needs permission from the author to monetize derivative works in addition to, of course, crediting the author of the photograph. If you paint a bridge thats very different, for architectural copyright law is different:
two other important limitations apply when registering a design as an "architectural work". First, when a building is ordinarily visible from a public place, its protection as an "architectural work" does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work.[13] Thus, the architect will not be able to prevent people from taking photographs or otherwise producing pictorial representations of the building. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States
They all draw from photographs, not from drawings by another artist. But if the artist painted a picture from his own imagination, and someone sketched from his picture, then this is plagiarism! And you can draw from photos!
isn't the photographer an artist?
The artist is not a photographer!
yes, photographers are clearly artists too.
So if I paint a bridge I have to source the architect? This is moronic
@vladivostok hahah)
Clearly, reproducing a copyrighted photograph is a derivative work of it, and according to the law the user needs permission from the author to monetize derivative works in addition to, of course, crediting the author of the photograph. If you paint a bridge thats very different, for architectural copyright law is different:
ты настолько неразумный!