Alberto:
When you get into the issue of one artist transforming from one form
to another and the origin is not his / her original work,
one gets into the area of derivative work.
In the copyright arena, the original artist ( you ) owns a part of
the derivative work ( the painting ) and can prevent the sale or gift
of the painting to a third party.
Unless a transfer of the painting occurs, I'm not sure that an
actionable event has happened.
However, only a qualified intellectual property attorney will be able
to answer in your particular circumstance.
The underlying assumption here is that you didn't give permission for
the copying.
For grins, why not serve notice to the painter that you are asserting
your ownership rights to the derivative work and see what the answer is?
It might be fun.
Cheers,
James
At 12:09 PM 1/14/2007 -0800, you wrote:
Copying has always been possible to a very high degree
of detail. Eons ago, someone here was referring to
photographers looking for Adams' tripod footprints so
they could shoot the exact same photo.
What troubles me the most (probably) is painters who
copy my photographs, and yet nobody else (even
photographers) seem interested in defending this
point. Its my vision, but "its only a photo" = not
art. My vision in "their" canvas is worth thousands.
James Schenken
