Thanks for this Robert, those of us who are crafters/artists deal with this problem on a daily basis. There isn't a week goes by (a slight exaggeration) that something that has been dreamed up by a crafter/artist and shared on the numerous craft websites doesn't turn up in the stores (usually dollar stores) that is stamped "made in China". It's extremely frustrating because there are no copyrights on stuff shared with other crafters. I have personally gotten to the point of just not sharing if something I create is from my fertile imagination ... I often hear this lament from people who do local craft shows as well ... people will buy something, copy it, (right down to the directions) and then hawk it as their original creation at the next show.

Thanks Robert for your lovely answer. But copying is also another form of flattery, as long as you acknowledge the original everytime you reproduce :)

Dear Robert, You have been very kind, and have said all that needs to be said. I don't consider a copyist to be an artist; only an impersonator. Why would you waste your time on redoing someone else's work; we have so little time to create and hone our skills which eventually produces our vision. Stop the stupidity and use your own brain and creativity.

I would just like to say that in the United States, the copyright law allows an old master's painting to be copied and sold on the market if these criteria are followed:

1. The original artist must have been deceased 70 years or more thereby making his/her work Public Domain.

2. The original artist's name must appear on the front of the painting giving credit to that artist.
Ex.: "After (the name of the artist)" with the name of the copyist under that phrase.

Failure to give the original artist credit for the composition is not allowed.

I was once told by a Frenchman that in France it is allowed to copy a contemporary's work and sell it under your own name as long as the medium is different. I.E. A photograph may be copied with paint, etc. I don't know if that is true, but it would be illegal in this country.

There will always be those untalented who ride the skirts of the inspired. Copying doesn't go to the root of the problem. Morality is the issue. While artists relate the world through their eyes, there will be those with no vision, who try and encase an other’s vision and will create an empty shell of the original.
I feel sorry for those who copy, for theirs is a second hand experience and will lack the intimate, personal satisfaction achieved by the original artist. In life the greatest thing is the doing of an original thing. Nothing can replace the feeling and personal satisfaction.
To have no vision is a travesty. To benefit from the vision of others is the greater travesty.
“If you lack the enthusiasm, curiosity, suspicion, invention and a willingness to tackle the difficult, you will be missing the greatest part of the painting process.”

This issue of copying the work of others comes up every so often. Each time it does you can count on a flurry of post condemning the practice and insisting that 'real' artists do only original work and have their own artistic vision. Trouble is when you look at these protesters' art, especially those that protest the loudest, you wonder what in the world they're talking about. The most you could say is that a tried and true artistic vision or visual concept has been applied to a new subject in a professional manner. Which is not to say no one ever has an original idea, just that the vast majority of us including myself borrow heavily from the masters past and present. In fact, the masters often borrowed from one another. You can copyright your art, but not your artistic vision. Are you an impressionist, a tonalist, an abstractionist, outsider, etc.? What niche does your art fit into? If it doesn't fit into an established category it may be truly original. Likely it has a small market, if any, galleries don't want it, you feel you're on a mission and your friends regard you as obsessed. Self-preservation keeps most artists well within the accepted boundaries. True originality and creativity are very rare and greatly over rated. I feel sorry for people who imagine their art and vision is original when it isn't.

Rick you are right on!! Those of us who make a living (or attempt to do so) are not pleased to put it mildly, and definitely not flattered, at those who copy our work .
I primarily paint commissioned work although I also paint en plein air, and certainly do not want examples taken from my web sites for the convenience of someone with no artistic merit of their own.

There is a difference with "derived from" as opposed to "copying" another’s work. The current letter was referring not so much to being original an in "never before" so much as copying from another’s created work and calling it your own. Correct me if I misunderstood the "original" intent of Robert's letter.
To plagiarize is still wrong in my book.

This is a constant battle with my adult art students. They believe that "if you change 15% of the painting" it is then considered to be an original by THEM. This is a myth. I always suggest to my students that their time would be better spent studying the METHOD and TECHNIQUE of an artist that they admire and applying THAT to their own work rather than directly copying someone else's vision. I believe it's a shallow victory to bask in another's battle.

WRT my comments above, I'm not referring to forgery or copyright violations. I'm talking about learning as we all have from the work of those who paint well. Some spend years studying and copying the masters, for example, Degas. Or maybe you catch a glimpse of painting and are smitten. You come away with a new understanding of what art can be and a resolve to elevate your own work to that level. I think it's safe to say something like this has happened to all artists. If by original is meant 'distinctly personal' I'm in full agreement. At the same time we must acknowledge the debt owed to those upon whose shoulders we stand. Honesty requires that we admit to borrowing, taking and stealing, as Picasso put it, at least amongst ourselves.

It would be foolish and arrogant to assert that any artist today is so because he or she figured it out all on his or her own. Even an art form/style that may not be the in vogue or viewed as worthwhile is derived from what has come before. The simple fact that the tools we use are the same is more proof that we learn from others who have come before. I'm sure I've picked up more than my share of "tricks" from every artist living and dead.
If you live on this planet you are influenced by what has come before. Even if you secluded away without television or newspapers I believe your art would reflect the world you live in and resemble some form we’ve seen before.

The underlying fact here is that we take this information, sift it, absorb what works for us and use what God given ability we were given and try like heck to use these techniques to say something worthwhile. Even art that is not informative and just playful says something. Art is a way to communicate whatever it is you wish to communicate. It's a way to touch others. It's a method of speech, similar to film or writing. The better your ability to translate your expertise, the better you convey your message. It is one fundamental way humans have tried to outlive their existence from the cavemen and cavewomen who left behind their impressions of their world. We are doing nothing more than they. This should be at the heart of all art.

When you add into the equation – commerce, then everything changes. Selling is important on many levels but the underlying issue for most artists is fundamentally to communication an idea of what they see or believe.
This is what I try and do every day of my life while creating “original” work.

I wanted to add that the only real, good purpose to copying from anyone is to learn about the techiniques and approach the painter used. Selling it should never be an issue if you are a real artist.
To try an replicate what you see in tone, color, brushstroke is invaluable to any learning experience and should be a part of all artist's learning process. The difference is they should forever hang on your wall and never be shown or exhibited as your work.

I was horrified by the first paragraph that even ASKED the question regarding copying! Robert, you answered kindly and hopefully steered the individual to the right path. Plagiarism by any name is simply wrong. The issue is not only of ethics but of morality! Low standards which are easy to reach, 'shortcuts' to success even though they utilize the talent and labor of another. Unfortunately we are seeing this attitude in every segment of society.

Obviously we all learn and are influenced by those who have gone before us, there is 'no note that hasn't been played'. But it is in the processing and diffusing of the information that we strive to create, make our OWN statement; write our own song. For each of us who are making that journey, the plagiarist is hurting us all.

I understand the issues around plagiarism. But copying? Mmmm... I was just reading yesterday about Rubens' employment with the duke of Mantua early in his career and how he was paid to copy masterpieces for the duke's collection. While Rubens acknowledged the original authors the exercise of copying allowed him no doubt to better "feel" the works and learn from them. This is pure speculation on my part of course. So I disagree with Robert. As a dancer I often "copy" details from my peers (a beautifully soft elbow, a drawn-out extension, a quick weight shift,...). I know it will never be the same on my body and I was never accused of being a clone. When I steal I give full acknowledgement to the original author if I teach the detail to others. Perhaps the medium of dance does not allow for the same perspective as in the visual arts. In any case it must be mentioned that silly duke of Mantua never did purchase an original Rubens ;-)

I'd like to know who these judges were for the AWS! OMG...This competition piece might as well have been done in Photoshop. I prefer art, especially watercolor, that has more magic and imagination. Why go through all the effort to make something look like a photograph? Technical skills alone don't make great art. Thinking of the AWS dispute, perhaps the artist bought the images from Shutterstock and felt that she had the rights to the photographs' use. We are talking about commercial photography that is licensed for use and not fine art as far as the original photos are concerned.

I think your comment on moral decay is right-on. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised someone would ask if selling a copied work is okay. The thinking that allows someone to justify acting in such a morally skewed fashion is so wide-spread that many don't even recognize such an act when they see it anymore. Last year I was unpleasantly reminded of this when the brother of my son's cub scout master (who is, himself, a scout master of a different troup) asked to borrow my son's winning boat from the annual Rain Gutter Regatta race so he could copy it. My son's boat was such a different and unique design and so fast that no one could catch him. We were trying to teach our son the lesson of using his own creative mind to come up with a boat design of his own and not just copy what everyone else was doing. None of us knew if this new design was even going to work, but I told him he was better off trying and failing than just doing what everyone else was doing because it was safe. In the end, he had created something truly special that was faster than anything in the history of this race. The fact that a scout master then borrowed it so he could copy it for his own son's race speaks volumes about where we are as a society. Whether copying boats or art or anything under the sun, there comes a point where you're stepping over the line. Has that line become so blurred in people's minds that they can't even see it anymore? Seems like we've turned the corner from where doing one's best was its own reward, to winning at all costs whatever the price.

I recently had a request for a possible purchase of a painting done in northern Michigan this summer. I agreed to send a copy of the painting via e.mail so the client could see it before making a decision to buy. After photographing the painting I downloaded it into Photoshop and placed my name in large transparent letters across the surface before sending it as an attachment. That way the painting could be seen but not printed.

In days gone by, when masters in any field were held in higher respect than they often are today, copying the master's work was considered a valuable technical training exercise. While I've never
done so myself, there is a particular John Singer Sargent work that my wife and I really like, and his style is not that different from mine, so I plan to paint a smaller copy of the piece as a gift to my wife, to hang in our own home as (hopefully) a higher quality reproduction than a print of the original. I'll attribute it when I sign it, so there is never any question of it being an attempted forgery.This seems like a good solution for those wanting to copy a master work out of respect and for practice, rather than ever selling such a piece.

Creativity, appreciation and learning keep moving around and through obstacles. When someone says "no," is it the artist part of the person? Or the scared part? You're good at inspiring people. That's how you've been making an impact. Branches take care of themselves when you water the root.

It was many years ago and I was a young artist struggling to get my career off the ground. I was always a fan of the Pop Art Era. Warhol, Kenny Scharf, Rauchenberg and especially Keith Haring. I studied these artists and found their work a great inspiration. I researched everything I could on these artists. I followed the music they listened to, read the books they spoke of and admired the meteoric fame they managed to carve out for themselves. I emulated them and while I felt I made it my own, there was no dismissing their influence they had in my paintings.

I received notoriety for my work, did a great deal of paintings, had a number of public installations and exhibitions and got accolades and TV coverage for my efforts.

Then one day I listened to a strange message on my answering machine. It said "...this is the Ghost of Keith Haring, STOP ripping me off...!"

I found a new subject to paint and turned my career in a new trajectory.

It is all part of a journey...

There are so many levels of copying that the issue is rather complex. An outright reproduction, of course, is wrong, unless it's done as an exercise, to learn, and not shared with or sold to the public.

But in fact, we all copy all the time. Little bits. We look at others' art and are inspired and find some element that we'd like to try in our own work. We observe a technique that produces interesting work and we try it in our next painting. We see photographs that give us an idea of something we could try. Even plein-air painters copy; they copy what they see in nature.

The fact is that we do not live in isolation of others and everything we see and experience influences our work. The key, I think, is that we need to use all those influences for inspiration, not for copying.

There is nothing wrong with taking things from the Masters. There is nothing wrong with taking ideas or imagery. One must just change it, and add your own bit, but this is legal and very right. The great painters are long dead. I would never copy them, but I would steal, and make something new.

As someone wrote years ago (approximately), "each artist must create it new and different out of him(her)self. The minute it looks like Cezanne, it is nothing." To some extent, that is even true of the motif. Don't go painting Sacre Couer because Utrillo did it - it has to be your Sacre Couer (or bather, or downy woodpecker) or it is nothing.

But for those of us who paint the world we see, other paintings and pictures are also a part of that world. I've painted a lot of birds. I once ran into a picture of a crow and corncob in the snow which I recognized as an image that was used in a game of bird lotto that I had as a child many years before. That image was part of my own life store of special things I've seen and I felt moved to paint it as a result (though I used my own corncob as a model). I later sold the picture without feeling guilty about it at all. I have to add that this was an unusual occurrence - I normally start from the 3D world I see.

Also, although I haven't done this, learning by copying old masters is a time honored technique. We do this in most fields with no shame attached: it helps to know how others have solved a problem before us. A frequent problem for those of us who fix our own cars and washing machines and so forth is finding out how it is done. How much pressure do we dare to bring to bear on that recalcitrant joint. Once we've seen it done or done it ourselves without breaking anything, then the answer is obvious. In painting, the purpose of such an exercise would be to add to our vocabulary, not to create a work that would be considered an end in itself. And, no, we shouldn't offer to sell such a student exercise. But we might give it to Aunt Matilda since she admired it and has helped us from time to time.

Though I started late in life, I take my art seriously and that of others. I am so tired of seeing some artists who try to copy some of our well-known artists. What I enter into an exhibition is mine and mine alone. Don't these people know that you can't put work done in a workshop or copied into a juried exhibition? Don't they realize that others know exactly whom they are trying to copy. Don't they know to obey the copyright laws?

It seems like this letter has three issues, or questions:

Is it okay to copy art?

Is is okay to sell copied art?

Is it okay to buy copied art?

It appears that it's timeless to copy those whom we admire, in almost all forms of art. Virtually no painter can look at (or listen to or read, etc.) paintings by others without doing at least a little mental de-constructing. And standing in a museum copying a masterwork (with different dimensions than the original, of course) seems to be an accepted method of self-instruction.

So I'm going to go out on a limb (realizing that I'm just putting this out for the sake of argument and/or fun) and say that it's okay to copy as long as you take joy only from the discovery and education processes but not from a final achievement point of view. But is it okay from a financial point of view? I've gotta eat.

And here I'm assuming unauthorized copies, not those of your own works. I'm also assuming that it's not an attempted counterfeit. This one seems trickier. In music, for example, it's okay to suck at composition, but you can still be an excellent musician playing (or conducting or singing) the works of others. Does it cross a line if you try to sing an aria just like Caruso did, even though you're obviously not him? Plus he's dead; you can hardly sully his reputation. It seems like it might be okay to sell acknowledged copies of dead people. But only if they've been dead long enough so that you're not affecting the artist's estate?

It's my opinion that the purchase of copied art is the greatest debate. At this point it doesn't matter if you're an artist or not, does it? If it looks fantastic in the Louvre, and touches me on whatever levels give me a thrill or inspiration, will a copy not do the same thing hanging in my living room? Will owning that copy dull me as a creator?

What about authorized copies from the original artist; can (should) I buy those? "I can't afford a Smith $50,000 original oil". But I can afford a $3000 giclee, signed and numbered. But it is just a copy. How about if it has a few brush strokes added by the artist so that "no two are alike"? If her assistant added the strokes? What about a Jones bronze; they only come as copies?

Of course many of these questions are best pondered when begun with a few warm-up questions such as "Cognac or scotch?" or " can we smoke cigars in your garage?"

It is specifically and exactly the creative aspect of the artistic process that flies in the face of conformity, greed and consumerism. To see it cheapened by people who want to ride on someone's coattails for their own profit, is a disgrace. Copying, especially with money signs in one's eyes, is both cheap and profligate.

Artists don't do it for the money, and what little they make is their just due. No one has the right to steal in any sense of the word. And stealing art is almost as low as taking food from a baby's mouth. We need to re-awaken our collective sense of what constitutes both meaning and honor and justice in life, and live in the light of our consciences.

When I was professionally making custom furniture I approached interior designers as a way of expanding my marketing reach. One of them gave a set of my drawings to two fellows to have them job shopped around town to get a better price. She did not even bother to clip the copyright notice. Fortunately they took them to a good friend who also had a shop. He called me immediately. I left a message on one of the two fellows answering machine. ( I knew them personally). I described in considerable detail exactly which body parts I would remove with which dull tool and into which body orifice I would place them. I got a phone call from their lawyer. When I explained my side of the discussion his reply was, "There are no new ideas in design, get off your high horse."

I once was asked to copy a painting for a second daughter. The mother wanted to treat both children equally, and could only give a loved painting to one. So I did copy the painting - and learned a great deal as I looked at the paper, the actual colour of the watercolour paints [ex.FUB], how was it laid out. It was an excellent exercise. I signed it as the author did but added - as reproduced by [my name] - in small written print.
In Art Clubs, when I've noticed artists painting the photos of others, I have asked if they are going to acknowledge the originator. I have not been popular, but I have wanted them to be good credible artists. Just lately I was shown an oil painting copied by a student as asked by the instructor. It was not as good as the original, and she had made small changes; it was an 'iffy' situation! I asked her if she was going to sell it - or how she would label it, if she were going to put it in a show.
I did an acrylic painting of well known Canadians - Suzuki, S. Lewis, Vanier, D'Allaire - and on the back recorded the photographers' names, and source [newspaper,etc.] I was taught this in Art College.

Another approach is to be inspired by an artist's style and try out that style in your own vision.... I was doing a series using buildings and came across this remarkable artist/architect... It jump started a whole new series that was totally my own combining glass and acrylic paint on wood panels.
http://www.annenye.com

When you referred to the copy machines and giclee copies, I would have appreciated some opinions on the use by artists of the giclee as "original" art when marketed to uninformed buyers. One might conclude that artists willing to go that route do bring on the art community a certain mistrust and criticism of ambiguity when it comes to copies.

Printmakers (etchers, lithographers, etc.) are often critical of the use of the word prints when it comes to advertising and marketing copies of original art.

More discussion and understanding is probably needed --even when artists copy their own work.

I have to agree with the tone being imparted here, but only about half of it. Is there a place for reproduction of art? I think there is.

I have been looking at picking up copies of one or two paintings of the masters, paintings that I find incredibly inspiring, so that I may hang them on my walls. For example, I am mesmerized by Starlight Over The Rhone by Van Gogh and would love to find a space on my wall for a nice reproduction of that piece. Saying that, I would much rather spend my money on a hand painted reproduction, whether it be from China, Canada or wherever, than hang a $20 poster on my wall.

Which brings up a small point. Why is it wrong to copy a master's work and sell it, but not to create a cheap poster from the very same work and sell it for $20 in any shopping mall across the country? Again, I would rather buy a very nice, hand painted repro from a Chinese artist, knowing that my money is helping to put food on the table of a small family, while keeping the artist afloat long enough to bring his own work to fruition. And I can assure you that many of these copy artists are just as anxious to make their marks on the world of art as any of us.

And before I get crucified here, and I can assure you that I will be, I do draw the line at copying copyrighted works and selling them illegally. I would not even think of buying a copy of a piece of work by a living artist. Hell, I won't even buy a giclee of a piece put out by the artist themselves. To me, a giclee is nothing more than a cheap poster and I believe we have artists like Thomas Kinkade to thank for that.

But, who holds the copyright to the Mona Lisa, another painting I would love to hang on my wall? The Louvre? I can assure that they do not. They own the painting, thus the right to hang it. Well, I think they own it, but it could be owned by someone else and on loan to them. But, they do not hold the copyright. No one does.

So, if I want to hang Mona on my wall, what are my choices? Get a couple hundred million dollars together and go to the Louvre and see if they will sell it to me? Or go to the mall and buy a poster of the painting for about $20, $40 framed. Or buy a hand painted reproduction by a skilled artist, that would look real nice in a frame and hanging on the wall? I hate to say this, but it may a couple of years before I can fly to France and walk up to the Mona Lisa and say, "I'll take it," and hand over a check to cover the purchase.

How about all the coffee table books that are printed, that contain photos of the great works of art? Why is it okay to produce these books, but it isn't okay to reproduce the art piece as an actual work of art? Because the authors got permission? Permission from whom? Who do you get permission from to reproduce the Mona Lisa?

I absolutely think there needs to be a delineating line that people shouldn't cross, whether in the creation of the piece of artwork or the purchasing of artwork. But, people being who they are, that line will always be crossed. People shouldn't do drugs, but there are plenty of them out that will cross that line every day and think nothing of it. It's a conundrum that will be wrangled with for many years to come.

Dear Friend, Your clone letter was very thought provoking and timely. I especially enjoyed reading the responses. Here is a thought that popped into my head as I read along, "what about work we create while attending workshops, clinics or private tutoring"? Somewhere in the back of my memory I learned that works created by an artist while studying under another artist should not be exhibited outside the classroom and definitely not entered into any competitive contest or sold for profit. Once the student graduated, so to speak, the teacher's influence and training would no longer directly affect the budding artist's new work. Whether there exists a "rule" or not, I feel that any work created while there is a student/teacher relationship the student should not display the completed classroom art as his or her own in a public venue. The master's influence in the work would be such that the finished piece would not completely belong to the student, but in reality to both the master and the student.

To David et al who wish to purchase prints, repos and copies, more power to you all. But it doesn't change the morality issue. The fact that there are people willing to purchase these "copies" just indicates to me the deterioration of correctness and moral fiber and lack of respect for artists in current society. The fact that artists make prints say much about the artists. This is only my opinion regarding prints. There are "legal" prints being marketed where the artist is compensated. No problem. If the deceased artist is credited, again there is NO problem. With each letter this issue gets more and more obfuscated. The one and only issue here is copying an artist or using other artists work without permission and recompense and calling it your own work, pure and simple. I send a resounding NO to this practice.

I recently read a story in the New Yorker magazine about a successful, well-known (at least in NYC circles) artist who specializes in painting realistic paintings from photos taken by other people. The article didn't say, but I assume with the permission of the photographers. Her work sells for very high figures. I found the article odd, because at no point did the author or his interviewees address the issue of the references she used. Apparently there is another perspective out there about using references not your own. I found it uncomfortable.

At the same time, there is an entire school of art that freely borrows complex symbolism from other cultures without giving either consideration to the appropriateness of that use, the meaning of the symbolism, or even attributing the origin. I also feel uncomfortable with that. Extremely. This is an issue I have discussed with many people over the years. Some understand, some consider all such symbolism "public domain" because, if I understand their arguments, it comes from what they consider "primitive cultures" who do not have a sense of ownership. Oh, but they do: it can encompass both a sense of personal ownership and a sense of group cultural ownership.

Which brings up another question: in a traditional art, which is based on replicating, either rigidly or loosely, a set of conventions, is this copying, or is it ensuring a kind of cultural continuity? In the same way, perhaps, that our insistance on individual creation ensures our sense of individuality rather than communal ownership?

I decided long ago that there is so much good, original art out there, that I'd only do one-of-a-kind work. I won't reproduce it (except on cards used in advertising my work), I won't copy others' photos or paintings. When someone buys my work, I want it to be truly original, and something they can't get anywhere else. Why be one of a zillion beanie-babies or other mass-produced item? I know lots of people don't agree with me and I'm the equivalent of the "church lady" in my strict philosophy, but that's the way I see it.

I paint with a few different groups. One is more in to there own original art. The other is just a great bunch of amature's artist, most over 70. I try telling them to be original, and not be copycats, they just laugh at me and all my rules. I know I just feel better doing an original from one of my own photos, or from a still life I set up. My favoriate is plein-air painting, when it's possible in New England.

I guess I should just let them keep copying Calenders, ect. as long as there having fun.???

I think that all artists are guilty of plagiarism at sometime in their art career. It's only natural for artists to borrow idears from the artists that they admire and rehash these idears to blend in with their own methods. Art seems to have come full circle now and trying to be different and original will be a real challenge.

Janet Warrick, Why doesn't your son patent his boat design. That way it will be forever known as "Warrick boat", and future generations will benefit from his discovery. It doesn't sound right that such a great design die off without being shared and the creator recognized and compensated for it.

When I "came out" as an artist in 1995 (my parents schooled me in -oh God, no, not art) so at the time I was 51. I took the Van Gogh pattern. I did three years of black and white drawings, then painting- first watercolor, only recently oils. To help me ease back into painting I took a brown bag watercolor class at a lady's house. She painted a piece and everyone else copied it. I thought, "When I do mine in fifteen minutes and it's "better" than hers, I'm outta here.

I never outdid her and I was not that fast. However, one day sitting there I thought to myself, "Why am I sitting here copying her when I have books of masterpieces at home?" So. I never went back.

Soon after that, and repeatedly, I was given free display space with me in it. I sold some of the copies. I sold them for very little and I was always honest about it. They were signed as "after" Mary Cassatt for instance. I'm sure no one mistakes my attempts for the real thing. It gave me some experience with selling early.

Now twelve years in I realize it was a bad idea. You know what? I've made other mistakes too. Part of the game, I guess.