On eBay (can’t link because the auction’s no longer up) there was recently a painter who was selling paintings that he himself had made, but that were obviously copies of the work of Robert K. Abbett. Here is an image of a few comparisons:
Abbett’s paintings are on the left, the other painter’s on the right.
Is this a violation of copyright? Obviously there are minor differences, but it’s equally obvious that these are essentially reproductions. Again, the seller actually painted these himself; they were being sold as “originals,” which techinically they were, since they were made of actual paint and canvas instead of on a Xerox machine.
Hoping someone with some knowledge of the law can help out here!
A couple of disclaimers:
I don’t have a dog in this fight; there was a minor discussion of it on another site I read, and I was curious.
The person who brought it up has already contacted Abbett and told him about the situation. I don’t know what the followup will be.
The backgrounds, lighting, etc. is just different enough for it not to be a problem and since it’s a generic dog picture, not a Van Gogh, it’d be difficult to prove infringement.
Hmm. Nice sleuthing, friedo. This does seem to be a bit of a gray area, but your second excerpt leads me to agree with you. I’ll share this with the folks who brought it up; many thanks!
Note that the copyright holders (descendants?) of Grant Wood’s “American Gothic” are very protective of protecting their rights. I.e., they send nasty legal letters all over the place. (Given the number of uses of the image you see all the time, must be busy folk.)
I would not try to sell paintings that were in the least similar to copyrighted paintings for fear of getting sued.
This is a clear case of infringement. It’s not that the breeds are the same – these are clearly paintings of the same dogs, posed in the same way and in front of the same backgrounds. The copies couldn’t be more similar even if they were traced. Assuming the “artist” doesn’t have permission from the rightsholder, the creation of these works was illegal, as is the sale thereof.
I would question whether the mere creation of these works amounted to copyright infringement. Copying an existing work is a long, long established practice of artists when training.
It is also a common practice to model one work on another. To cite just one example, Norman Rockwell’s Rosie the Riveter cover for the Saturday Evening Post was modeled on a figure in a mural in the Sistine Chapel. At least one entire school of art–NeoClassicism–was built on copying existing works.
In the examples given, of course, the original works were not protected by copyright. It is common, though, to see work–especially commercial illustration–where a pose or a scene has been “borrowed” from another contemporary work.
Among cartoonists, this is known as a “swipe” and, done with restraint, is considered fair play. Sheldon Moldoff, a Golden Age comic book artist, was notorious for his extensive use of swipes, sometimes copying whole pictures by Alex Raymond or Hal Foster. Some of the panels in the Hawkman story reprinted in Jules Feiffer’s book The Great Comic Book Heroes were copied straight out of Prince Valiant.
A great many other artists have merely used Raymond and Foster’s work as a starting point for their work. It has even been shown that Raymond used scenes from Foster’s Prince Valiant as the basic layout for scenes in Flash Gordon.
With all that said, the paintings in question aren’t “modeled” on another artist’s work, nor or they parodies. They’re plagiarized.
While I doubt any violation could be claimed if the artist had produced these works purely for the purpose of his own study, it seems clear that he is committing an egregious copyright violation by marketing them.