That is one unique flowering plant with fruit. I started to look for reference for it, maybe a drawing project in the future.
That is one unique flowering plant with fruit. I started to look for reference for it, maybe a drawing project in the future.
Oh! Surely take my hi-res pics. My pleasure to help.
No. I use Unsplash.com, Pexels.com, and Pixabay.com, to search for reference.
I would never take an image of someone else for reference.
The reason is I might sell a drawing, and it is not my intellectual property.
That is why I use these royalty images.
Strange for me to understand such a position (drawing is a drawing, photo is a photo, it is a new original piece of art in any case, what ever other original was put into basement of its creation). But ofc thats up to you, what to do.
Oh. It is how the law works. If I use a reference photo, and draw it, even if I made some changes to it, I can be sued.
I am not against it, because a photographer is an artist too, and his/her photo is their property.
Can you direct me to this certain (written and codified) law (or its applicable certain part) please? if it is not a problem ofc. Which country's law is it?
Maybe another terrible discovery awaits me.
Oh, it is all over the world. I think the term to look for is Intellectual property.
Here is an example about copyright.
Here is what it sais:
"Only the creator/owner of the work is allowed to decide what his/her work is used for. That means you can’t use it without permission.
If you do use an image or work you found online without written permission of the creator, you are breaking the law. The creator is allowed to ask for a settlement for the damage done. And that can cost you a lot of money."
Meaning, if someone uses your photos, without your permission, you can sue them.
A very understandable piece, this is what I know too; does not raise doubts and does not give rise to discussions. But there is a need to verify the terms. What is your work and someone else's work, what is modification of someone else's work, and so on.
If you print my work (photo) in a booklet - this is one thing, if you made a collage with my photo and published it in your booklet - this is another thing, but if you saw my photo of Stonehenge and painted Stonehenge based on what you see in it, then your original work - well, bring the thought to the end yourself, huh? ...
Who owns the intellectual property in this case?
... of course, the creators of Stonehenge! sure thing, after all, you copied my photo, and I copied their work with the help of my camera ... right? NO. Your interpretation is completely foggy, obscure... a mistake. You described your position, where do you stand - thank you! but I didn't see a justifiable reference to international copyright law, only its (incorrect) interpretation... something like this :_ lets stop here?
I just copied one sentence from one article to show. I read a lot in the past.
What I could understand from it, is that I do not fully understand it.
Therefore, I try not to take any chance, especially if lawyers and other people can start to interpret things in their own way.
Bottom line, I try to be careful.