Can Photographers be Plagiarists?

[milleker]

A very interesting slideshow sent to me by a friend. Warning, slide 6 includes nudity for those at work.

http://www.slate.com/id/2159172/nav/tap1/

Just throwing it out there, do I agree? Disagree? I'm still thinking it over.

[cylentka]

Interesting topic. I'm still thinking too. Thanks for the link.

[led hed]

they are different shots of the same subject. i don't see any plagiarism there.

soon one will be disciplined for eating the same meal deal, the same way, in the same order as the guy sitting next to you at McSlip's.

hey! i couldn't find the nudy pic :(

[cdifoto]

It's a landscape. You can't copyright a landscape. You can copyright that particular shot but if another photographer takes his own shot of the same thing, it's THAT photographer's to own and hold copyright.

Plagiarism in photographic form would be copyright infringement...ie taking the ACTUAL original photo and slapping your own name on it.

Not to mention there are physical differences...new buildings added, old buildings gone, slightly different composition, etc.

[R_Metzel]

hey! i couldn't find the nudy pic :(
did you click on the slide show. It is a pic of Brooke Shields nude-age 10! Is that even legal to show?

[Jason77]

that is interesting and i'm going to have to give it some thought too. immediately though, it seems to me that the cityscapes would be harder to place in the category of plagiarism.


hmmm... i'll give it some thought and see what i come up with.

[Mark_Cohran]

Very interesting topic. I agree with cdi-ink.com. It's not copyright infringement unless the original image (or copy) is misrepresented or used to create a derivative work (i.e. taking the orginal image or copy and photoshopping it would be a derivative work).

Mark

[Mark_Cohran]

did you click on the slide show. It is a pic of Brooke Shields nude-age 10! Is that even legal to show?

Nudity - even of minors, is not in and of itself illegal. It becomes a crime when the minor is posed in a sexually provocative way, and even that is open to interpretation (google Jock Sturges, Sally Mann and David Hamilton for more info).

Mark

[cylentka]

did you click on the slide show. It is a pic of Brooke Shields nude-age 10! Is that even legal to show?

Legal if its art. Not meant to stir lust, or whatever the phrase is.

[cosworth]

No thinking for me. If I take a picture it's mine. I don't give a rat's ass who was there before me.

Copying another person's style. God I could only wish for that to happen to me. If someone made money off it? Then IT WAS ME that dropped the ball.

Copy artwork photographically? Copy photographs artfully? Every media state change involves interpretation and artwork. I'd be a little upset that I MISSED THE OPPORTUNITY to captialize financially on my image.

Whiners. People only complain when there is money involved.

[Curtis N]

The slideshow covered a broad spectrum of scenarios, from attempts to imitate a previously done photo at the original location, to the more slippery act of selling phtographs of someone else's copyrighted image. Plagiarism and copyright are separate concepts that sometimes get muddied together.

Certainly money is at the heart of these controversies. That doesn't make them all whiners. If I had taken a picture of a famous person, and someone took a picture of my picture and was making money selling his pictures of my picture (ala the Brooke Shields shot), I would be calling my lawyer.

Would I win? Hard to say. The law gets interpreted different ways in different cases, which is pretty much what the slidewhow/article was pointing out.

[Jon, The Elder]

Can they?.......Sure I even know one that is a Methodist and 2 that are Baptist.

[20droger]

A slight twist...

If a photographer sets up a shot (poses people as he wants, arranges props, etc.), is it illegal for someone else to take a picture of the set up?

Example: at a wedding, the pro sets up a shot of the bride and groom in specific poses. Uncle George snaps a pix with his P&S. Did Uncle George break the law?

[cdifoto]

A slight twist...

If a photographer sets up a shot (poses people as he wants, arranges props, etc.), is it illegal for someone else to take a picture of the set up?

Example: at a wedding, the pro sets up a shot of the bride and groom in specific poses. Uncle George snaps a pix with his P&S. Did Uncle George break the law?

No he just pissed off the photog, that's all.

[20droger]

According to case law, Uncle George committed copyright violation and broke the law. The photographer "owns" the pose he has set up as a part of his intellectual property in the picture.

Once the picture has been taken and the pose disembled, Uncle George may ask the bride and groom to repose in the same way and then take a picture; you can't copyright a pose per se. But to take a picture of the photographers actual set up is definitely a no-no.

And yes, it is virtually guaranteed to anger the pro. The rest of the pictures may then suffer. (Do you do your best work when ticked off?)

This is why it behoove the bride and grrom to keep Uncle George (and others) in check.

[Jim7226]

Intellectual property refers to the creative work itself (i.e. the photographer's specific picture) and not the subject matter per se in the photo (landscapes, wedding party shots, etc.), at least when it's in the public domain. Besides, according to Black's Law Dictionary plagiarism is "The act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts of the passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one's own mind." Last time I checked none of the pictures I snap take a written form. So, to answer the OP's question...NO! That doesn't mean that IP rights of another photog can't be infringed upon, but it wouldn't be called plagiarism, IMHO.

[3Turner]

May as well only take pictures inside of your house only since no other photographer can go inside at copy your photo...unless you sell your house to another photographer who copies your furniture layout:rolleyes: .

How can one possibly go about the world without worry that the photo could be considered plagiarism. I wonder if there was ever a case that was settled in that most ridiculous way. Similar photos are just two photographic mind thinking alike.

[gjl711]

According to case law, Uncle George committed copyright violation and broke the law. The photographer "owns" the pose he has set up as a part of his intellectual property in the picture.
.... Can you point to the case? I have searched high and wide and everything I have read states that a pose can not be copyrighted. I agree that it is likly to pi$$ off the photog, but against the law? As example, I stack a few rocks in an interesting formation and take a picture. If another photog comes along and also takes a picture I can sue for copyright?

[cdifoto]

According to case law, Uncle George committed copyright violation and broke the law. The photographer "owns" the pose he has set up as a part of his intellectual property in the picture.

Once the picture has been taken and the pose disembled, Uncle George may ask the bride and groom to repose in the same way and then take a picture; you can't copyright a pose per se. But to take a picture of the photographers actual set up is definitely a no-no.

And yes, it is virtually guaranteed to anger the pro. The rest of the pictures may then suffer. (Do you do your best work when ticked off?)

This is why it behoove the bride and grrom to keep Uncle George (and others) in check.

So like, if I told you to lean against your car, I own the way you leaned against your car, and someone else coming along and taking the picture of you leaning the way I told you to lean is against the law?

Seems a bit far fetched...

[Annabel Doskey]

It's a landscape. You can't copyright a landscape. You can copyright that particular shot but if another photographer takes his own shot of the same thing, it's THAT photographer's to own and hold copyright.

Plagiarism in photographic form would be copyright infringement...ie taking the ACTUAL original photo and slapping your own name on it.

Not to mention there are physical differences...new buildings added, old buildings gone, slightly different composition, etc.

This sounds a lot like this essay. Take a look:

http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/002287.html

[TooManyHobbies]

I don't think so. Like so much art, its the one who does it first that get the credit for a style. Artists as well as photographers have been building on the pervious work of others since cave drawings.

[Curtis N]

According to case law, Uncle George committed copyright violation and broke the law. The photographer "owns" the pose he has set up as a part of his intellectual property in the picture.I'd like to see the case cited also.

Sorry, it doesn't pass the smell test.

[20droger]

Can you point to the case? I have searched high and wide and everything I have read states that a pose can not be copyrighted. I agree that it is likly to pi$$ off the photog, but against the law? As example, I stack a few rocks in an interesting formation and take a picture. If another photog comes along and also takes a picture I can sue for copyright?
In theory. In fact, you'd lose.

Then on the other hand, if you make a living shooting posed rocks, you might well win, but only if the other photog shoots the picture while you are in the process, i.e., just before you do. Once you've taken the picture, the rocks are fair game.

That is because the setup is a part of the process of taking t6hat specific picture. Once the picture is complete, the setup is fair game. As I said, a pose, per se, cannot be copyrighted. A picture, including its process, is automatically copyrighted.

I deal daily with intellectual property law. I charge $75.00 per hour or fraction thereof for legal searches, minimum 3 hours. Send check, I'll search (as soon as it clears).

And if it doesn't pass a smell test, you need a new nose.

[20droger]

So like, if I told you to lean against your car, I own the way you leaned against your car, and someone else coming along and taking the picture of you leaning the way I told you to lean is against the law?

Seems a bit far fetched...
This goes to "common usage." You cannot claim any copyright on common usage. Just leaning on a car is not copyrightable.

Now, if I had you lean on or otherwise carress your car in an uncommon manner (don't go there!), that may be a different matter.

[Glenn NK]

Here's a different twist; photographer suing artist:

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=5628631

It was the subject of a thread at dpreview; incidentally, the photographer lost his case.

[primoz]

I don't really agree about plagiarism. Everything has been shoot already, so you can't really find something new... And sometimes there's one specific place from which something look particulary nice. Do you think, there's only one image from that place? :)
And then on other side... sometimes you are just limited to this what you can do and where you can go. For example one of my photos (http://www.photo.si/photo_show.php?imn=s_skiing_20070107nw_0037.jpg) and one of my colleague (http://************/2z2km8). Is this plagiarism? I don't think so. We were just standing together. So unless you take my photo and use it as your, I don't think we can go into plagiarism in photography.

[Annabel Doskey]

Okay. here's another link in which the editor of a magazine apologized for the similarities between his cover shot and that of another's:

http://blog.fotolia.com/us/issue/visual_plagiarism-times-dispat.html


Yes there is plagiarism in all arts. Some seem to feel that charges of plagiarism cannot be brought to bear in photography. Not so.

Granted, if everyone were visually literate of just 1% of the visual imagery in use, few would heed Richard Avedon's advice: "If you've seen it before, don't take the picture."

[Annabel Doskey]

Here's a different twist; photographer suing artist:

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=5628631

It was the subject of a thread at dpreview; incidentally, the photographer lost his case.

Glenn, there was a similar case about 20 years ago involving a photographer who took a picture of a child with eight or so puppies. A sculptor saw the image and created a work which looked very much like the photo: the girl's hair, her face, the breed of dog, etc.. The photographer went to court and won. I'll be darned if i can remember the photographer's name. His name begins with a K, I think. It was a landmark case.

[cdifoto]

Okay. here's another link in which the editor of a magazine apologized for the similarities between his cover shot and that of another's:

http://blog.fotolia.com/us/issue/visual_plagiarism-times-dispat.html


Yes there is plagiarism in all arts. Some seem to feel that charges of plagiarism cannot be brought to bear in photography. Not so.

Granted, if everyone were visually literate of just 1% of the visual imagery in use, few would heed Richard Avedon's advice: "If you've seen it before, don't take the picture."

That's just ridiculous. If I see something I want a photo of, I'll take a picture of it. I don't care who already has their own snapshot. Famous landmarks have been photographed by tourists over and over and over and over for years and years.

[Annabel Doskey]

That's just ridiculous. If I see something I want a photo of, I'll take a picture of it. I don't care who already has their own snapshot. Famous landmarks have been photographed by tourists over and over and over and over for years and years.

Ain't that sumthin'?

Many of the photographic plagiarism issues are mere exercises in hair splitting. It isn't like literary or journalistic plagiarism in which actual words, motifs, and plots are lifted from others in a very conscious and deliberate way.

The Shanghai photos in that link are on very shaky grounds for any argumentation for plagiarism. My brother once brought back photos from Ireland. In his portfolio was one photo of a breathtaking cliff overlooking the sea which I had seen before in a travel poster. I chided him for copying the image (of which he was aware as well). His explanation: it was the only angle from which one could possibly make the image with the exception of getting into a boat and photographing up, and risking being dashed upon the rocks.

So, yes, cdi-ink.com, I think that a lot of the plagiarism arguments are idiotic too. When one begins to sell his images, it's a different story. The link to the story about the candy presents a better argument for plagiarism. (The summer intern even admitted to being inspired by the cover, I believe)

[WxGuesser]

i'm sure i've seen more than one postcard of the statue of liberty.... if someone had the rights to the original picture....

[Curtis N]

I deal daily with intellectual property law. I charge $75.00 per hour or fraction thereof for legal searches, minimum 3 hours. Send check, I'll search (as soon as it clears).So in this thread you begin by giving out free legal advice, then refuse to backup your claims with case law unless you are compensated.

I'll take that for what it's worth.

[20droger]

Please do. Searches take time that I'm not willing to spend on such a trivial issue.

Anyone seriously interested can do their own search.

[3Turner]

I think that Peter Marshall said it best about plagerisim when I was poking through those links provided above, "I know it's just a cliché." Nothing more.

[mackb]

I think that Peter Marshall said it best about plagerisim when I was poking through those links provided above, "I know it's just a cliché." Nothing more.

[gjl711]

I think that Peter Marshall said it best about plagerisim when I was poking through those links provided above, "I know it's just a cliché." Nothing more.

I think that Peter Marshall said it best about plagerisim when I was poking through those links provided above, "I know it's just a cliché." Nothing more. Hmm... there seems to be a little too much similarities between posts. Do we have post plagiarism? ;)

[Big WIll]

Like others have stated they are different shots of the same subject. i don't see any plagiarism there.

[3Turner]

Ummm...Billy, you meant to quote me...right???? LOL

[DAMphyne]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Turner View Post
I think that Peter Marshall said it best about plagerisim when I was poking through those links provided above, "I know it's just a cliché." Nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackb View Post
I think that Peter Marshall said it best about plagerisim when I was poking through those links provided above, "I know it's just a cliché." Nothing more.
Hmm... there seems to be a little too much similarities between posts. Do we have post plagiarism?
3Turner Ummm...Billy, you meant to quote me...right? LOL

3Turner, there may be someone that will look into this situation for you.
For a price of course.;)

[3Turner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Turner View Post
I think that Peter Marshall said it best about plagerisim when I was poking through those links provided above, "I know it's just a cliché." Nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackb View Post
I think that Peter Marshall said it best about plagerisim when I was poking through those links provided above, "I know it's just a cliché." Nothing more.
Hmm... there seems to be a little too much similarities between posts. Do we have post plagiarism?
3Turner Ummm...Billy, you meant to quote me...right? LOL

3Turner, there may be someone that will look into this situation for you.
For a price of course.;)

:lol: LMAO thats evil...