Question about Copyright

[untier]

The first image is painted by me, the second is the reference painted by other atist. According to any laws all over the world, do you think it's a tort for me to make the work as a commercial use? Is it a tort if I post it on forums or exhibit it in my online album?

[dpaint]

You are mistaken, the first image isn't really painted by you since real painting means you have made all of the design decisions by yourself.

The U.S. Copyright statute, Title 17 of the United States Code, protects original works of authorship which includes original artworks. Section 106 of the Copyright Act reserves to the author, or creator, of a work, the exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies as well as to prepare derivative works. The definition of copy in the Copyright Act includes any "material objects... from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or other wise communicated...".17 U.S.C. Section 101.The definition of derivative work includes "a work based on one or more preexisting works." Id.

A deliberate attempt to copy another artist's work would comprise either a copy or a derivative work under the Copyright Act, probably depending on the copyist's ultimate skill in executing their efforts (if the reproduction is truly precise, then it's probably a copy, whereas if it only winds up looking like it was based on the original, then it's probably a derivative work). But regardless of how well the copyist executed their efforts, the right to either copy or produce derivative works from an original artwork belong solely and exclusively to the original creator of the artwork.

[JFierce]

Sure you can show it online as long as your not claiming it as anything more than basically practice. People do studies all the time of others work. Selling it when it is clearly a derivative as dpaint said above. No.

[JeffX99]

Yep - this has no business being in a professional portfolio as commercial work.

[arenhaus]

And it's not even a competent copy or an improvement of the original to begin with. You've been missing the original artist's design decision right and left, and focusing on irrelevant details while ignoring more important things.

Back at the drawing board with you.

[PuppyKitten]

Why don't you take what you learned about rendering here (since the shiny details are obviously what you fancied about this piece) and use that knowledge to polish up a piece you compose and draw on your own?

Then you'll have a piece you can have confidence in.

Frankly, if you even have to ask whether a painting is too much of a copy to legally sell, then you already have your answer. Even if it was borderline enough to be barely legal, do you really want a blatant copy to be the way you represent yourself in the art world? Nah.

[untier]

dpaint: Thank you. Your answer is careful enough.

...You've been missing the original artist's design decision right and left...

Doesn't that mean I filled the loss of the original parts with my own design decision?

Why don't you take what you learned about rendering here (since the shiny details are obviously what you fancied about this piece) and use that knowledge to polish up a piece you compose and draw on your own?

Then you'll have a piece you can have confidence in.

Frankly, if you even have to ask whether a painting is too much of a copy to legally sell, then you already have your answer. Even if it was borderline enough to be barely legal, do you really want a blatant copy to be the way you represent yourself in the art world? Nah

Yes, Puppykitten, you understand me. I love shiny and bright things so much. You've encouraged my motivation to compose and draw my own shining images.

[Demo]

Is that second piece someone from here on CA, it looks super familiar.

....unrelated note someone needs to drop the black line and turn down the outer glow a few notches

[untier]

Roger.