Two Shores: Step 2
Having searched around my local area, and not in the mood for a bridge-seeking road trip, I was still unsatisfied with the references I’d found. So, as any good child of the information age would do, I hit the web to see if I could find visual materials that could be used to transform the references I’d already procured locally into what I had in mind for the final composition. Usually what I’m looking for in this kind of situation is a combination of images, each of which might provide one small piece that could be integrated into my unique final idea. I might like the cloud lighting I find here, a good idea for water coloring there, and an interesting pattern of city lights somewhere else. Then, after redrawing the basic not-quite-perfect bridge I had already found myself, I use these small references to flesh out the complete composition exactly the way I like.
This time, however, I happened across an image that immediately struck me as being a good approximation of what I already had in mind. The bridge was good and the colors were good, but the sky was bad, there was the matter of a boat getting in the way, and the distant shore was missing everything I needed. In general though I liked it a lot. The problem I then faced was the obvious one: how close to the original photograph does my painting need to be before I have to start worrying about copyright violations? I hadn’t been in this situation before, so I decided to find out.
More surfing the web revealed some very convoluted guidelines about fair use laws, none of which gave me any certainty about my project. In an effort to nip the problem in the bud, I decided it might be easier to just track down the original photographer, get his permission, and not worry about whether or not I officially needed it. I eventually found an email address for him and fired off a message. A day passes, and I find my message returned with a failed delivery result. So I send another, this time to the webmaster of the website that was posting his photo. A few more days pass with no reply. I try again. Same result.
Okay, that didn’t work, so now it’s back to looking at fair use laws. I make a call to an art business consultant in San Francisco and things get a little more clear: using an image for non-profit gives you a lot of leeway in fair use, but using it for profit is a different story. And as I intended to sell my painting and eventually use the proceeds to treat myself to, oh I don‘t know, a shiny new toaster perhaps, I certainly fell into the latter category. The actual percentage, say, of the original image you use isn’t really the issue. If your new image bears a reasonable resemblance to the old one, then a good case could be made against you. And although it wouldn’t be profitable for anyone to take me to court over a small painting, I naturally decided to be a well-mannered capitalist and get the photographer’s permission, or give it up entirely.
So I set the hounds on our unsuspecting friend, Mr. Photographer to see if I could flush him out. I turned the matter over to a good friend of mine, who soon tracked down the lad’s father and had him on the telephone within a couple days. From there he was able to call the photographer himself, but received no reply to his phone message. Another call, and still no result. Back to calling papa, this time receiving a new email address which proves to be… the taciturn webmaster for the exact same site I had emailed at the beginning of this whole affair. So, two shakes away from calling in Scooby Doo and the gang to solve this mystery, we finally get an email response from our man, who is most likely just sick of being pestered so much. We write back, a long delay, a response, repeat, and finally, after about 3 weeks of diplomatic dodge ball, my friend works out an agreement to the sum of 50 bucks.
The good news is that the runway is now clear, artistic property rights are safer than ever, I can finally get to work, and a poor man in Tennessee is finally at peace and able to sleep at night.
