Selling images to a painter

[jgcull]

An artist asked me for permission to paint my very favorite image. This one is settled, but she asked if I might send her other images and she would pay me. She wants a price.

I suggested I send scans and if she sees something she likes I will take it to the darkroom to print. She isn't really interested in prints to hang, but to work from. How should I charge?

She is a fine and successful painter who actually sells! Imagine that - a living from art.

I know this is sort of a crazy question to ask in a broad forum because some here sell prints for a good price, and others are happy for someone to enjoy what we make. But for the right to use the image, could you give me a starting place, or a way to calculate it?

Oh, and if you're going to say, "trade art" - that's an option for some of the time but I would really like to sell some. And I can't wait to see what she does with the one I've already agreed to. She's just great!

Thanks!

 

[Bob Carnie]

You should definately charge.

My buisness partner works regularly with a painter, For this particular artist, seeing a lot of versions of a subject, or subjects then some prints helps him.
He is making very large canvasas with intense detail so the photographs help.

We charge by the hour for the sessions, as well for the prints. We try to help out as much as we can by keeping the costs down, but sofar it has been a very successful relationship for both parties.

In some cases when its portraits, the couples will pay all our costs and then follow with the commision for the painting after a sitting session here.

 

[markbarendt]

How about getting a cut of the sales, say 20-25%.

 

[lightwisps]

I have done this in the past and it was an OK experience. Not sure I would do it again unless I was paid upfront for the image. I had a heck of a time getting paid.

 

[jgcull]

...

 

[calceman]

If you like what she does, rather swap several prints for one painting. Swapping work is a tradition for artists, and obviously she likes what you do.

 

[dpurdy]

I think it depends a little on the type of work she is doing with it. Is she doing exact copy photo realist type painting, or is she mostly taking inspiration from the photos and then doing more impressionistic work? For photo realism you are really almost her partner and should be rewarded with at least a good percentage. If it is more inspirational for her and she is taking it her own direction I might be happy if she would accept non perfect prints and maybe give me credit now and then.
Dennis

 

[removed account4]

eugene atget used to do this sort of thing.

i agree with swapping work, or at least get paid
what you would for a print ...

good luck!
john

 

[Dan Henderson]

slightly off topic, but I just finished a very interesting book that revealed the photographs and elaborate staging and propping that Norman Rockwell used for his paintings.

 

[eddym]

In our Art Guild, our rules for juried exhibitions are very specific: submitted art must be your own original work; if you painted from a photograph, it must be your own. Given, you didn't mention if she was planning to exhibit her work or try to sell it, but appropriating another person's vision and presenting it as your own is an indication of your own lack of creativity. The exception is if you are inspired by another artist's work and reinterpret it sufficiently to make it your own. Even then, most artists title the resulting art work as "after Picasso" or "inspired by Monet", etc.
Of course, if you are willing to let her benefit from your own artistic perception and creativity, that's your business. I'm merely stating that in the art world, it's considered a copout to work from someone else's original.
My wife is a pastel artist, and she works from her own photographs. We often go out shooting together, but we have an agreement between ourselves that we will not shoot the same subjects, so that no one will think she borrowed from my work, nor vice versa.

 

[calceman]

Eddym
There are no rules in art, only the ones you set for yourself. So your art guild is yours, not mine.
Even Picasso went further by saying "good artists copy, great artists steal", not that I follow his words...
In this thread, you could consider as "collaborative" work rather than "lack of creativity" from the painter, especially you dont know her.

 

[Bruce Watson]

Hmm... you made the original which means that she's making a print from your original photograph. Hand painted and hand crafted, yes, but a print nonetheless. You gotta love that concept!

Looked at that way it would seem that she owes you a royalty for having used your original. But I'd be *very* surprised if you could sell *that* concept. It seems that everyone has had it hammered into their skulls that painting is far more valuable than photography when it comes to art. Just sayin'.

I suggest going for a percentage of the sale price. Either of the gross or of the artist's cut. An up-front fee can be calculated by looking at what her other similar paintings sell for and applying that same percentage. How big or small that percentage might be is what gets negotiated.

Good luck with it, and congratulations. Not every day you get a hand made print like this made of your work.

 

[jgcull]

Right. I'm flattered. I can't wait to see how she interprets my (multiple exposure) man dancing. It's the one in my gallery. I have said I wouldn't take $10,000 for the original of that. I did have a digital file made of it so I can duplicate it. I hesitated when she asked if she could paint it, then I decided to appreciate that she appreciates it rather than the alternative.

She doesn't lack creativity. She's very good and it will be cool! And she won't do it exactly like I did. In fact, she said she'll do it in color. It's her choice and I have no problem with that.

p.s. btw, my husband doesn't agree with the $10,000 thing!

 

[eddym]

Eddym
There are no rules in art, only the ones you set for yourself. So your art guild is yours, not mine.
Even Picasso went further by saying "good artists copy, great artists steal", not that I follow his words...
In this thread, you could consider as "collaborative" work rather than "lack of creativity" from the painter, especially you dont know her.

I'm just offering a point of view, just like everybody else in this thread. I can only guarantee that it's worth the price paid.

 

[2F/2F]

IMHO, I would charge, but I would strike a deal wherein I got a cut of the sales of the paintings (on top of a fee for handing over the pix, if she will go for both). It is, after all, your compositions that she will be selling! It would seem only fair that you should get at least 50%, however, that is not going to happen. Make a deal that is fair to both sides, but definitely work a cut of the sales into it. In all fairness, you should receive co-artist's credit the way I see it. The composition is yours, the choice of subject is yours, therefore so is the entire concept of the piece, sans whatever conceptual layers she may add with her own painting. She is mostly just a copier in this case. You are the artist, the way I see it.

 

[jgcull]

>>She is mostly just a copier in this case. You are the artist, the way I see it.<<

I hear what you're saying, but you should see her paintings. I wish I could "copy" like that. She will see more and express beyond what I'm giving her. I'm not saying what I give her won't be nice. She'll just take it to another place. She's an amazing artist.

But this discussion has been helpful to me because it helps me not to be afraid to ask a fair price. I always tend to underrate myself.

 

[Whiteymorange]

In trying to teach kids what is stealing and what is "using source material" in doing your own artwork, I usually stick to the idea that the composition of the work is the most original part. Most artists I know use images that come from the work of others. For example, if I want to paint a tiger, I'm a bit at a loss for original drawings, since there are every few in New England, and those are in zoos. I would use published images- lots of them- to get an idea of the animal and them work up a picture that is based on what I see. It would not be a copy of somebody else's picture, but it would derive from their work.

There are rules in art, just as in anything else, but this isn't about rules. If you want to let her use your art to make hers, go for it. If she doesn't admit to the fact that the composition is not her own, however, she may be a great technician, but she isn't a very ethical artist. If she admits to the collaboration, as seems the case since she is asking permission to paint from your work, she may be a bit lazy, but not really out of line. Charge her what you would for exclusive rights to the image, or perhaps tell her that she may indeed use your image, but that you would like to have the photo displayed next to the painting. People would then see both the quality of the original image that inspired her and the beauty of her interpretation.

 

[jgcull]

>> but that you would like to have the photo displayed next to the painting. People would then see both the quality of the original image that inspired her and the beauty of her interpretation.

That's an interesting idea! I like it, though it would be up to her. She might enjoy that, too. By the way, she isn't lazy.

 

[Steve Mack]

Offer to teach her to use a camera for herself!

With best regards.

Steve

 

[jgcull]

Her husband does, and I hear well. But Steve, I don't want to discourage her from using my images. Especially if I can make some money.

 

[jgcull]

My cousin manages the gallery for these 2 women who paint. I spoke with her this evening, and the one painter has already completed the piece I gave her when I went to visit a couple weeks ago. I'm excited. I wish I could see it. I asked her to please take a picture and send it to me. Here's the image;

edited to say, this is *one* of the images. Obviously it is not of one dancing.