Hello and welcome back. Today I bring you the result of a study in color, anatomy, and clothing folds I did yesterday. I am also talking about copying or stealing artwork from another artist, since I used a photo that is not supposed to be free to use. Anyways, I luv this painting a lot, my man (all the men I draw are MY men) is so sexyyy.
So, the study. A man in red, red in a man. I thought it would be would to practice some anatomy but I wanted to paint clothing, to practice folds and such. I found this image that I believe is from a Gucci photoshoot or something and I fell a little in love with all the red the model was wearing and realized that I should also practice painting red, since it is a tricky color.
So, here I am, figuring out why, even though there are three types of red (cool, neutral, and warm), there is always warm and cool shadows and lights. I understand that there is always more than one source of light and that there can be different one another but, why is it so noticeable in red? Whenever I see something red, especially if it is in fabric, I always see blue lights, pink lights, yellowy lights, purple shadows, and brown shadows. All in the same shade of red! Amazing, don’t you think? So here is the deal, when painting red, you decide if the shade of red is cool, neutral, or warm, then decide how many light sources there are and then you start shading. Depending on what light is hitting and where, you put a cool color (blue, pink) or a warm color (yellow, orange). And with the shadows, if it is a shadow created by the folds of the fabric it will be warmer the warmer the base color is, if it’s a shadow that comes from the lack of light, it will be cooler, cooler the cooler the base color.
I think that is how it works, still figuring out though. Now, let us move on to something I would like to address: Am I stealing some else work by doing this study, and so, doing something illegal? The answer is no, I am not doing something that is illegal. Because one, I am not selling it, two, the purpose of the artwork is different (which means, if I were to sell it, I would not have a problem since my artwork is sold in a different market than that of fashion photography, yes, laws work like that) and three, many of the aspects of the artwork are due to my own creativity and have nothing to do with the idea the photographer had.
I want to explain some more of this third point. You can tell me that they look too much alike to not be a copy but then I would ask you: which part of the photograph do you think is due to the creativity of the photographer and, therefore, intellectual property? Only the feeling, the story it is telling through that photo. This means that putting a man in a very common pose with some very common red clothes that can be found anywhere has absolutely no value artistically, it is not something that the artist created himself so it is free to use. The photographer does not own the clothes nor the pose, he only owns the creation of that particular photo, with that particular setting and lighting; not the fact that a man is sitting wearing red clothes from Gucci.
Funnily enough, I only copied the pose and the clothes. The look on the man’s face is different, the story I am telling is my own, the anatomy of the body has changed, the features are others, I even changed how the lighting was and I even changed the fact that in my artwork you can see the full body, while in the photo the body is seen partially. I even painted his lips red, for god’s sake! So, no, I am not stealing someone else’s work, since what I “stole” was the pose and the clothing, which does not belong to the photographer.
Man, it feels good to explain all this having done my research. And this is important, because people come at you and say “hey, this looks very similar to that person’s work, you are stealing!”, when in reality, the only things that really do match are the common and free things to use. In my particular case, this would be completely different if the pose was very unusual and unique or the clothes were made specifically for that photoshoot and are also very unique. Actually, even that isn’t really stealing. You can take a Gucci magazine and draw your character wearing the clothes and nobody could come at you and say that you have stolen someone else’s work because you are in a completely different market and you did not say that you were the one that designed those clothes nor do you need permission to draw them. You can go outside and paint some street with people passing by and it would be ok to sell, and guess what? You also drew the clothes they were wearing and that someone designed! But you are not stealing at all.
I hope this information is useful because people do not understand how this “stealing artwork” really works, even less when talking about how these things work legally. But fret not, I actually really enjoy learning about laws, I even once studied what is called “commercial law” and it was super interesting and cool. And if you do not know, things like copying someone else’s logo or product were explained during the classes I had.
Thanks for reading todays long and kind of tricky (people do not seem to be comfortable talking about laws) but I think it was necessary and, as I said, I do like talking about this stuff. Don’t forget to check the time lapse painting and see you soon. Have a lovely and red kind of day. ♥
P.s. I promised I would give some comic updates, but this post was too long so I might do a quick post throughout the week to update you. Even so, let me tell you that I finally did the first page of the comic, yay! 😉