Yes, that's why its called FAN art. Fans doing art on they favourite people. BUT! If, someone using somebodies picture, there'sno harm to put in comments who is on the picture and who owns the rights for it.
Of all of the prior responses gathered by the poll, this is the one that I agree with entirely.
As with all images, the creator of the image is the owner, but in this case as well, there is also no 'model' consent.
One thing that confuses me with dA however, is that the site seems to contradict itself in two of its FAQ's:
From FAQ 157 "This means that content such as screenshots, celebrity photographs, video game sprites, and other similar materials are not typically considered to be valid resources for use in submissions to your deviantART gallery unless you have obtained written permission from the copyright holder."
From FAQ 743: (Can I sell Fan Art as Prints) "While artists can upload fan art as a deviation in their gallery, they may not make fan art available for purchase as a print without violating copyright and trademark protections.
Fan art that does include copyrighted and/or trademarked materials require formal written permission from the original copyright/trademark owner."
I was in a CR meeting with $taff members, including Daniel, realitysquared when I was a volunteer on WDWParksGal. Copyright infringement was a big topic of the day. The one thing about fan art is that it is fine to be posted as a deviation but does infringe on copyright if sold by anyone who doesn't have the rights to sell it. People can purchase the rights, and many companies do, but without the rights fan art cannot be sold (legitimately anyway ~ have seen some for sell on Etsy and eBay). dA has a lot of good lawyers and have talked to a couple. There is a video from one lawyer talking about copyright. Anyhoo, the writing of the FAQ is written in "lawyerese" trying to cover all the bases of the issue. In other words, a deviant would have to write to the company/photographer/artist/congromulate for permission to use the cells, screenshots, screen grabs, logos, etc., before being allowed to incoporate them into a deviation. Without such permission, once dA finds a deviant's gallery loaded down with violations, that deviant will be notified of a need to provide proof of permission. All questionable deviations will be put into storage by dA and at the end of the thirty days they will be deleted without proof of being allowed to use said works. If the deviant then continues to post violations, he/she will be summarily banned. dA doesn't take kindly to those who violate the TOS or to continue to do so after being warned.
PS I also most missed the most important of what I wanted to say.The "Celebs" would not be who they are if it was not for us "average joes" Most were not "born into wealth and fame", but got there because of us and me. The are part of the cultural "landmark" of what ever country they maybe from and it's only because of the public's interest the they get fame and Notoriety. Scientist, inventors and such are not household names unless they push themselves so that we know who they are (Steve Jobs for example). Many artist art the same way, no one know much about them until after they are dead and gone.
Yes in deed also long as you give proper credit. I have a gallery - Photos of the day jswis.deviantart.com/gallery/2… where I post images that there is no way I could have taken and I always try to give a complete credit as I can. I find them interesting and would like to share them with others. I worked as a chemist for a total of 40 years and have seen much that the average person would come across. I find nature amazing in it detail in the macro and microscopic details. We (the US) have spent a great deal of money on NASA and the fruits of our endeavors should be publicly shared. Nikon with it's long history especially with microscopes has a great site - www.nikonsmallworld.com which I have not spent much time on since I was terminated 3 years ago, but it's a great site also
Yes, you should absolutely. Not everyone is blessed with god given talents to put pen to paper. Me being one of them. But, I've seen absolutely beautiful photo-manips that are far better than many drawings and paintings I've seen. To say you are copy right infringing, I don't believe that in every case. There are just so many photo out there (there celebrities). As long as credit is given back to source where it came from, I don't see a problem.
I totally agree with Soluna17 and was going to say just that. I think that if you're doing the artwork as a painting or drawing that it's fine but using a photo to do a photomanip of the celeb is not right. It's the same for anyone's photo...if you don't have their permission then it's copyright plain and simple. And if you do use it then you know that you're doing the wrong thing.
I say yes because it depends on the type of fan art. If you're doing fan art in any medium where a TV show or movie is concerned, then of course celeb images should be used, wouldn't make sense if it wasn't.