Posted by David Bostedo on February 8, 2007 at 2:29 PM
http://www.slate.com/id/2159172/nav/tap1/
This is an interesting slideshow (with comments) on Slate discussing some cases of photographic "plagiarism" - and whether that can really exist.
I think we've all seen cases of someone "reproducing" a well known photo with varying degrees of success - and there a few examples here.
I think it's interesting that some people have obviously copied the work of others - yet it's tough to call it plagiarism, because of the nature of light and capturing an exact moment. It's awfully hard to actually reproduce the moment, even if you reproduce the photo.
Posted by John W. Wall on February 8, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Bialobrzeski's probably not an idiot and saw a chance to piggy-back some self-promotion by leveling a ridiculous charge.
Posted by Bill Chambers on February 11, 2007 at 8:07 AM
(My opinion only) - I think the concept of photographic plagiarism is a bunch of crap unless you were to actually steal someone's transparencies/neagatives or digital file and create images from them and claim them as your own. Because one person took an image of the Grand Canyon are others not supposed to be allowed to do so from the same position or time of day. Ridiculous! If you have a great image that you don't want people to copy, you need to frame it and place it in a safe where no one will see it instead of publishing it. How many painters have copied the Mona Lisa? Bialobrzeski sounds like he needs an ego adjustment. Again, just my opinion...
Posted by David Bostedo on February 11, 2007 at 11:39 AM
I think I agree with you, Bill. But I'm not sure. There are a couple of scenarios that would seem sketchy to me.
1) What if the photo you have is great only because of finding a unique angle of view, or an original juxtaposition? In other words, what if the impact of the photo isn't dependent on light or time of day, and is then more easily reproducible?
2) What if you took a great shot, and tried to promote it/sell it, but it didn't work out. Then someone better known sees your photo, copies what you did, and it winds up being a well known shot. In other words, he didn't copy your shot, per se, but more stole your idea.
In either of these cases, I don't know that I'd call it plagiarism, since you are mimicing something, not actually producing a copy. But I could see how it would be upsetting....
Posted by Fred Stearns on February 11, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Oh my. What will someone come up with next? This sounds like a lawyer trying to drum up business.
Has anyone made a tour of the European Art Museums and NOT seen a "student" sitting in front of a painting by one of the Masters trying to make as close a copy as possible? Not being able to draw a straight line or a round circle, I have to take them at their word when they say that this is the best way to learn the Master's techniques, presumably to develop their own later. Indeed, this is common in art classes. This is far closer to plagiarism than simply trying to emulate the work of another photographer, but with the same end in mind. I would think that we have all tried to emulate the work of another to try to learn another technique to improve our works. In photography workshops and seminars, the teachers use their work and the works of others to demonstrate techniques that may be new to the students. The students are them encouraged to try out these techniques. What better way to learn than to use the same subject, or a similar subject that is closer to hand. Personally, if someone thinks enough of my photography to go out and try to make a photograph "just like mine", I would feel flattered. I also know that the result would not be an exact copy as the variable mentioned above would all be different. Besides, I doubt that the placement of the camera would be exactly the same.
David's second scenario could be a bigger problem. So far, when I have seen, in print, a picture very close to one of mine, I just just say, "hey! I have a picture just like that!" and let it go. After all, I made a picture that someone else thought worthy of making and marketing. If I had tried to market it, I would just have to mark it up to more knowledgeable marketing skills. After all, haven't we all seen pictures that we know that we could have, or have, done better?
Posted by mark miller on November 17, 2007 at 5:31 PM
I don't think emulating or studying the work of other photographers is in of itself plagiarism. Nor do I think shooting the legendary icons like the Grand Canyon or Delicate Arch would be plagiarism either, as everybody does it, and there is always a different angle, light or whatever. I do think, however, simply finding what someone else is doing, (especially if is a unique and creative situation) and making an effort to copy it exactly at least starts to define the word plagiarism. If I were to try to copy an Ansel Adams photo, like "Moonrise over Hernandez", go there, find the exact set up spot, the time of year when there'd be some clouds over the mountsins, and get a full moon coming up, precisely as Ansel did it, that would certainly be plagiarism. One could argue they had their own camera and took the picture, but to me, at least, this simply copying someone else's work deserves no respect. What many don't understand is, that for some of these shots, there was a lot of time, money, and trial and error in the creative process, long before the photo was taken. All that work culminated in a unique image. Then some one else comes along with a camera, a light bulb goes of, and they decide they can get that exact same photo without ever going thru the creative process, since now it is obvious the concept is all set up for them and ready to go. Operating a camera does not make one creative any more than operating a word processor. I could copy a story just like Earnest Hemingway's "Old Man and the Sea', because I know how to operate a computer. But that does not make me creative, and that would be plagiarism. Photography is not as clear cut though, because many of us can think we discover something, only to find out it's been done before. That happens and is no big deal. But copying certain 'trademark' photographs of other photographers, photos that show great insight, unqueness, etc etc, defines plagiarism imo.
Discussion
5 repliesThis is an interesting slideshow (with comments) on Slate discussing some cases of photographic "plagiarism" - and whether that can really exist.
I think we've all seen cases of someone "reproducing" a well known photo with varying degrees of success - and there a few examples here.
I think it's interesting that some people have obviously copied the work of others - yet it's tough to call it plagiarism, because of the nature of light and capturing an exact moment. It's awfully hard to actually reproduce the moment, even if you reproduce the photo.
1) What if the photo you have is great only because of finding a unique angle of view, or an original juxtaposition? In other words, what if the impact of the photo isn't dependent on light or time of day, and is then more easily reproducible?
2) What if you took a great shot, and tried to promote it/sell it, but it didn't work out. Then someone better known sees your photo, copies what you did, and it winds up being a well known shot. In other words, he didn't copy your shot, per se, but more stole your idea.
In either of these cases, I don't know that I'd call it plagiarism, since you are mimicing something, not actually producing a copy. But I could see how it would be upsetting....
Has anyone made a tour of the European Art Museums and NOT seen a "student" sitting in front of a painting by one of the Masters trying to make as close a copy as possible? Not being able to draw a straight line or a round circle, I have to take them at their word when they say that this is the best way to learn the Master's techniques, presumably to develop their own later. Indeed, this is common in art classes. This is far closer to plagiarism than simply trying to emulate the work of another photographer, but with the same end in mind. I would think that we have all tried to emulate the work of another to try to learn another technique to improve our works. In photography workshops and seminars, the teachers use their work and the works of others to demonstrate techniques that may be new to the students. The students are them encouraged to try out these techniques. What better way to learn than to use the same subject, or a similar subject that is closer to hand. Personally, if someone thinks enough of my photography to go out and try to make a photograph "just like mine", I would feel flattered. I also know that the result would not be an exact copy as the variable mentioned above would all be different. Besides, I doubt that the placement of the camera would be exactly the same.
David's second scenario could be a bigger problem. So far, when I have seen, in print, a picture very close to one of mine, I just just say, "hey! I have a picture just like that!" and let it go. After all, I made a picture that someone else thought worthy of making and marketing. If I had tried to market it, I would just have to mark it up to more knowledgeable marketing skills. After all, haven't we all seen pictures that we know that we could have, or have, done better?