[Brake Check]

In English/Writing...a person may copy any word 5-25 times for spelling practice. Copies of the words of another author must be in quotes and attributed and the words must be copied exactly..not paraphrased..although a person may make a personal copy of any words for their own personal reference..such as copying a poem to study the words.
But Art/Painting..is mostly copying..from nature..photo reference..and an exact copy is hard to make unless the piece is traced or the artist is very gifted..
So what are the rules? What does "photo reference" mean? Is it acceptable to look at a photo rather than a live model while painting? Does photo reference mean "tracing" or using someone else's copyrighted photo?
Is tracing acceptable? That would be classed as plagarism in writing although tracing your own photo does not have an equivalent in writing..What about tracing from a window pane or mechanical device using transparent paper and special equipment?
What about copying a photo of a painting.. not tracing but using the photo of the painting as a reference..How much can be copied? Pose? Colors? Placement of hands? If a person copies Bargue for practice..is that considered original or must it be attributed?
The rules in English are very simple..Two sentences explain it all but what about art? Can anyone state a simple set of rules for tracing, photo referencing, copying and attributing?

[Tinusch]

Strictly copying a photo that isn't yours and that you don't have permission to copy is ok only if you don't publish the pic, profit from it in any way, or try to pass it off as entirely your own work. Should be fine for things like the speedpainting thread, as long as you credit the photographer.

Loosely using a photo just for guidance, such as troubleshooting anatomy or lighting, is fine as long as you aren't actually trying to re-create a part of the photo.

Basically, if you're being honest to yourself, you should know at what point your work is starting to borrow too heavily from someone else's. If you've painted figures and want to use stock photos to tweak your musculature, for example, go right ahead. But if you need to paint a person and use someone else's photo and just copy/trace the figure from it into your painting, you've got a problem. Think from the photographer's POV too - at what point would you as the photographer feel cheated?

If I had to boil it down to one basic rule: If it's being published or sold, it should be entirely your own work, unless you have explicit permission from the photographer and you very clearly credit them. If it's for your own private use, do as you please.

[Brake Check]

Tinusch
Thank you...
The rules for copying religious works are..that a piece can be copied exactly or derived in part or parcel and used for the purposes for which the work was intended..
I have been studying Byzantine art from European Churches..The style...the color ..the technique.. In some case, I draw heavily on the originals. The only source I have are photos of original works by anonymous monks and some cases..not so anonymous..such as Michealangelo.. who created that work for One Purpose..Yet the photo is not intended for it's original purpose and it is copyrighted..That is strange..
But..what if I make a study copy of the work..actually a copy of a copy.. as Byzantine art was all copybook and rules..and post my copy on the internet..Is that publishing
This gets very sticky..copyright. It is so clear in writing but then..a statement about the same tree by 6 different people is going to be less of a "copy" than a painting of that same tree by 6 different people..

[Affected]

If you're thinking of copyright issues, keep in mind that copyright is not (yet) eternal. The religious art you speak of seems likely to be old enough to have been in the public domain for a very long time. If you use a photo for reference, the copyright for the photo itself may well still be valid, so you then have to consider what Tinusch said. Ask yourself whether you're reproducing the paintings in the photos, or the photograph itself.

Copyright in the art world can be pretty tricky, it's not a perfect system. For personal purposes I really wouldn't stress it too much. If you show your work to people, you'll want to give credit to your sources if they have had a significant influence on your work. And regarding copying Michelangelo etc, just make sure you don't come off as trying to pass the work off as totally original - the work is free to copy but you'll be ridiculed mercilessly if people think you're claiming your copy of an "old master's" fresco is all your work.

[Brake Check]

Thank You
In writing..copying is a big deal. A student can be expelled for plagarism or claiming work that is not entirely original. A writer can be blacklisted or fired for cause. Obscure and subtle concepts of intellectual property have long been a significant part of what is held to constitute "copying" in written works...so I have been puzzled by the more cavalier attitude in art until I realized..that much of art is best learned by copying.
So far, from what has been said, I see there are general guidelines of honesty and regard for other people's artistic efforts but not the same definition and rigid laws of copying that applies in writing..
I will be careful to credit sources and use a variety of photographic material for particular subjects so I am copying the subject/content of the photo and not the photo. Thank you very much for that distinction..