DSLRUsers.com

Hey guys

Just wanted to start a bit of general thread on the idea of plagarism in photography.

I was faced with a bit of a dillema recently when I was approached by someone to create an image of them that looked "just like" another one (taken of someone else, by someone else).

It sparked off a few issues in my head about what legal and moral issues are associated with doing something like that. Its generally understood that in artistic circles, people tend to borrow ideas off people all the time, to varying degrees. I know that I have certainly been inspired by styles and aspects of many images posted here and on other internet sites and i have incorprated ideas into photo shoots that I have done.
- Locations
- Wardrobe
- Posing
- Colours
- Makeup, etc

After reading through some literature on the artlaw website - one interesting issue that I have been mulling over in my mind is when does a phtoographer's monopoly over a certain "aspect" of photography expire? Does it become more morally acceptable to imitate something that has been inspired by another artist when a shot or style becomes popular (the vogue).

I think that the intent of the copied image is also important to consider. For example, are you:
Paying homage to something (which I think was was the driving force behind the request I was faced with),
Making humour or a parody of something,
Profiting,
Or coincidence (e.g. accidental plagarism where people take similar images in similar locations without having seen an original).

This website has some interesting comparisons for some plagarising issues:
http://www.slate.com/id/2159172/slidesh ... y/2159214/

An interesting quote "you can't copyright a vision, nor can you cordon off a place just because a great shot or two was already taken there".

So - If you have a moment to spare, please feeel free to tell me your thoughts and experience.

Many thanks
Steve

You can't copyright a style in photography. So to photograph in the style of.......no problems.

I think one element of the discussion should be about the intent of the image which may immitate a certain style. I think if the purpose or intent of the photo is to mimic a style or be an interpretation of that style, then it well falls within the boundaries of acceptability. In fact it is possibly the highest form of flattery. I think this supports Matt's view. If the creator produces an exact replica of the original, the style will be vitually the same, then it may be regarded as a forgery. Having worked in the area of intellectual property for a few years there is a lot of grey. My advice would be to use any style but stamp your own individual interpretation on it so that it clearly an independent creation.

Good topic.

Peter Mc

This is a great area of interest. Everyone's views will be interesting to hear.

great solid topic steve.

it's one that has prevented me from entering a likely award winning shot from the APPA's. One piece of work had the requirements of "can we create this" when referring to a reference image. and we smashed it, but copied every design element of the shot, so as to recreate it. our work was amazing, and lots of people love the shot, but I know key design elements are not mine, and that leaves me a little hollow in terms of ownership, so for me, I now keep the shot as a well executed replica, infact an improvement on the original, rather than completely my own, thus preventing me ethically from benefiting from it, even if it would be my first gold APPA

on the broarder topic, I have no problem with creating images others have, or drawing inspiration frlom elements, but not claiming benefit from without citing references. copying design elements is done every day in almost all areas of design and engineering, essentially evolution, but a complete replica is a replica not worthy of reward

My advice would be to use any style but stamp your own individual interpretation on it so that it clearly an independent creation.

I agree and well put.

It is certianly an interesting issue and as Matt said you can't really copyright a style. As with many things in life I have always felt, and this could just be me, that there is an unwritten law which is purely commonsense and courtesy - by all means learn from others and their styles, locations light choice PP etc, however always go in with your own eyes and your own slant on the situation, don't copy the composition..its a bit like cheating on video games...

I have also had an experience where someone has said 'I want a picture that looks like this' however in my case they were giving me an idea what they expected and the particular style that was required to match their webbie. In this case I looked at the style and the lighting and then went in there with my own ideas and tried to whack my touch on it and also give it a bit extra, a bit more of a slant that I might be able to say ' yeah that looks like my style'!

Does it become more morally acceptable to imitate something that has been inspired by another artist when a shot or style becomes popular (the vogue).

I think imitate is the key word here, it to me, means your going out to replicate the shot in all facets, composition, PP and lighting, this, I reckon is dodgy, for example Brent Pearson has done lots of guides for seascape stuff in sydney I have looked thru quite a bit of his stuff and whilst I have tried to take on board some of teh style I have ensure I have not gone out there sat in the same spot and tried to replicate the exact shot.

If the creator produces an exact replica of the original, the style will be vitually the same, then it may be regarded as a forgery

dammit, that sums up all the above ramblings in less words and sounds better....

Hey guys

Thanks for the discussion so far. It certainly seems like other people out there have struggled or are currently stuggling with similar issues.

Oz_Beachside wrote: One piece of work had the requirements of "can we create this" when referring to a reference image. and we smashed it, but copied every design element of the shot, so as to recreate it. our work was amazing, and lots of people love the shot, but I know key design elements are not mine, and that leaves me a little hollow in terms of ownership, so for me, I now keep the shot as a well executed replica

Bruce, I totally understand what you are saying here about the lack of ownership on the key design elements and reluctance to receive benefit from it. Im also interested to know if you display or have published this image anywhere? If so, how do you reference the original?

I hope more people will contribute their thoughts or experiences if they get a chance.


Ta
Steve

Willy wombat wrote:If so, how do you reference the original?

One practical method would be use "inspired by blah blah" and provide a link. It would also be common courtesy to give the original artist a heads up; especially if it was going to be a commercial project etc
Would you have to pay the original artist in that case?

I don't have a "style" that i know of ... unless its variety

but can see that use of a certain lens for most pics could give you a style [i love my 12-24/4]

i see hundreds of pics a week and some of those "ideas" incorporated in those pics will probably influence my pics without me even knowing.

if i see a certain View of something that i like i shoot it ... whether me liking that view is because of liking other peoples similar shots ... ???

what about two people coming from different angles but ending up with the same shot ?

So for what its worth, i don't believe in plagarism