On the entanglement of the painter's "painting photos"

(2) A painter said that he was wronged. Although he copied the photo, how can he copy it after reshaping the painting technique? The original author put the photos on the internet for people to see and learn! For another example, the photographer took a photo, and the painter saw it and ran to collect the same light. Can this be considered plagiarism? Moreover, it is not uncommon for painting skills to reach the same level as photos and surreal works.

(1) Photographic works are interpreted as news of painting, which can be referred to strictly. It has been argued for two years. In real life, it is not uncommon for painters to "re-create" with reference to photographic works or other paintings, but painters should show their originality in new works.

(2) Citizens have the right to portrait. Without the consent of citizens, no one may use other people's portraits for profit. But if the portrait painter himself agrees, it is hard to say whether to copy the photos.

If the similarity is too high, the painting is really not suitable for commercial use, but there is no explicit provision. It doesn't hurt to use it as your own decoration. If it is a commercial or public exhibition, it is best to inform the original author.

(2) If it is used for commercial purposes or purposes that may involve conflicts of interest, it is best to obtain the permission of the copyright owner or the consent of the citizen himself in advance. It is also a good way to make notes in the painting to avoid problems afterwards.