| EPUK Weekly News |
Once a week we put together a roundup of the week's photography, media and copyright news. It's free and you don't have to meet the usual EPUK membership criteria to sign up. We don't give your details to anyone else, and you can unsubscribe anytime.
| This week EPUK discussed ... |
Chasing copyright infringers; File FX; more rights-grabbing competitions; why DACS is for photographers and not for agencies
… and …
the BBC and licensing agreements.
The above advertisers have not been endorsed by EPUK.
| Headlines | News | First Person | Opinion | Resources | The Curve | Showcase | Masterclass | WTD | Sqweegee's blog | |
About | Join
| Help
| Shop
| Lost And Stolen
| Discounts
|
Support EPUK
|
Advertise on EPUK
| RSS
| Atom
|
Visual plagiarism: when does inspiration become imitation ?There may be no new ideas, but some ideas are less new than others. So where is the line drawn between genuine accidental similarity, homage, and wholesale copying ? Our case studies show the law is not as straightforward as we may think. (Updated, November 2007) |
||
|
|
||
|
Page
|
Leibovitz takes inspiration from the past |
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Comments on this article:
i agree about the Nanpu Bridge but the second shot is weaker. hey steven meisel rips every body else off. Comment #2 posted by Hugh O'Malley Fashion Photographer London at 14 April, 11:59 AM I may shoot the same angle if I am in the same view point and location. Maybe it because All old rules make you toward those crop. Now a day, when I photography I use more time to find a different angle, but a voice seems keep tell me I better follow the old rules. So I need to fright with it everytime haha. Comment #3 posted by Ken Tam at 19 November, 09:42 AM Great write up. This is the single best collection of these infringement examples I’ve seen to date. Unfortunately I would imagine these types of infringements will only increase as more people delve into digital photography and publishers (online and print) continue to create demand for unique yet recognizable work. One thing I’m waiting to see is how the growing movement around Creative Commons licenses facilitates these types of violations. It’s inevitable that artists unfamiliar not just standard copyright protections, but with the limitations of these CC licenses get into these types of situations. A great read. Thanks. Comment #4 posted by Jim Goldstein at 20 November, 05:43 PM A very well laid out article on visual plagiarism. The examples for me clearly show the use of plagiarism in creating the second image. This is one subject that is just fraught with many sharp corners for debate. The golden gate bridge is a very popular photo image and there form photographers I hear a certain location that many photographers want to sue. Therefore we see many similar images and many of these photographers may not have seen others work. I remember seeing images of a light bulb that was purposely broken and when electric current was applies the tungsten filament would burn and produce smoke trails and with back light lovely images were produced. If we see these images and think that could be fun at what point does it becomes plagiarism of an idea. Each activation of the current will produce different smoke trails and even the broken top of bulbs will never look the same. We may even use different colour lights to get different effect, but these are all copies of the original idea. Niels Henriksen Comment #5 posted by Niels Henriksen at 21 November, 03:29 PM stupid examples. maybe artists need to have license for poses, compositions ? Comment #6 posted by andre at 22 November, 09:38 AM I found the articles very informative and a good example of how large scale similarities can cause so many problems- but it still doesn’t clarify how myself as a keen photographer (hobby) could protect photos and/or disprove that an original(as far as i am aware)taken by me was not shot with inspiration from another’s work in mind. Information on how to protect your work and how to go about putting it in to the public domain without infringing rights would be very much appreciated by many i believe. Comment #7 posted by Jennifer Gill at 22 November, 03:10 PM I read the entire article, and my god how times have changed! When I first started in photography (early 1970’s) every shot published in the Photography magazines was listed with full technique, including type of camera, lens, film, aperture and shutter speed. The purpose was to facilitate other photographers ability to duplicate the shot. This is how we learned, and subsequently, how we taught the next generation. The photographers in the article, especially those who sued, need to be reminded that photography is less a creative endeavor as it is one of documentation and recording. We do not bring into being something out of nothing, as do almost all other artists. We have no blank canvas, virtually everything we photograph is already there. I doubt that any photographer alive today can show me a shot that has absolutely no antecedent whatsoever. Comment #8 posted by Matt Larson at 22 November, 08:41 PM “We do not bring into being something out of nothing, as do almost all other artists. We have no blank canvas,…” Funny, when I process an unexposed sheet of film it’s blank!? Terrific article, great examples. Thanks- Comment #9 posted by Chip Hedgcock at 5 December, 02:29 PM I think it’s quite ridiculous, though it’s a very common thing now, it’s a nowadays western morality. I am so eager too see, when those famous and well-mannered photographers and designers, calling themselves “people of art” will gnash each others’ throats, claiming their stupid “rights” on cityscape shots or waltz pas. I believe, that they are just way too proud of their “unicity” to spend some time on thinking about 6 billion people in the world, each of which can see and photgraph or paint exactly the same things as the “rights owners” did, without “being inspired” by the work of “the greats”. Comment #11 posted by Max K at 20 January, 10:21 AM The scary thing I feel here is that there are only so many dramatic angles to take a photo of a model in a specific pose from. In Kim Taylor Reece’s photo of the Hawai’i an dancer any other angle would not record the image in the same dramatic manner. I myself have taken several shots in a similar way and I hadn’t until today seen that photo. I was playing with the issue of dramatic silhouette so a side view showing the extension of the hand made perfect sense. In some of the examples however the infringement is obvious and anyone asking another photographer where they stood, aperture, iso, exact order photoshop actions were run etc etc should feel ashamed. Though as in other areas of academic work maybe a statement or reference to the original photographer the work was based on might go some way to limiting these problems. Comment #13 posted by P Asquith at 12 August, 10:17 AM Well, you would think Vettriano’s use of the “Illustrator’s Reference Manual” would be okay since the work’s entire purpose is to be copied! I often surf the web looking for items to reference so I can make a cat look like a cat or a house look like a house, but no one would accuse me of plagiarism since by the time I’m done with my pathetic attempt to copy, the blobby result looks entirely different and bears no resemblance to the original reference. Comment #14 posted by Eddie Breen at 24 August, 11:22 AM Plagiarism should be punishable by fines and mandatory prison time. It is stealing an artist’s or photographer’s inventory—no different from robbing a bank or taking a refrigerator from an appliance dealer. Comment #15 posted by BigEater at 15 May, 05:16 PM The really significant and, to me, unanswered question is ‘where did the so called “original” artists take their inspiration from… ? Are we really pretending everyone that produces a great work is inspired from within and the work is truly ‘original’ ? Could it, in some cases perhaps, be from other photographs, images, drawings or paintings, they had seen somewhere, taken, drawn or painted by ‘a nobody’ in the commercial world ? I guess we will never know because those unknown sources of the ‘original’ inspiration/plagiarism are most unlikely to be in a position to drag their cases through the same courts as some of the higher profile companies/individuals cited in the article ! There really are not too many truly original ideas out there, let’s not kid ourselves. It just means those that can afford to will cry plagiarism at the least opportunity and those who don’t know their work may have been plagiarised or cannot afford to will not ! The world is madder every passing day… Comment #16 posted by Venomator at 24 October, 10:33 AM Hi EPUK, Nice info. Thanks You for sharing Visual plagiarism information. Kind regards, Comment #17 posted by Laura at 18 April, 05:38 AM Add your comments here:
|
||
| Headlines | News | First Person | Opinion | Resources | The Curve | Showcase | Masterclass | WTD | Sqweegee's blog | |
About | Join
| Help
| Shop
| Lost And Stolen
| Discounts
|
Support EPUK
|
Advertise on EPUK
| RSS
| Atom
|
| Site design and CMS integration © Dundee photographer Nick McGowan-Lowe. Site content is © original authors. To reproduce any content on this website, contact editor@epuk.org who will put you in touch with the copyright holder. You can read our privacy policy here. Any advice given on this site is not intended to replace professional advice, and EPUK and its authors accept no liability for loss or damage arising from any errors or omissions. EPUK is not responsible for third party content, such as epuk.org adverts, other websites linked to from epuk.org, or comments added to articles by visitors. |
|
|
The Nanpu Bridge is better in the stolen version.
Comment #1 posted by Jan Egil Kristiansen at 2 February, 01:39 PM