Understanding and exploiting copyright laws.Artists often want to know what constitutes a breach of copyright.They use published photographs (from a magazine) as source material.Maybe you paint on location, and also work from photos taken at other times.You rarely find a perfectly composed photograph though.So sometimes you use information from several photos.Sometimes come across photos in old publications you want to use.Getting written approval under the copyright law is difficult, if not impossible.Sometimes a publishing firm no longer exists, changed its name or location.Some images may have been around for twenty or more years.In other cases no reply is received from the publisher.Often there is no way you can find the copyright owner.That's because the photograph has been detached from its source.Like many artists, most of whom do not go to even this much trouble.You go ahead and paint anyway.Your need to generate paintings outweighs fear somebody may object.If someone does emerge with a legitimate complaint, you have no problem.You're OK for them to benefit financially from painting sale from copying.Maybe you've read articles on copyright.But did not find any reference to painting from published photographs.Is yours is an interpretation rather than strictly a reproduction.You feel comparing a painting with a photograph is like apples with oranges.There are many differences in texture, colour and tone.Even though the same basic structure (composition) is used.An artist's identity is there by virtue of the style used in the painting.So an impressionistic style may not be a reproduction of a photograph.You wonder if a small part of a photo was used, would it be a copy.What if information in the photograph is rearranged for a better composition?How different does a result have to be before it doesn't infringe copyright?You are probably breaching copyright.There's no difference between copying a painting and copying a photograph.You know the photographs are better than ones you take yourself.That's why you use them.Composition is linked directly to whoever took the original photograph.Just as it is with painting.I think you are aware of this.That's why you attempted to contact the original photographer or publisher.I prefer to take my own photographs, so I can get the compositions I like.An interpretation is not usually an acceptable way out.It depends on how much variation there is from the original.As to the apples and oranges argument.A copy is a copy whether done in the same medium or not (e.g. photocopy).I guess that's it.If it is recognizable as a copy.It doesn't matter what medium, how well or badly done, or in what style.It's a copy!But the chance of a breach detected and prosecuted is quite small.As long you take reasonable steps to contact the copyright holder, The chance of prosecution is further reduced, by varying from the original.Only you can decide whether this is a chance you are prepared to take.What is your attitude to a situation like this?Let's look at copying as a beginning to understanding copyright