Photos as reference for Painting?

By far the most difficult inquiries for me to respond to are when painters contact me asking if they can use my photos for reference for their paintings.

Most painters are probably amateurs/hobby painters who are just doing it for themselves and not after monetary gain. In that case, sure I’m fine with that, and I appreciate that they asked me. I don’t feel comfortable about demanding a licensing fee from a painter like this.

But, some painters are more skilled and possibly professionals, and will possibly sell the paintings or perhaps even prints of the painting. In this case – especially if the painting is recognizably similar to the original photo – certainly a licensing fee is in order.

But I’ve found over the years that it’s nearly impossible to decipher the difference between those two painters, and in reality it’s not black & white – there is a broad spectrum of artists in between. Plus there’s the nebulous issue of whether the painting will end up abstract or impressionistic enough that it’s hardly recognizable from the source photo, or if it will be realistic enough that it looks like a plagiarized copy – again, a spectrum here too.

So, unlike more straightforward image use/licensing inquiries I receive, when I get these email inquiries I often find myself practically paralyzed on how to respond.

I’d love to hear any advise or thoughts you all might have on this.

@Jack_Brauer: Jack, as I understand the copyright law, any derivative work is subject to the law, i.e. the person making the derivate work must obtain a negotiated license from the originator. The type of license, and a fee, if any, are up to you and the person wishing to create a derivative work.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am just some random photographer on the Internet. :wink:
-P

Thanks for your reply, Preston! I guess my question is more along the lines of how to even begin coming up with a licensing fee quote, when the painters run the gamut from personal hobbyists to high dollar professionals. It seems nearly impossible to judge how a certain painter’s rendition of the photo will turn out, how or if it will be sold, etc. That’s why I have such difficulty responding to painters who ask me about this.

I always ask to see their previous work before I agree to anything, and I also try to do some background research on the artist. This can help me get a sense of whether they sell their work, or perhaps enter it in contests with potential monetary gain.

I do ask flat out whether they sell their paintings (regardless of whether they plan to see the one based on my photo), and most people seem to be honest about that, but I think the additional research is necessary, at least for my own peace of mind.

FotoQuote software will offer some general directions on how to approach this type of license, price-wise, but it’s less specific than the examples it offers for other types of use. I find my quotes vary, depending on the talent of the artist and their status in terms of gallery representation and/or sales history. But I probably still charge less in such cases than I should.

Max

Thanks Max, that’s helpful and all makes sense. I would add too that it’s also important to ask if they intend to sell prints of their painting, which would raise the licensing price.

For professional painters this seems more straightforward and easier to research; I suppose it’s the more amateur painters that I find more difficult to judge and quote a price to, but I guess in that case it’s just a rough judgement call to quote a lower price or perhaps none at all.