Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

You can send an email to [email protected] if you have questions about how to use this forum.

Copyright question

If I pause a show on the television and take a picture and then paint that image, is that OK or is that a copyright issue?
I'm not talking about movies but shows like Alaska, The Last Frontier. They have some great scenes with mountains, cows, and people on horses.


  • @Ronna It depends on what you are going to do with the finished painting.
  • Ronna

    In Australia, Copyright protects the visual images and accompanying sounds of 'cinematographic films'. Cinematographic films includes feature films, TV programs, documentaries, short films, home videos, animated films and cartoons, television commercials, video podcasts and some multimedia products such as computer games.

    The Copyright lasts seventy years. The same law exists in US and UK.
    The details of copyright and how to obtain permission to use is found in the credits at the end of the broadcast.

    I general terms if you are only going to hang the resultant painting in your home there is not an issue. Trouble can start if it is sold or reproduced.
    It would be very difficult for a film producer to prove that an impressionist painting is a copy of his nature documentary scene. Representational works may be easier though.


    [Deleted User]
  • @Ronna In every company that I have ever worked for there was some copyright issue at one time or other. Here is a link to the "fair use" entry on Wikipedia.
  • Thank you everyone for your comments. I appreciate your input. My question has been answered. Paint for myself but don't sell.
  • Yeah, because like EVERY scene in Downton Abbey is something I'd like to paint. Every freakin' scene is a painting!
  • or change it a little bit and do sell :-)
    [Deleted User]Ronnamarieb
  • Great scenes. What show did they come from?
  • Barry Lyndon, you gotta love it.
    [Deleted User]
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] admin
    edited February 2015
    Wikipedia said:

    The film — as with "almost every Kubrick film" — is a "showcase for [a] major innovation in technique." While 2001: A Space Odyssey had featured "revolutionary effects," and The Shining would later feature heavy use of the Steadicam, Barry Lyndon saw a considerable number of sequences shot "without recourse to electric light." Cinematography was overseen by director of photography John Alcott (who won an Oscar for his work), and is particularly noted for the technical innovations that made some of its most spectacular images possible. To achieve photography without electric lighting "[f]or the many densely furnished interior scenes... meant shooting by candlelight," which is known to be difficult in still photography, "let alone with moving images."

    Kubrick was "determined not to reproduce the set-bound, artificially lit look of other costume dramas from that time." After "tinker[ing] with different combinations of lenses and film stock," the production got hold of three "super-fast 50mm" F/0.70 lenses "developed by Zeiss for use by NASA in the Apollo moon landings," which Kubrick had discovered in his search for low-light solutions. These super-fast lenses "[w]ith their huge aperture [the film actually features the largest lens aperture in film history] and fixed focal length" were problematic to mount, but allowed Kubrick and Alcott to shoot scenes lit with actual candles to an average lighting volume of only three candlepower, "recreating the huddle and glow of a pre-electrical age."

    Although Kubrick's express desire was to avoid electric lighting where possible, most shots were achieved with conventional lenses and lighting, but were lit to deliberately mimic natural light rather than for compositional reasons. In addition to potentially seeming more realistic, these methods also gave a particular period look to the film which has often been likened to 18th century paintings (which were, of course, depicting a world devoid of electric lighting), in particular owing "a lot to William Hogarth, with whom Thackeray had always been fascinated." In the words of critic Tim Robey, the film has a "stately, painterly, often determinedly static quality." For example, to help light some interior scenes, lights were placed outside and aimed through the windows, which were covered in a diffuse material to scatter the light evenly through the room rather than being placed inside for maximum use as most conventional films do. One telltale sign of this method occurs in the scene where Barry duels Lord Bullingdon. Though it appears to be lit entirely with natural light, one can see that the light coming in through the cross-shaped windows in the barn appears blue in color, while the main lighting of the scene coming in from the side is not. This is because the light through the cross-shaped windows is daylight from the sun, which when recorded on the film stock used by Kubrick showed up as blue-tinted compared to the incandescent electric light coming in from the side.

    One of my favourite movies ever made.
  • @ronna, I am with Mark on this on, change it a bit 20% and sell. One lion or tiger running through the Savannah or where ever will look much like another. Remove branches, change the size of mountains, shift clouds whatever ;)
  • just use it as "inspiration", nothing wrong with that.
  • There are tons of public realm copyright free images on wikimedia, wetcanvas, deviantart, etc. to use as references. But if you have your heart set on using a particular image tell the copyright owner you're a student, ask for permission to use it, and assure them that you will not use the image for commercial purposes. 99% of the time i've done this i get a positive response.
  • Speaking of copyright, the website I pulled those screenshots from was just permanently taken down. :|
  • Somebody's watching you.
Sign In or Register to comment.