<p>Perhaps the answer is to search for photos and filter for search results that have been tagged with Creative Commons usage rights?</p>

<p>In Google, try Images > Tools > Usage Rights. You'll see four options. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-03T08:13:37.570Z
2019-07-03T08:13:37.570Z
Stefan
<p>The problem lies with interpretation. If your take on a photo of a certain person (famous or not, we all have the same rights) is deviating sufficiently from the original - which is, in itself, an artistic take on it - there shouldn't be a problem (although you might want to credit the original author).<br>
If you copy these photos directly (i.e. without reinterpretation), you're copying an artistic interpretation, and that is only legal if you have the permission of the original author, or if this copy falls under fair use.<br>
If you only use these portraits to show to potential customers, it will probably be considered fair use: crediting is still legally required, but you won't get in trouble as long as you don't offer them for sale.</p>

<p>Artsy has a nice article about artwork copyright <a href="https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-art-copyright-explained" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>. An excerpt:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Then there is Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Known
  as <em>fair use</em>, the provision provides a legal defense to copyright
  infringement.<br>
  Put simply, that means that I admit I’ve taken work from
  other people, but I can argue that my use of that work still deserves
  protection. In the case of an artist’s image being taken without
  permission, its acceptance under fair use is contingent on four
  factors. All four inform a judge who makes the final determination of
  the fair use argument’s validity. This means that there is always a
  degree of uncertainty to what constitutes fair use.<br>
  But the most
  important question is, are you using the image for commercial purposes
  (if so, you’ll likely be in trouble) or <strong>non-profit</strong> and educational
  purposes (if so, you’re more likely to be in the clear)?<br>
  It also
  depends on the nature of how you’re using the copyrighted work. <strong>The
  “less original” or less creative your use, the weaker your fair use
  claim</strong>.<br>
  Another important factor is the total amount of the copyrighted
  image being reproduced. The more you reproduce, the less likely you
  are to be protected by fair use. Judges will look at the extent to
  which that reproduction impacts the market and undermines the economic
  value of the author’s original.<br>
  Lastly, if the image is being
  transformed or parodied, it can also be protected under fair use.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Also note that, naturally, different laws apply in different countries.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-08T19:03:27.613Z
The [story of Shepard Fairey's "Hope" poster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster) is a good example of what can happen when you assume you have fair-use copyright regarding referencing/copying another's work.
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-08T19:06:08.897Z
Or [Luc Tuymans' A Belgian Politician](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/21/luc-tuysmans-katrijn-van-giel-dedecker-legal-case)
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-08T19:12:43.867Z
That is interesting... as a painter it seems a poor ruling, but Tuymans work really did little more than copy the original intent of the photograph. So not trans-formative, other than in terms of materials, at all. He didn't reference the photograph, he literally copied it including its mood (a politician feeling the heat)
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-28T20:42:06.333Z
2019-06-28T20:42:06.333Z
Joachim
<p>There are a lot of famous people who are my heroes. I love to make portraits of them. Some of them are dead, some are alive. There is no easy way to get the appropriate permissions to draw them. I want to be a professional artist. It would be nice if I could use those portraits I made to show people what I'm capable of, so they might get interested to hire me as a portrait artist. I want to know if it's legal to use photos of (portraits of) famous people for these indirectly commercial purposes.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-28T19:46:34.367Z
Hi Ashutosh, I removed your comment specifically asking after the legality of the matter, since that would make this question off-topic. This site is about arts and crafts, not law.
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-08T18:58:33.403Z
If you are limited to copying photographs does that really show you are a capable portrait artist? That being said you are free to copy any photo you like, _for your own personal use_ which can include showing others what you can do. You would run into trouble trying to sell those copied works as your own artistic expression though.
rebusB
<portrait-drawing>
Is it legal to make portraits of people for indirectly commercial purposes?
Ashutosh Biswas
# Is it legal to make portraits of people for indirectly commercial purposes?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-06-28)

There are a lot of famous people who are my heroes. I love to make portraits of them. Some of them are dead, some are alive. There is no easy way to get the appropriate permissions to draw them. I want to be a professional artist. It would be nice if I could use those portraits I made to show people what I'm capable of, so they might get interested to hire me as a portrait artist. I want to know if it's legal to use photos of (portraits of) famous people for these indirectly commercial purposes.

**Tags:** portrait-drawing

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Hi Ashutosh, I removed your comment specifically asking after the legality of the matter, since that would make this question off-topic. This site is about arts and crafts, not law.  
> **username_2**: If you are limited to copying photographs does that really show you are a capable portrait artist? That being said you are free to copy any photo you like, _for your own personal use_ which can include showing others what you can do. You would run into trouble trying to sell those copied works as your own artistic expression though.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-06-28. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

The problem lies with interpretation. If your take on a photo of a certain person (famous or not, we all have the same rights) is deviating sufficiently from the original - which is, in itself, an artistic take on it - there shouldn't be a problem (although you might want to credit the original author).  
If you copy these photos directly (i.e. without reinterpretation), you're copying an artistic interpretation, and that is only legal if you have the permission of the original author, or if this copy falls under fair use.  
If you only use these portraits to show to potential customers, it will probably be considered fair use: crediting is still legally required, but you won't get in trouble as long as you don't offer them for sale.

Artsy has a nice article about artwork copyright [here](https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-art-copyright-explained). An excerpt:

> Then there is Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Known
> as *fair use*, the provision provides a legal defense to copyright
> infringement.  
> Put simply, that means that I admit I’ve taken work from
> other people, but I can argue that my use of that work still deserves
> protection. In the case of an artist’s image being taken without
> permission, its acceptance under fair use is contingent on four
> factors. All four inform a judge who makes the final determination of
> the fair use argument’s validity. This means that there is always a
> degree of uncertainty to what constitutes fair use.  
> But the most
> important question is, are you using the image for commercial purposes
> (if so, you’ll likely be in trouble) or **non-profit** and educational
> purposes (if so, you’re more likely to be in the clear)?  
> It also
> depends on the nature of how you’re using the copyrighted work. **The
> “less original” or less creative your use, the weaker your fair use
> claim**.  
> Another important factor is the total amount of the copyrighted
> image being reproduced. The more you reproduce, the less likely you
> are to be protected by fair use. Judges will look at the extent to
> which that reproduction impacts the market and undermines the economic
> value of the author’s original.  
> Lastly, if the image is being
> transformed or parodied, it can also be protected under fair use.

Also note that, naturally, different laws apply in different countries.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: The [story of Shepard Fairey's "Hope" poster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster) is a good example of what can happen when you assume you have fair-use copyright regarding referencing/copying another's work.  
> **username_1**: Or [Luc Tuymans' A Belgian Politician](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/21/luc-tuysmans-katrijn-van-giel-dedecker-legal-case)  
> **username_2**: That is interesting... as a painter it seems a poor ruling, but Tuymans work really did little more than copy the original intent of the photograph. So not trans-formative, other than in terms of materials, at all. He didn't reference the photograph, he literally copied it including its mood (a politician feeling the heat)  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-07-03. Score: 1

Perhaps the answer is to search for photos and filter for search results that have been tagged with Creative Commons usage rights?

In Google, try Images > Tools > Usage Rights. You'll see four options.


---

