I may be going to far here. But is this a clear ripoff?

[Adair M]

Today, it’s impossible to say how the found their model for their drawing. Did they make this drawing because they knew that another artist had been commissioned to make prints of it? Or did they see the tree at an exhibition, take a photo if it and then make a drawing based upon their photo? Or did they find a photo of the tree on the Internet and use that as the model?

It’s really difficult to protect an “image” in the days of the Internet. I once discover that an image of one of my trees was being used by a seller on eBay to sell “bonsai seeds”! Lol!!! (Those must have been some really special seeds since the tree used as the model was grafted! Lol!!!$

 

[Wires_Guy_wires]

It depends. It is definitely not black and white - you may or may not be in violation.

Case I: The image in the book is of a bonsai in a public garden that is seen and photographed by many people. Your drawing, though similar, is not an exact perfect replica of the bonsai in the photo. Probably not in violation if you tried to sell your work.

Case II: The image in the book is of a tree in a private exhibition. Photos in the exhibition were otherwise expressly prohibited. The image appeared in a unique book and no other images similar to that one exist elsewhere. The image was created using a paid professional, or otherwise making use of proprietary skills, equipment, or processes. Your drawing is a very close likeness of the image in the book. You would probably be in violation if you tried to sell your image.

It also depends on the country. Some countries embrace intellectual property protections, others (notably China) do not. So move to China and you can draw all you want... of anything

To add:

Case III: An artist has such a good memory that he/she draws it from memory after visiting a show where photos were prohibited. In this case, the copyright holder has to prove that the drawing was made from an illegal photograph and not from memory. One can copyright photos, but not memories. It's also fairly inhumane to tell people they can't recreate their memories on paper; books would become impossible to write and every picture or drawing of a sunset over the sea would receive a claim. Reasonably, it can be expected that nobody remembers if a work was proprietary if they're not actively planning on recreating it.

"The artist impression" leaves a lot of spare room for these kind of things in the copyright world, for the greater good (like downloadable subtitles for your favorite series) and also the greater evil. I've edited a lot of designs to evade 'exact' copying and added small artist impressions like rotating a flower a few degrees and adding something like a couple dots or some shade somewhere.
The fun really starts when you contact companies and ask them if you can use their logo IF you switch up a couple things, legally they have no power if that's the case and their copyright department has to get evasive and creative in their explanation.

Then there's the trick of the quotation marks.. Because the freedom of press worldwide allows you to quote everything and journalist isn't a protected profession so anyone can pose as one. I haven't tried this myself, but I know there have been artists - and entire news channels - that copied works and added millimeter sized quotation marks to their works, add a little asterisk and put the source on the back of the paper. Voila. The catch is that it has to be published as a news article and not as a piece of art. Way more risky, but it can potentially hold up in court. The original artist needs no mention at all, because the new artist only has to cite a source, which can be an eye witness.. And legally, the new artist could be an eye witness.
That's mental gymnastics, I know, but I've seen it work.

 

[Hartinez]

Today, it’s impossible to say how the found their model for their drawing. Did they make this drawing because they knew that another artist had been commissioned to make prints of it? Or did they see the tree at an exhibition, take a photo if it and then make a drawing based upon their photo? Or did they find a photo of the tree on the Internet and use that as the model?

It’s really difficult to protect an “image” in the days of the Internet. I once discover that an image of one of my trees was being used by a seller on eBay to sell “bonsai seeds”! Lol!!! (Those must have been some really special seeds since the tree used as the model was grafted! Lol!!!$

Pretty sure Walter Pall experiences this constantly. His images being used To sell seeds. Plus a time that one of his trees was on bags of akadama! Either way. It’s clear, if you have nice trees and nice images, people will use those, right or wrong.

in this case looking side by side, it looks like the drawing is of one of Eric’s Instagram photos.

 

[Bonsai Nut]

in this case looking side by side, it looks like the drawing is of one of Eric’s Instagram photos.

That is why, when creating work to be used for this web site, I always create something from scratch. For example, the "bonsai" that is used for the icon for this site (and for the t-shirt design if I ever complete it) doesn't exist. It is a very photoshopped image of the apex of a tree in nature, with some additional branch and root work Because the bonsai doesn't exist, no one can accuse me of infringement. And if I don't tell you where the tree is in nature, there is no chance that someone will air-layer off the apex, make a bonsai out of it, and accuse me of infringement after the fact

Actually.... now that I think about it... if people make a bonsai using my electronic art as a model, perhaps it is a case of infringement in a non-traditional sense

 

[BrightsideB]

This is was a frustration of mine as well when I was doing my steel sculpture everyday full time. I simply call it con art. There are artists who create originals and there is artistic people.

 

[Leo in N E Illinois]

I had a photo of one of my orchids, that I was using to sell my seedlings of that particular orchid. Next thing you know, someone else was using my photo complete with watermark, to sell their seedlings of the same species (but definitely different parents- genetics). I asked them to stop, they did for a few weeks, then they began advertising again. My attorney drafted a short cease and desist letter. That worked for about a year, then a my photos appeared again. I eventually gave up, the cost of litigation was not worth the effort. It really put a damper on my willingness to post photos anywhere. This was a maybe 15 years ago.

Now a days, I don't care. If I post a photo and someone swipes it I just write it off as loss. But I am not trying to monetize my photos. Oh well. It has been and is an on-going problem.

 

[Katie0317]

It's entirely legal to copy anything you like but when you offer it for financial gain that's a different story.

I'm not doing an exam of the print and of the drawing but they appear to be very similar. If there were no print and only a photo it would depend on who took the photo.

If you take a photo of a persons artwork and then recreate a drawing from your photo you're entitled to sell your drawing. On the other hand if you're working from another persons photo and offering it for sell...That's a violation of copyright law.

I think the right thing to do is messaging the original artist and then backing away which is what you appeared to have done.

I know artists whose work is being ripped off on a regular basis and some just feel it's the cost of doing business. Others are very proactive.