Looks like he bought a print from DPCPrints and painted from it.
That makes me sooooo angry........ :(
And I'd say it's painted rather than photoshopped, because he's got a few big leaves instead of going to the work of painting all the detail of the small leaves. (or else he couldn't see them well enough from a cheap 4x6 print to copy them...)
Please, do NOT anyone else contact this guy with complaints! Let Alex deal with it, otherwise we'll just scare him off and nothing will be resolved.
eta; Seems a little irony here...
" His painting technique is accepted by specialists to be completely unique and not capable of being copied. He even does not really need to sign his artwork, it impossible to confuse it with other painters work or to forge. "
Has the photo been published elsewhere? My mother is a keen painter, her and a lot of her friends look at magazines for 'inspiration' rather than direct copies.
it has been published yeah. The point is, is that this is a direct copy. If you look at stock sites, they tell you that it is illegal to use an existing photo of someone elses to draw or paint.
I asked him how much money he made first. Lets see what he says hey.. hehe
"I tried different techniques, but I fell in love with painting with oil and palette-knife . Every work of mine is the result of many years of painting; every canvas is born in creative search; every Art work is full of the inner world of mine. Each my painting brings different mood, different colors and emotions. I love to express the Beauty, Harmony and Life of this world in my paintings. My heart is open to Art, I enjoy creating inspired and beautiful paintings. Each work of mine reflects my feelings, sensitivity and the music of my soul. True Art work is living Art work, inspired by humanity. I believe that Art helps us to be free from aggression and anger."
Ok , lets be a bit reasonable here. As a photographer you are essentially taking a copy of life; Thats the thing that sucks about photography, how much are you really creating? You have to ask yourself.
Your editing techniques are your own, if you "stage a photo" its your own. You can't really claim that say , a picture of a "landmark" or for that matter, a "public place" can't be painted.
Thats really silly. On the other hand, the AlexSaberi picture of the deer is so unique, its really a special composition.
But if I went out into the woods and waited until deer came up over that bluff the same way, and got the shot, would I not be allowed to sell it because you already took that same picture?
I am all for photographers rights, but down claim the right to the Brooklyn bridge.
A while back I did a Painting loosely based on A Konador photo
the painting
the original Konador photo
I put this up on the website, otherwise its in a box in my cel;lar. I credited Konador, sent a PM at the time. Its kind of a primitive abstract photo, wouldf it be subject to copyright?
I read the about.com thing on painting from photographs. It seems to imply that if you want to paint from a photograph, it needs to be one that you yourself took. Which begs the question, is it the photo or the thing you are photographing that is the intellectual property? A shot of the empire state building has been taken 4 million times. Every angle every which lighting.
You can't claim that your shot is a copyright of that building-can you? Only if you tweak it or manipulate it enough. Whose to say that I didn't paint that picture based upon my own photo of the church, oe en plein aire right from that same spot?
