Your Art Is Legal. Here’s Why.
When people encounter Diamojism for the first time, one of the first things they ask — after the inevitable "wait, those are all emojis?" — is something like: Where does the original image come from, and is that okay? It is a fair question. Art that begins with a source image carries an implied history, and collectors deserve to understand it. This is the definitive answer.
The short version: by the time a Diamoji artwork reaches you, every image-source question has been resolved, deliberately and in advance. The longer version — which matters, because understanding it is genuinely reassuring — follows below.
How a Diamoji Is Made
Every Diamoji begins with a source photograph or image. That image serves as a perceptual blueprint: the system reads its color, light, and structure, and uses that information to select and position thousands of emoji tiles across a diamond grid. The result is a new, independent artwork composed entirely of emojis — no pixel of the original image survives in the final piece.
The source image is a reference, not raw material. Think of it the way a sculptor might study a model: the model informs the work, but the finished bronze is its own thing entirely. The legal and ethical implications of that source image are entirely my concern as the artist — not yours as the collector. But since transparency builds trust, here is exactly how I approach it.
Three Ways I Source Every Image
01 — Public Domain
Many of history's most beloved works — the Mona Lisa, Vermeer's portraits, classical sculptures — exist in the public domain. When I source these via archives like Wikimedia Commons or the Prado's open-access collection, there is no copyright to infringe. These works belong to humanity, and have for centuries.
02 — Client-Provided Images
For custom commissions — a portrait of your child, your dog, your home — you supply the photograph. You own it, or have the right to use it. The copyright question is settled before work begins. I take you at your word, and that representation is part of our agreement.
03 — Licensed Images
When neither of the above applies, I work only from images carrying an explicit commercial license — such as the Pixabay Content License or comparable open-license frameworks — that expressly permits artistic adaptation and commercial use.
This is not a policy I arrived at after the fact. It is baked into how the studio operates. Every project begins with a deliberate decision about image sourcing. No image enters the pipeline without a clear answer to the question: Do we have the right to use this?
What Copyright Law Actually Covers
United States copyright law gives a copyright holder exclusive rights over reproduction and the creation of derivative works — meaning new works that incorporate protected expression from the original. The pivotal question for any art form that begins with a reference image is whether the output reproduces that protected expression.
In a Diamojism, it does not. Not a single pixel of the source image appears in the finished work. The output is composed entirely of emojis — third-party graphic assets used under separate open source license — arranged according to perceptual data extracted from the source. Courts have generally distinguished between using an image as a reference (studying it, extracting data from it) and reproducing its expression (copying its content). Diamojism sits firmly in the reference category.
What about "fair use"?
Even in a hypothetical scenario where a source image were copyrighted — which I take care to avoid — the fair use doctrine would provide a strong defense. Courts weigh four factors: the transformative character of the new work, the nature of the original, the amount used, and the effect on the original's market. Diamojism scores well on every count. The transformation is radical — the visual language changes completely. No recognizable portion of the original is used. And no Diamoji could substitute for the source photograph in the marketplace; a collector would never buy a diamoji instead of the source photo. That said, I do not rely on fair use as a safety net, because I have already eliminated the underlying concern by sourcing images responsibly.
What This Means for You as a Collector
You bear no copyright liability for owning, displaying, gifting, or reselling a Diamoji artwork. Any and all responsibility for image sourcing rests with me as the artist. This is the standard in the art world — collectors are not expected to audit an artist's reference library, and they are not legally exposed when they do not.
What you receive is an original, independently created artwork. It carries its own copyright — held by Michael Jacobs Fine Art — and stands entirely on its own terms.
Frequently Asked Questions
I commissioned a piece using a photo I took on my phone. Do I own the copyright to that photo?
Yes. Under U.S. copyright law, the person who presses the shutter owns the copyright to the resulting photograph (with narrow exceptions for work-for-hire). You can freely authorize its use as a reference for a commissioned artwork.
What if the photo I provided was taken by a professional photographer?
The photographer would typically hold the copyright unless you received a license that covers artistic adaptation. For portrait sessions where the photographer handed you the files, this is often included — but if you are unsure, it is worth confirming with them before commissioning a Diamojism. I am happy to discuss the specifics.
Can I resell or donate a Diamojism I purchased?
Yes. Under the "first sale doctrine," once you legitimately purchase a physical artwork, you may resell, display, or donate that specific copy without restriction, and without any royalty obligation to the artist.
Can I reproduce the Diamoji — print posters, use it on merchandise?
Reproduction rights are separate from ownership of the physical piece, and by default they remain with Michael Jacobs Fine Art. If you are interested in reproduction licensing for a particular work, reach out to discuss it — arrangements are possible on a case-by-case basis.
I want to commission a piece using a famous photograph — say, a published magazine cover. Is that possible?
Not without explicit permission from the rights holder, and I will decline commissions where I cannot verify a clear right to use the source image. This protects both of us. There is no shortage of remarkable imagery in the public domain and under open licenses — the creative possibilities are vast without venturing into uncertain territory.
Does a Diamoji based on the Mona Lisa infringe any rights?
No. The Mona Lisa has been in the public domain for centuries. The specific photographic reproductions I use are sourced from institutions — such as the Museo del Prado and Wikimedia Commons — that publish these images under open-access terms for exactly this kind of use.