Not sure if this is the right place for it, but I think it should go here.

Anyway, I have a question about the use of references. I like to use references alot from photos I find on google images, unless I need a person in a certain pose. In that case I just take a photo of myself. But, if I were to find a photo on Google of say, a bird, and then I pixelled a bird referencing it, is the art that I made mine? Like, could I sell the art that I made and put it in my portfolio, even though it's based off of someone's photo, which may or may not be copyrighted?

Thanks.

wtf @ ur link lazer...
how can ppl be such a pain in the ass.... !! O_O

All artists use reference material. Materials that have copyrights may be used if you are not taking from them in a way where its obvious (very grey legal area). Photographs with copyrights means using the 'photo' itself, especially for commercial purposes. You can however, use them as reference material although as cure said "I wouldn't recommend putting work done from photographs (especially others' photographs) in a portfolio anyway."
In art, one never needs to mention references and one never expects this to be mentioned.
In pixelart however, references are a bit more crucial and best always noted. The reason for this is to insure that the pixelart piece is not a reduction or a trace (tho tracing is not a terrible thing, just not cool). Even worse being a reduction with touch-ups which is the worst possible offense. You don't always have to mention a ref directly in pixelart too. My rule of thumb is, the more real/smooth/OTT it looks the more need to state the ref.

So, I shouldn't worry about something like this then?


The pixelart is part of the image on the lower-right. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Last thing I need is to be sued by some photographer for making art for some game, you know?

http://www.elvisinfonet.com/image-files/artwork_warhol_elvis_triple.jpg
I wonder how that all pop-art thing was treated legally.