Hmmm, that's a loaded question! Yes and no. I'm basing my comments on representational work, whether impressionistic or realistic.
Here's a yes situation:
Sometimes I'm asked to paint an image for a client based on some of their images. I take these images and change them to create a piece with good composition, light and colour, using my signature brush strokes and methods. Sometimes the painting is quite similar to a single photo and sometimes the painting is a combo of several photos. If I'm able, I also take my photos or make sketches. By the time the image is done, it's quite 'original'. The key thing here is I have the permission of the photographer to use the images in the first place.
Personally, I rarely use other's photos, unless looking for the shape or lighting for one of the elements within a composition. That's a whole other ethical debate.
Why don't I use other people's images? I love to paint ideas from my own inner place of inspiration. The ideas I paint are based on the human experience, even though I'd be categorized as a landscape painter. Here's an example of what I mean:
To the left is a painting of a waterfall. The story behind it is about the quick passage of time, so I've painted the water with the thought of how sand moves through an hourglass. To the right is the original photo, which I took for reference. You can see that we don't need to be a slave to a photo: we have our imaginations...Also consider the viewpoint of the buyer of art. Though people's reason for purchasing vary, people probably assume that the original concept is the artist's. A person paying 100s or 1000s of dollars might be a bit upset to see their painting done by another artist who has copied the same image in an obvious way. One reason people want something unique is that it is unique.
Okay, back to the original question about originals:
There are a myriad of things that happen in the process of painting. Composing, lighting, choices in colours, cropping, removal of elements, addition of elements plus the various methods and applications of paints to whatever the surface might be and so on. It's like making a stew: everyone's turns out differently, even if using the same ingredients. I've seen this so many times when teaching beginner art classes. For the sake of learning methods, we all use the same imagery. It's fascinating for all to see the differences in each artist's final work, despite the fact that we use the same pigments, surfaces, methods – and image.
So, the idea might not be original, but the application and overall feel of the end product is.
When it's no-no to use someone else's photo:
If painting from someone else's photo, the artist is using the photographer's work and idea, which is a breach of copyright law. If you decide to paint something from someone else's image, you need to ask for permission, unless it's stated that it's free for use.
In the end, there are some clear cut copyright laws, but overall the concept of originality is up for debate. Nothing new under the sun?
Let us know what you think.
PS Here's another painting and the photo reference to again show how photos are to help rather than to dictate the outcome.
