You’ve no doubt seen paintings others have done of well-known people (actors, musicians, and other public figures), and are inspired to paint one yourself. No problem with that, but from a legal standpoint you may be wondering, can you sell a painting of a celebrity?
Why Do Artists Sign Their Work?
You can sell a fine art painting of a celebrity as long as it is a transformative work of art. This means it needs to be artistic in nature, not just a faithful likeness. The painting cannot copy an existing work of art (including a photo), and cannot interfere with a celebrity’s “right of publicity”.
Since this is different from taking a photograph for a newspaper or magazine (which is covered by “editorial usage” laws), there are different rules to follow in the art world, but this isn’t an impossible task.
If you do not have actual permission from the celebrity, then you need to tread lightly. Let’s walk through some of the legal issues surrounding painting a celebrity portrait.
(This article may contain affiliate links. This means if you click on an affiliate link and make a purchase, I will receive a commission at no extra cost to you)
Up Your Creative Game! Master your craft with classes taught by the world's best creatives → View All Creative Courses
Both parties involved (the artist and the celebrity) have the right to earn a living, so each must remain within the confines of the law for their respective fields. There are guidelines for both artists and celebrities on what is and is not allowed when it comes to creating a celebrity based, creative work of art.
This is a bit of a gray area, however, so each side must be careful before taking legal action or selling a piece of art for monetary gain.
Right of Publicity (Celebrities)
Celebrities have what is known as the right of publicity. FindLaw defines the right of publicity as “an individual’s right to control and profit from the commercial use of his or her name, likeness, and persona.”
This publicity right means that celebrities, public figures, and influencers have the right to the commercialization of their name, personality, image, and things falling under those types of categories. A company cannot just use a picture of a famous person for profit without compensating him and getting permission.
When someone’s actual identity is involved and has the potential to damage a real person’s image in some way (inadvertently or not), then there do need to be special standards in place.
Disney Characters
While Disney characters are technically not real life celebrities, they are worth mentioning here because the same right of publicity applies. Disney has the right to solely profit from a copyrighted character and is known for protecting the copyrights of their Disney characters vigorously.
The same can be said of other created characters, whether they are animated or real-life actors portraying a character they created. An example of this would be comedian/actor Jim Carrey’s character Ace Ventura. This is a persona created by Jim Carey, and he has the sole right of publicity to earn money from his creation.
Artists, on the other hand, are protected by “free speech” (First Amendment) laws. When we think of “free speech,” we typically think about the words we say or write being protected from censorship. However, free speech expands across many different types of creative expressions.
According to Freedom Forum Institute, the First Amendment can cover many different forms of the arts, such as:
Plays
Music
Dance
Film
Poetry
Illustrations, paintings, sculpture, etc.
Thankfully, this is the case; otherwise, there would be a whole lot less news, amusing parodies, and iconic pieces of artwork that we have come to know and love today!
The Press vs. Painting
The press/paparazzi and painters, however, are not considered the same under the First Amendment. As they each have varying degrees of expression with different output, they are held to different standards.
Journalist, press, and the paparazzi fall under the “free press” clause of the First Amendment, and can publish and sell celebrity images because they are part of a story about what that particular celebrity is or is not doing. As it relates to a story, and is “news,” the press is a bit more protected from intervention.
It’s pretty unlikely that an artist would create a painting of a celebrity in a way that would be protected under the freedom of press clause.
Painters fall strictly under the “free speech” clause because they create art not attached to a news story or publication.
They’re subtle differences, but it is clear that you have to be much more careful as a painter than you do as a journalist or paparazzi.
Government vs. Private Action for Sold Paintings
When it comes to these restrictions and the actions that can be taken in terms of lawsuits, some differences exist between what the government might do and what the actual individual might do.
Government Action
The rules and regulations on selling artwork or even fan art can vary by the state within the U.S. Someone who painted 1,000 portraits of Michael Jordan in Florida might be ok, but those same 1,000 portraits might not be allowed in California. So there are some subtle differences between states.
The greater the work’s expressive content, the more protected by the First Amendment a piece of art may be.
According to the Freedom Forum Institute, the government will intervene based on the weight of its interest in the matter as well as regulations. The government may intervene if someone starts making a clothing line that features iconic Michael Jordan prints and photos based on copyright law, but not a street artists drawing various celebrities with an abnormally large head and a tiny body.
Individual Intervention
The government has some reach, but in terms of its priorities, it isn’t very likely that they would intervene with an artist creating work with their own expression and selling the pieces. The person who is on the painting, however, could still take legal action.
If someone paints a celebrity portrait based on a photo of the celebrity and sells them for money, that would be considered infringement of intellectual property, and a photographer could take legal action against the painter. The original photograph is a copyrighted work, and the photographer is the copyright owner.
Over time, an artist will have seen hundreds if not thousands of photos and images of a particular celebrity, so if the image and celebrity always change, it’s unlikely that a photographer will find and sue an artist for copyright infringement of a single painting. But if your intention is to create and sell a large quantity of art prints from the painting, you’re getting into dangerous territory.
Like the photographer, the actual celebrity has the right to decide what type of action to take. If he or she catches wind of an artist selling lots of paintings and they’re only of the same celebrity, then there could be grounds for a lawsuit. If the artist is making most of his or her money off a single celebrity’s image and likeness, there could be a case.
Protect Yourself by Diversifying Your Portfolio
There would still be lots of images that an artist could paint from memory. With that said, the artist should also sell original artwork, and if he or she does some one-off celebrity pieces here and there, it wouldn’t be worth the time, money, or bad publicity from the celebrity to go after the artist.
Overall, government intervention is the least likely, and individual intervention is only slightly more likely. If the artist has a sizable portfolio of work, with plenty of original pieces, then an original painting of a celebrity thrown in there shouldn’t raise any red flags.
Conclusion
As a painter, you can sell pieces of art of a celebrity, but you want to make sure you follow the laws and restrictions on what you can and cannot do, as well as use as much of your own creative expression in your work as possible. Creating original art is the key here.
It may seem like a daunting task and lots of landmines to avoid, but it is very doable to sell paintings of celebrities.
More From Artistry Found:
Your Guide to Selling Fan Art Legally (Explained)
Do Flower Paintings Actually Sell? (You May Be Surprised!)
Giclée vs Screen Print: What is the Difference?
Do Self-Portraits Have to Be Realistic? (With Examples!)
“An artist may make a work of art that includes a recognizable likeness of a person without her or his written consent and sell at least a limited number of copies thereof without violating” his or her right of publicity, the court found. So if you're not Tiger Woods or Elvis or a supermodel, should you care?
Unless you have the authorization, agreement, and contract with rights and limitations in doing so from the celebrity/ his/her management/agent, then you have no legal right to use and especially print and make sales off of a celebrity's image.
Using a person's image for commercial purposes could expose you to a potential legal action for defamation and for 'passing off'. 'Passing off' means that an infringement of the law would take place if it could be inferred from your artwork that a link existed between you and another person when this was not the case.
It is illegal to sell, publicize and publish a copy of an artwork unless you have prior permission from the copyright owner. It is also illegal to publish and sell an artwork that's substantially similar to another original work of art.
No, in general, you can't just draw or paint a celebrity and sell it. Even if you take your own photos, you cannot use a celebrity image for commercial purposes. If the celebrity has died and you wish to use an old image, the photographer or their estate, still has copyright so you will still need permission to use it.
It is illegal to sell, publicize and publish a copy of an artwork unless you have prior permission from the copyright owner. It is also illegal to publish and sell an artwork that's substantially similar to another original work of art.
These photographs will belong to someone else, usually the photographer who took the image. Thus, your use may result in a copyright infringement claim against you. Be mindful of this when you download, publish or otherwise use photographs you find online.
Under the Supremacy Clause to the U.S. Constitution, federal law trumps state law when the two conflict. If a paparazzo's photo is considered an original work of expression, it is protected under the Copyright Act, and a right of publicity claim against it will likely fail.
Be polite. We can't stress this enough. Yes, celebrities choose to be in the public eye, but just like us, they deserve work-life balance. A celebrity is under no obligation to take a photo with you, unless you won or paid for one of those awkward meet-and-greets (and even then, standard rules of human decency apply).
This means that ancient works (sculptures, paintings) such as Da Vinci's, Géricault's or Rembrandt's works are no longer protected by copyright – they are said to be part of the public domain. Accordingly, you are free to reproduce them.
Unless the person who's making the artwork has permission from the original artist, they're basically copying someone else's work and using it. It might not be illegal to do drawings based on someone else's work for your own pleasure, but selling it is definitely off-limits.
California Civil Code, Section 3344, provides that it is unlawful, for the purpose of advertising or selling, to knowingly use another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness without that person's prior consent.
Selling art prints online is a great way to reach a wider audience and make your artwork more accessible to potential buyers. There are several options for selling art prints online, including creating your own website, using a platform like Etsy or eBay, or partnering with a print-on-demand service.
Art reproduction, otherwise known as art replicas, fine art reproductions, reproduction oil paintings, art copies, are just that – they are copies of usually well-known paintings that are hand-painted by a professional artist.
The majority of reproductions of famous paintings have little value. For example, John Constable's painting The Haywain is a priceless masterpiece, but prints which are copies of this painting are of no real value and are not expected to increase in value over time.
The original is out of copyright, and has therefore become part of the global creative commons. If you use a photograph of the “Mona Lisa” as a basis for your art experiments and then try to sell the results, though, be aware that that photographic image may be separately copyrighted material.
The bottom line is that celebrities' likenesses and names have value. If you're capitalizing on that, you're infringing on their rights. Their being dead is irrelevant because their estate (or another entity) still holds the rights to their likeness and name.
This right most typically comes up in the case of celebrities and famous individuals. While not all of them do, several U.S. states have laws on the books protecting publicity rights of deceased individuals and reserving them to their estate and heirs (California's being the most notable, for fairly obvious reasons).
When thinking about whether your art is good enough to sell, think about how much of an investment you'd be willing to put into marketing it. This can give you an idea of how you truly feel about your work and whether it's valuable to you. If it's not valuable to you, it probably won't be valuable to someone else.
Private artists are not required to provide an official certificate, but if you sell or consign your work to a dealer, the dealer will want all this information from you.
If the use of the work would violate the law without acquiring permission or purchasing a license from the owner, the individual will need to initiate contact with the copyright artist. If there is any hesitation in answering that permission is not necessary, the individual should contact the artist first.
If a company or individual is found to be using a celebrity's image without their permission, they could face civil penalties. It is, therefore, important to obtain the permission of the celebrity before using their image for commercial purposes.
While you could be sued for unauthorized commercial use of someone's likeness, there are times when it is ok to use a celebrity's image. The simplest method is to get the celebrity's permission to use their likeness. This may require: Fees or royalties paid to the celebrity.
The simplest solution is to ask the photographer if you can use the image in your post. There is a chance that they will say yes. However, they may request an attribution so that others know the photographer's name. In this case, you should include the text “photo courtesy of,” and then add their name.
The proposed privacy law would give celebrities the right to sue photographers for taking unwanted photographs. The proposed anti-paparazzi law is the latest legislation seeking to limit how, when and where photographers snap images of celebrities.
After claiming paparazzi “weaponize” the copyright act, actress Lisa Rinna has settled her $1.2 million lawsuit with a photo agency after posting images of herself on her Instagram account without prior permission.
In addition to Cyrus, Lipa and Kardashian, many other celebrities have found themselves facing copyright cases after posting photos of themselves. Justin Bieber and Ariana Grande have also been sued – by the same photographer who filed suit against Cyrus and Lipa this year.
As long as you are not selling them for commercial purposes (e.g. used for advertising a product or service in a brochure, magazine ad, television commercial, etc.), you are free to sell such images. This too is one of the legal issues most people struggle with, since it may seem “unfair”.
Art is considered “public domain” when it is no longer, or never was, protected by copyright laws. This can happen for several reasons: the art was never copyrighted, the copyright expired, or the copyright owner waived their rights to the art.
Who Holds the Copyright? The creator of the photograph, i.e. the photographer, usually holds the copyright to the photo and unless they've expressly given permission for its use, making a painting based on a photo would infringe the photographer's copyright.
Only the original creator can use any of the characters and nobody else is allowed unless been given permission or you pay royalties. However, many are still selling fan art without permission and get away with it as they do not get too widespread with their work.
Is the right of publicity recognised? Yes. While there is no federal (ie, national) right of publicity, it has been determined by the US Supreme Court that the First Amendment (freedom of speech) does not prevent state law from providing a claim for commercial appropriation of a person's identity.
In most states, you can be sued for using someone else's name, likeness, or other personal attributes without permission for an exploitative purpose. Usually, people run into trouble in this area when they use someone's name or photograph in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities.
If the work is uncommissioned, then the artist owns the copyright automatically even if the original is sold. The copyright may be sold or assigned as a separate undertaking. Only the copyright holder has the right to reproduce the work. If you have any doubt, seek professional legal advice.
Original art such as paintings, drawings, illustrations (Note: you can sell both the original art as well as prints of the same work) Limited- or open-edition prints (framed, unframed, or prints on canvas)
Art theft, sometimes called artnapping, is the stealing of paintings, sculptures, or other forms of visual art from galleries, museums or other public and private locations. Stolen art is often resold or used by criminals as collateral to secure loans.
The Mona Lisa is priceless. Any speculative price (some say over a billion dollars!) would probably be so high that not one person would be able or willing to purchase and maintain the painting. Moreover, the Louvre Museum would probably never sell it.
A clear difference between a print and a painting is the texture of the surface. Paintings typically have raised brushstrokes. The dots of ink on the print are flat. You can also find signs of the artist's work on original paintings.
So, are unsigned artworks worth anything? Artwork will be valued mainly based on the artist, provided it can be authenticated. Despite the lack of an official signature, the Mona Lisa is included in the Guinness Book of World Records as having "the highest insurance value ever for a painting in history."
Legally, you cannot sell paintings of characters that other artists have invented. Due to trademark, copyright, and art plagiarism issues, selling paintings of characters is stealing the work of others and selling it as your own, even if you created the painting yourself and put a unique spin on it.
This means that although someone can always take a photo of the artwork, the artist (you) must give permission for them to receive income from that photo—also called a “commercial use.” Even so-called “illegal” or unauthorized art—graffiti or street art—is copyrighted from the moment of its creation and the artist must ...
You can sell anime art if you own the rights to the work in question. You can not sell anime art if you don't own the artwork or have a copyright holder's permit to sell it. Link to U.S. Copyright Law.
Even if you lawfully purchased an image of a celebrity from a photographer or website, or if the image is in the public domain (or “free for use”) you must first obtain the permission of the individual concerned. This is because the purchase of the image only addresses the issue of copyright.
You should consider contacting the person or their agent and get written permission before using any aspects of their identity. You may have to pay to obtain those rights. You need to investigate the use of a deceased person's name to determine if any rights still exist, and who holds those rights.
Van Gogh's paintings are not copyrighted now because the artist has been dead for more than 70 years. This means that Van Gogh's paintings are now a part of the public domain. While that is true, any reproductions or photographs of his paintings will still come under the copyright laws.
Copyright applies as soon as someone creates an original piece of artwork. This happens regardless of whether a professional camera or a smartphone was used. The celebrity's picture may not even belong to the celebrity herself, but to the photographer who took the photo. They took it, They own it.
If a company or individual is found to be using a celebrity's image without their permission, they could face civil penalties. It is, therefore, important to obtain the permission of the celebrity before using their image for commercial purposes.
Celebrities. All celebrities are afforded statutory protection which gives them a right of publicity. In other words, it is unlawful to use another person's likeness for commercial advantage without permission.
Introduction: My name is Clemencia Bogisich Ret, I am a super, outstanding, graceful, friendly, vast, comfortable, agreeable person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.
We notice you're using an ad blocker
Without advertising income, we can't keep making this site awesome for you.
