Realistic Car drawings

[VW1.8Tsunami]

Your lack of talent is equal only to your lack of wit.

Please go troll another thread and stop insulting this artist. I love people with no talent that criticize others.

You seem to be the only one insulted. I never said he wasn't talented, I just said it's not 100% his work.

[Boogety Boogety]

how so? It's the same concept as what the artist is doing. I just did it quicker and more effeciently.

Your lack of talent is equal only to your lack of wit.

Please go troll another thread and stop insulting this artist. I love people with no talent that criticize others.

Seriously. Someone spends time and effort to turn out a piece of art that most of us... no, I'll just say it, none of us... could replicate, even tracing the damn original... and then some hick here disses his work?

I guess in Tsunami's planet credit for this should also go to the model's parents, since it's their vision and parenting that created this vision... with the artist criticized for not mentioning them:




If you just can't say something nice... go to a biker bar and yell out something derogatory about Harleys, and be sure to carry instructions with you regarding the disposition of your body...

[dreidreisieben]

I think we are all in agreement that he has incredible patience for tracing all these photos and coloring them in.

What bothers most, especially creative professionals, is the signing of his work as his own and not giving credit to the original source.

[barry2952]

Another troll that doesn't get it. /\

[VW1.8Tsunami]

Another troll that doesn't get it. /\

If you were a professional photographer and he was selling drawings of your photos without your permission, you wouldn't be pissed?

[VW1.8Tsunami]

Seriously. Someone spends time and effort to turn out a piece of art that most of us... no, I'll just say it, none of us... could replicate, even tracing the damn original... and then some hick here disses his work?

I guess in Tsunami's planet credit for this should also go to the model's parents, since it's their vision and parenting that created this vision... with the artist criticized for not mentioning them:




If you just can't say something nice... go to a biker bar and yell out something derogatory about Harleys, and be sure to carry instructions with you regarding the disposition of your body...

sorry if you can't see the difference.


I'm not sure who you are calling a hick....

Location: Dallas...just sayin'

[barry2952]

I'd say he nailed it.

[VW1.8Tsunami]

I'd say he nailed it.

who's the one trolling again? grow up old man

btw, I asked you a question....


FWIW:

http://www.artistsnetwork.com/articles/business-of-art/copying-photos][/url]

Copying Photos
Posted on January 29, 2008 by Leonard DuBoff | Categories: Articles, Ask the Experts, Business of Art, The Artist’s Magazine. Bookmark the permalink.

Q: I’d like to know how old a photograph must be before I can legally paint a copy of it for commercial use. is there a statute of limitations on a photographer’s rights? Does it make a difference if it’s a photograph of a celebrity?

A: It’s now well established that the photographer has a copyright to the photographs she or he takes. It is, therefore, an infringement of the photographer’s rights for an artist to make a substantial copy of a copyrighted photograph, unless the reproduction is defensible as fair use. (Fair use exceptions allow limited use of copyright-protected material for certain purposes, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.)

Photographs taken on or after January 1, 1978, are protected by copyright for the life of the photographer plus 70 years. If the photographer (a) was an employee working within the scope of employment, (b) published the photograph anonymously or (c) published it under a pseudonym, then the copyright in the photograph is the shorter of 120 years from the date the photograph was taken or 95 years from the date the photograph was first published. For photographs taken before January 1, 1978, the rules are far more complex. As a rule of thumb, unless the photograph was taken before 1923, the copyright in that photograph may still be in effect. Remember that only works that are substantially similar to protected works infringe. If you merely use the photograph for inspiration and your copy is significantly different from the original, then there is no infringement.

With regard to celebrity photos, approximately 30 states provide celebrities with a right of publicity in their name, likeness and reputation. If your use a celebrity’s protected rights without his or her permission, you will be guilty of violating the celebrity’s right of publicity and, therefore, if your work is sold or exhibited in one of those states, you may be liable for damages. It’s worth noting that in many states the right of publicity survives the famous person’s death for a protracted period of time. This is one reason famous people generally have licensing agents who will consider permitting the use of a famous person’s name, likeness or reputation for a fee. Unfortunately, these fees can be substantial.

The laws on right of publicity are complex and not uniform from state to state. It’s, therefore, important to determine whether your state has such a law and, in addition, whether your work may ultimately be shown or sold in a state that does. you should consult with a knowledgeable art attorney before creating a substantially similar copy of a work created before 1923, as well as before creating a work that may trigger a right of publicity claim.

Note: Copyright laws are subject to change. This article was originally published in the April 2007 issue of The Artist’s Magazine and reflects the laws in effect at the time the article was written.

Leonard DuBoff was a law professor for more than 24 years and has testified in Congress in support of laws for creative people, including the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. A practicing attorney and pioneer in the field of art law, he has also assisted in drafting numerous states’ art laws and has authored more than 20 books. In addition, he writes regular columns for such magazines as Communication Arts, Interface and Glass Craftsman. For further information, visit www.dubofflaw.com.

[shipoopi]

If you were a professional photographer and he was selling drawings of your photos without your permission, you wouldn't be pissed?

100% RIGHT. I am - although I'd probably be deemed as not-that-talented - but yes, I would be pissed! No other way around it. It's tracing; good tracing, and there are some artistic interpretations, but tracing nonetheless. You can clearly see in the photos of his work that he uses tracing paper. He's amazing at doing reflections and shadows with a pencil. Do I like his work? YES! Is he talented at what he does? YES! Would I pay for his work? Maybe. Everyone on here is his/her entitled to opinion regardless of talent. No one is dissing him, but there's no sense in denying what's factual: it's a tracing, and there's no reason to be upset/defensive/in denial about it just because you support his work! He's good!

[barry2952]

Let's see your work.

[VW1.8Tsunami]

More untalented art critics.

2/10 troll attempt...keep trying

[barry2952]

Still want to see your original work.

[Kiddie Rimzo]

im impressed

im gonna get one of my buddies cars and send you the pic to draw. Hope he doesnt mind i stole his photo for you to 'trace'

[shipoopi]

Let's see your work.

Our (and I speak for everyone who has posted here) work is irrelevant; you don't have to be better at designing cars than Hyundai just because you don't like what they did or you believe it to be a copy of something else, and you don't have to be more talented at basketball than Kobe Bryant to know he cheated on his wife. We have a facebook/etsy page, but the only result of me sharing it on here would be for me to receive undue criticism - and probably give someone another free pencil trace/sketch idea.

[barry2952]

My work is irrelevant; you don't have to be more talented at basketball than Kobe Bryant to know he cheated on his wife. We have a facebook/etsy page, but the only result of me sharing it on here would be for me to receive undue criticism - and probably give someone another free pencil trace/sketch idea.

Great analogy.

[shipoopi]

Fine, reread my post, I fixed it. No need to go fighting with everyone because you're sour.

[shipoopi]

Besides, if you just say "well, I like it, and I paid him for art cause I like it" I think everyone on here would be fine with that!

[barry2952]

I'm only fighting with people that have no sense.

[dreidreisieben]

I'm only fighting with people that have no sense.

What sense am I missing that made you call me a troll?

[barry2952]

Common. Just say you don't like it and go away. You are obviously in the minority.

[VW1.8Tsunami]

What sense am I missing that made you call me a troll?

Don't waste your time. Barry's already vested in the artist. He will never admit he is wrong. It's just a feable attempt to keep his pride.

[barry2952]

Don't waste your time. Barry's already vested in the artist. He will never admit he is wrong. It's just a feable attempt to keep his pride.

You are proving yourself to be a fool.

[VW1.8Tsunami]

You are proving yourself to be a fool.

Only by arguing with you. On that note, I'm out.

[protzler]

Barry, as others have said, you don't have to be an artist to be able to criticize what he's doing. I think his work is awesome. I wish I had his skills. But the photographers deserve credit. Not all of it of course, but they do deserve to be acknowledged, and asked if they wouldn't mind having their photo's reproduced in another medium.

I understand you're emotionally invested in this guy, and that's fine. I just don't understand why you don't think the photographer deserves any credit. Can you answer that for me? Rather than just rehashing the "lets see your work" and "go troll somewhere else" of course...

[barry2952]

Barry, as others have said, you don't have to be an artist to be able to criticize what he's doing. I think his work is awesome. I wish I had his skills. But the photographers deserve credit. Not all of it of course, but they do deserve to be acknowledged, and asked if they wouldn't mind having their photo's reproduced in another medium.

I understand you're emotionally invested in this guy, and that's fine. I just don't understand why you don't think the photographer deserves any credit. Can you answer that for me? Rather than just rehashing the "lets see your work" and "go troll somewhere else" of course...

Why does the photographer's work deserve credit? It's just a photograph.

[gnavs]

Barry, no offense, but you argue like a child. You're possibly the most stubborn person on these boards.

I can honestly understand both sides to this story and each opinion is valid. The amount of time and patience it must take to replicate these photos is staggering but at the same time at least some reference to the original photographer's work should be due, especially if he's using a watermarked photo (which I'm not sure if he's done).
I say feel free to draw photos taken by some hipster with an SLR camera but if it's a professional photo I think some credit is due.

*Awaiting Barry's single sentence rebuttal....*

[protzler]

Because the photographer contributed to the drawings that our friend is making. In addition, the artist holds a copyright over the photo(s).

In your case, you have the rights to that photograph, so it's a non issue. I would give the benefit of the doubt and say that most of his commissions are probably by owners of the photos.

I'm not sure if you saw the analogy that someone posted before with my first post in this thread, where they used a song. Someone took an existing song and did a remix. They still gave the original author of the song credit by doing something like this: Ace of Base - The Sign (tsunami remix).

[dreidreisieben]

Why does the photographer's work deserve credit? It's just a photograph.

Wow. Really?
Do you have any idea how much work goes into a car photo shoot? Clearly you don't.

[JimmyD]

I'm not using computer in my drawings all is made with traditional tools.

Great stuff!

[barry2952]

Wow. Really?
Do you have any idea how much work goes into a car photo shoot? Clearly you don't.

[Boogety Boogety]

sorry if you can't see the difference.


I'm not sure who you are calling a hick....

Location: Dallas...just sayin'

Only by arguing with you. On that note, I'm out.

Dallas being one of the most cosmopolitan and most erudite cities in the country, I would say your perception of our little city is... hickish. Come down and visit sometime. No stagecoaches or porch-sitters here.

Too bad you're out... you could be home taking an online course, attempting to expand your intelligence level (which appears abysmally low).

[VW1.8Tsunami]

Dallas being one of the most cosmopolitan and most erudite cities in the country, I would say your perception of our little city is... hickish. Come down and visit sometime. No stagecoaches or porch-sitters here.

Too bad you're out... you could be home taking an online course, attempting to expand your intelligence level (which appears abysmally low).

You initial 'hick' comment was based on my location; which has been my home for a whole 6 months.

Seems like you don't like the taste of your own medicine.

[Bias_Ply]

Art copies things. This guy is talented. Does this mean that you or your buddy who is an artist isn't talented? no it does not. Hey make a thread and offer art for sale, believe it or not, more often than not on this forum I see the artist sell one or two things.

If he can copy with pencils and markers and has an eye for mechanical things (many artists don't/won't), then great.


That said, if I downloaded something of say, Mike Gilberts, and recreated it in graphite and sold it, I wouldn't expect him to be cool with that.

[rlfletch]

Why does the photographer's work deserve credit? It's just a photograph.

Not sure if serious but if you are, you've gone from being poorly informed to being an idiot in one post.

[Bias_Ply]

Why does the photographer's work deserve credit? It's just a photograph.

For many artists, the creativity is the key. That's why photography is hotly debated. After all, the framing and the subject matter is what makes a good photograph, as seen above in the red Audi painting, versus someone selling an S4 on craigslist and snapping off a few shots to show the condition of the car.

Arguably without these beautiful photographs, there would be nothing to copy into the art we are seeing here. So the creativity of the original photographer is "used".

You could (maybe successfully) argue that many photographs aren't good due to the creativity of the photographer, (taking a photo of great architecture for example, you may say the architect is the true artist). Just as you could say that the designer of the 911, or the designer of the S4 is the true artist. In both examples the car or the building is usually only one component of the photograph. The photographer adds lighting, framing, context, etc etc. usually people don't look at blueprints and as a thing of beauty so the real answer is likely somewhere in the middle.