Using other people's work on your website and facebook pages

I am sure that the vast majority of painters out there already know this But having recently dealt with someone taking my work and using it for their benefit, I thought a gentle reminder to knew painters wouldn't hurt! Please do not use /display work that you have not personally painted .It is not an "honour" to have your work taken, and it is theft and committing fraud. If you have a picture up , the public will assume you painted it, and that will be the quality of work you would be doing.In most cases it is not

If you do not have enough pictures of your own work. take the time to learn more , before you get out there and start a business , be proud of your own work:D

LOL! There was just a HUGE thread about this very topic not so very long ago

I just can not believe how many people out there think it is an OK thing to do!

It needs to be put into context though.
It is not illegal of they are no making money off of the photo.

It's only fraud if they use the photo as if it were their own to lure in clients.

I wouldn't put someone else's work on my website.. but i post Photo's on my FB all the time.. things that i think are kewl or wanna try ect..
When possible i make sure to give the artist and photographer credits if the picture is not watermarked.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that

If you don't have PERMISSION from the owner, then it is theft. Plain and simple.

Facebook, unfortunately, make is easy and gives the impression that "sharing" is all hunky-dory.

If someone tags or shares something and the identifying watermarks or credit note is cut off then... the artist/photographer/owner loses the credit and everyone thinks it is free for the taking.

If you put something on your page on facebook it appears to be yours... I've shared images (with permission) and people assume it is my work... that is just how people are... so, sharing on your page is the same as using without permission and the owners of the images have the right to ask the images be removed or reported to facebook for copyright infringement (and they do actually take action BTW.)

Shannon, I'm not sure if the law in Canada s different or you are just giving your opinion, but using someone's photo without their permission is not necessarily theft in the legal sense. We have a pretty sizable fair use policy under U.S. law.

I have photos of other people's face painting on my Pinterest. They're all on a page called "Someday I will paint like this..." so nobody thinks I actually did them. But even if I just had a page called "Facepainting", so there might be confusion, it would still be within the parameters of fair use.

I think it's wrong to misrepresent someone's work as your own. But it's not necessarily theft or copyright infringement.

Shannon Fennell wrote:

If someone tags or shares something and the identifying watermarks or credit note is cut off then... the artist/photographer/owner loses the credit and everyone thinks it is free for the taking.

Can a watermark on a picture be removed?

In the US, a photographer owns any picture they take. It IS a violation of copyright to reproduce that image without permission. It does not matter if it is watermarked or not.

You can read about fair use here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use BUT if a picture is being used on a commercial site, it fails several of the 4 tests for fair use.

Further, while the photographer owns the copyright, the MODEL still has rights regarding how the image can or cannot be used, depending upon what written contract he/she had with the photographer. (USA I just heard of some change in parts of Canada where the model owns them)

In addition, the artist who did the face/paint has copyright to their work.

So, copyright is a complicated issue but clearly, yes, if you use someone elses image- you are indeed violated their legally protected copyrights as recognized in the US/Canada and UK at least. If you have a site promoting "fair use" is not applicable.

Using other peoples photos to promote your own business is something the vast majoirty of adults understand to be unethical. Newbie or not, it is misleading the public to put a picture of someone elses work product on a commercial site that says "hire me" and I get a little irratated when the newbie reasoning comes into play, it is not a face painting specific issue to my mind. The law is tool we can use to protect our photos, and the legality is beside the point to me. I think I learned this long before I was an adult, and independently of face painting.

I have photos on personal pinterest pages for people I don't even know, and I don't think anybody is saying a thing about that here, these kinds of posts are about commercial self promotion with anothers work product, period. Photo fraud devalues our collective profesionalism and is wrong for every industry, and not exclusive to face painting. Painters who misrepresent thier style or skill in the photos they post water us all down and lower the expectation the public has of us as professionals.

LOL when I first made my site PPl responded... do you really need to add I painted all these things my self, with inspiration from ....... I have watched you tube, and Faba so much that every artist style mixes up and whatever I feel at the moment comes out. I tell PPl who I paint, no two paintings will ever be the same, I cannot make myself conform to one style.. The shape of a face, the way the colors fall dictate what happens. I will promise an individual experience!!!

BTW after this weekend I love the LC double filbert... you rock rainbows and crowns!!!!

The courtesy of giving credit to the artist who is your inspriation is something that a newbie would not know. We all copy at first and go to Youtube and practice other peoples designs, some artists will sell them to us for goodness sake, but that is totally different than using a photo of a face painting that someone else painted. I totally get that new painters would not know to give credit, but I just dont get ascribing stealing photos to newness...it is theft, and any four year old can tell you that stealing is wrong (three year olds, not so much!)

a face painting mom wrote:... and any four year old can tell you that stealing is wrong (three year olds, not so much!)

Gotta love three...if I see it, it is mine...terrible two is miss named. Three will kill you. I think insurance should not cover us until children are four...

My point, and I did have one, earlier is that the word "theft" has a specific common and legal meaning. "Stealing" pictures is not theft -- the original owner is not being deprived of their property. Nor is it necessarily fraud. You're also not being "robbed" when someone else misrepresents your photos as their own. Does that make it OK? Of course not. But any case, no matter how valid, is weakened by hyperbole. I'm sorry if I was inarticulate in my earlier post.

I completely understand the frustration when you see someone else using your photos. But to be quite honest, this whole business of "not copying" a design to make your own photos is disingenuous. For one thing, the FP veterans don't do it. I didn't see Shannon giving credit to Stan Winston, the creature designer from Predator, when she posted her photo of her version. I don't have a problem with that (I'm sure Shannon was but a child in 1987), but if you're on here complaining about a "lack of professional courtesy", you should.

And what about licensed characters? The only answer I've ever gotten is "I don't give design credit on licensed characters because the company that owns the license might track me down." So "professional courtesy" is not owed to companies/people with money, but you're going to track down some random person on the Internet whose butterfly looks like yours? I'm pretty much a socialist, but even I can't buy that.

The biggest problem I have, though, is we ALL imitate constantly. There are a limited number of colors and elements. Nobody here invented teardrops or swirls or tigers. Marcella's an extremely talented woman, but her designs owe a ton to impressionist painting. Mark Reid's stuff is highly influenced by pop and indigenous art. It's not like once you reach a certain level of proficiency, your designs are no longer derivative. As we've seen on other threads, people of good faith can disagree about what is "stealing a design" and what is "inspiration". So let's stop acting like there's some sort of industry guidelines that newbies need to learn.

I also want to address the idea that there's a clear cut line between fair use and commercial use. Sites like Facebook and Pinterest are blurring the line between the two, and we've even seen it here. Someone posted a "photo stealing alert" because they saw another face painter's photo on some third woman's FB. The third woman was a new face painter who wanted to use the photo as inspiration. She never said it was her work, but some folks from this board said that the situation was too confusing and the public wouldn't know she hadn't painted it. And she was harassed about it.

So those of you who are saying "this only about representations on commercial sites", that's not the case. For all of the storm and bluster and high horses about ethics, there are some people on this board who believe the law is what THEY say it is and they brag about bullying people to comply with their views. While we're on the topic, one of your friends having a beef with the plaintiff is NOT a defense to defamation. Labeling someone as a thief when they haven't even been found guilty of copyright infringement exposes you to possible civil (defamation) and criminal (harassment) liability.

Every industry has social constructs that come into play when you join the greater community. Do you have to follow them? No, you most surely do not. The copying v inspired by issue is completely separate (and unrelated) to photo fraud, which has a bright red line that is not in any way related to being a new painter.
Semantics aside, theft is still theft, whether or not there is a victim or a loss that can be calculated. Like any professional group, we as face painters need to police our own to keep the standards high for everyone. I see it all the time, painters at events using photos that are not thier own, and this dilutes our credibility, little by little. I know I have had clients who were weary of my skill set because they have been burned by painters who could not deliver. That saddens me.

A new painter may not know that there are some artists who expect credit and some who could care less, and some who you can't begin to credit, or that you don't need to tell your client that you got your designs from Marcela, but everybody knows that "using" a photo that does not belong to you to represent your sill set for commercial gain is wrong. It has nothing to do with being new to know this.

Mixed metaphores.

a face painting mom wrote:Semantics aside, theft is still theft, whether or not there is a victim or a loss that can be calculated.

I'm sorry, but this is a silly statement. Words have meanings. If not, why not just say you were murdered? That's WAY more dramatic.

In the words of the Supreme Court (which is the final word on U.S. law), "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud..." So you can go on saying that it's theft and fraud and whatever else you want, but educated people will know you're exaggerating and may well think you've got no complaint at all. Personally, I would not want to be Hysterical Uninformed Woman on the Internet, but there's a whole anti-vaccination movement out there, so some people obviously don't mind.

a face painting mom wrote: Like any professional group, we as face painters need to police our own to keep the standards high for everyone. I see it all the time, painters at events using photos that are not thier own, and this dilutes our credibility, little by little. I know I have had clients who were weary of my skill set because they have been burned by painters who could not deliver. That saddens me.

A new painter may not know that there are some artists who expect credit and some who could care less, and some who you can't begin to credit, or that you don't need to tell your client that you got your designs from Marcela, but everybody knows that "using" a photo that does not belong to you to represent your sill set for commercial gain is wrong. It has nothing to do with being new to know this.

Police, or bully? Again, it seems very easy to make a determination on a commercial web site. But, like it or not, the standard for copyright infringement is NOT whether you or I or anyone on this site thinks someone is representing their skill set when they use a photo on social media. It's what the courts think, so unless you are VERY certain about the legal standard in a particular situation, you are taking a risk confronting people. That's especially true when your work is not involved. Everybody knows that bullying is wrong.

As for your statement about some artists expect credit, etc., that is not a professional standard or a rule. It's an incomprehensible statement of personal preference. There IS NO consistent rule on this, because everyone's opinion is different.

I'm not trying to be ugly or confrontational here, but if we are so worried about our profession, we need to act like professionals. We need to understand the law in its clear and grey areas. We need to use correct terminology. When someone does something we don't like, we need to distinguish between industry guidelines and our preferences. We need to handle disputes effectively, not bicker or bully or gang up like a bunch of 13 year olds. Your basic premise -- that people should not use others' photos to promote their work -- is fine. It's your execution that's flawed.

It's OK Jenny...I went to OSU. Ridem. You must be an OU fan. My most sincere applogies

Theft:" The generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use."

Yes in this day and age of the internet , I agree things can get blurry and fuzzy for some. But why take something that does not belong to you , and misrepresent yourself to the public?I do not think I am on a high horse so to speak , because I think the above statement does apply when it comes to taking pictures of another artist work. Then taking that picture and putting it on their own website, to promote THEIR own business.It is not OK to plagiarize and take a paper from the internet or book and hand it in to a professor. This is the same thing, taking something that does not belong to you , without permission, and trying to pass it of as your own work .I am always surprised at how some people react to this conversation. It is just so simple to me. I agree that life is full of shades of grey, but sometimes things can be black and white. If you did not paint something, do not use it for advertizing yourself. I honestly do not think that is a guideline in just our industry. I honestly do not want an argument. Thought i was making a simple statement Peace out and happy painting!

Shelley Bellefontaine wrote:Theft:" The generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use."

I have no idea where you got that definition. It doesn't match Webster's or Wikipedia or the actual law of the United States or Canada. It's certainly your choice to continue using words incorrectly but, as I said, it will make you seem less believable to some people.

I agree that taking someone's photos and representing them as your work is wrong. I've never said otherwise.

Idk if it is illegal or not but I personally feel that it is morally wrong. My morals mean more to me than any law. Therefore, I would never use anyone else's photos to represent my own work. I am very new to painting but I knew that was unacceptable straight out the gate. I don't know how anyone could possible see it any other way....

I googled "definition of theft" , it was the first thing that popped up . I honestly think people love to argue just for the sake of argument

Funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk dictionary definition:The act or crime of thieving.Theft is the general term for the crime of stealing.

Then when you flip the page to steal.one of the definitions is "to take from another without right,authority or permission." I honestly think it sums it up nicely. This person took without my permission a picture of my work and put in on her website to advertise her business.I do not think it is just my definition of stealing , or that I am just making things up! Would I have a good court case? I don't know, !!