Frankel

M

MarkEE

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
337
Location
Wales
Long time member, very infrequent visitor. Thought some of you equine fans would appreciate this labour of love of mine...100+ hours over 10 months!

"Frankel"
Graphite on Bristol Board 500mm x 650mm.
Tombow Mono 100, Mitsubishi Hi-Uni pencils (10B to 2H)
Tombow Mono Eraser for highlights.

Wish I could take a better photo as the light bounces of the dark tones too readily. I might still tinker with certain parts but I am 'fairly satisfied' with the overall!

1233430_507985719275499_95012031_n.jpg
 
Not sure about Frankels nose, can't quite associate the shape especially the nostrils.

Stunning piece nevertheless.
 
Thanks so much for all of your kind comments, really motivates and inspires!

As far as questions about prints and if the piece is for sale. It's a tricky one because I found the reference photo on the net (I've never even seen Frankel in the flesh let alone taken a pic of him!) and copyright law is a stumbling block. As far as I can find out, if I attempt to draw an exact/close likeness of the reference photo, and then profit from it, I am in breach of copyright, and could be sued by the owner if he/she found out and wanted to take action - unless I first sought permission from the owner.

I've never had prints produced of any piece of work but maybe I should look into it? In an ideal world art would be my profession, but in the real world where I take ten months to produce a piece...it's not feasible...but as a secondary income...



Slim - the GC/K piece (although not a patch on this piece) is in the photos on my art page - follow my signature link. There's a coloured pencil piece of Denman too!
 
Last edited:
MarkEE said:
...There's a coloured pencil piece of Denman too!
Click to expand...

Denman... now you're talking. A proper racehorse as opposed to a one-trick pony! ;) ...you can charge what you like for that one.

Seriously though considering how long each one takes you a limited print run of each edition is surely the way to go. A print run of say 50 at £100 a kick would recoup much more that you are charging for the original (for which you are not charging enough).

Not sure about the legal issue of 'copying' a photo, but surely artistic interpretation of an image makes the copyright of your creation yours.
 
what does the man/lady who took the picture you copied get in terms of % of profits? or did you take the photo yourself?
 
G-G said:
No it doesn't. Beware 'copying' photographs for prints and paintings.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But surely you wouldn't need to change too much of the incidental detail of a photographic image to make it a different thing in its own right and not traceable to the photograph.
 
Someone recently copied a famous photograph of mine and changed the background and the sky.

I saw the article advertised for sale, and then the actual physical painting for sale on a racecourse.

No permission had been sought.

The artist then tried to say that he had changed around a third of the image (the background and the sky) and was therefore not liable.

Of course, no one is buying a painting of background and sky, they are buying a painting of the horse.

The artist in the end, reluctantly, settled on a fee of £500 as he did not want to go to court.

This is an Edward Whitaker picture.

If MarkEE is offering this art for sale then he should contact Edward or the Racing Post. I believe the Racing Post own Edwards stuff. Permission should be sought in advance.

It is the correct thing to do.

I tend to charge around 10% of the intended sale price of the original.
Permission must be sought in advance.

Fiddling with incidental details will not hide the basis of the copy, and do not free the artist from needing permission to sell.

I have examples every year. Some go about their business in the correct manner, some do not, and they are always found out, because photographers recognise their pictures, and if they don't, someone else does.

Good work.
 
I've certainly learned something.
I would have been one of those who previously thought that an artist creating a piece of original work by his own hand was the sole copyright owner of that piece -- irrespective of how he had got his inspiration.
 
Some very good advice here, especially from UG. My original intention (prior to starting work) was to sell it. But since I read the copyright issues, I have no intention of getting into legal bother. I will probably retain the piece as my own. However, I may attempt to contact Edward Whitaker (thanks, I had no idea who the photographer was) and see about permission to sell the original.

And thanks again for the great compliments.

Oh, and about those nostrils,Bounty Muncher, I think they are a pretty good likeness!!! :)
 
An illuminating post, uncle goober.

My initial inclination was that the taker of the original photo would have to be quite po-faced to want a piece of the action, but business is clearly business.

This is in no way a judgment of you, so please don't take it that way, but it's my understanding that professional photographers are quite strident in their view that all subject matter is fair-game, and no one person can lay copyright claim, to any image in which they appear?

I appreciate that a man picking his nose at a bus-stop isn't 'art' until it is captured on media - it's just a bloke picking his nose - but if snappers do hold such a view, isn't there perhaps a teensy double-standard at play?

Maybe not, thinking about it.

I'd love to see some of your (and more of MarkEE's) work posted-up here, if you were both to be so inclined.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top