Is it ok to copy?

[oldshooter]

Is it ok to copy?

On Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2159172/nav/tap1/) today there is an article on photographic plagiarism. I know in the areas of Advertising, and Commercial Photography, copying another photographers photographic concept leads to a law suit.

(And I am not talking about copyright infringement, where a photo is stolen via a copy machine or scanner.)

I have started to see very similar, or the same shots, on more and more wedding web sites. Ring shots, cake shots, shoes. In the old days this was not that common even with weddings. But because of the easy access of the web every one in the world can see your shots.

What’s to prevent your shot from being copied by every competitor as soon as they see it on the web, or in a magazine?

Realizing that it would be too costly for most small businesses to enforce or sue. What can you do? Or is it OK to plagiarize or steal some ones wedding shot, or style?

I am not worried about some one copying me as much, I’d likely be flattered.

How many of you say, “Gee that’s a neat shot I think I will try it?”

Joe

[_Jo_]

I am often inspired by a wedding image I see - and feel flattered if another feels the same about mine. I think the key here is to make each image your own by your sense of style. I could take a picture and you could take a picture in exactly the same spot of the same people - but I can assure you they would be completely different pictures. We all see things differently - thats what makes our individual style as wedding photographers.
eg; the "dip" - you see that pose everywhere in wedding albums - but different backdrops, angles and crops...

[oldshooter]

Funny I have that dip shot on the 1st page of my web site!

And I am inspired by so much of the work I see on the web. But a lot of wedding shots are starting to look similar. Buttoning the back of a bride's dress, the dress hanging in front of a window.

Are these just new traditions I am seeing?

Or photography that have become part of the usual wedding photographer's shot list?

[agosling]

When I meet with couples I encourage them to look through magazines and show me the photos they like and from that I get ideas for them... I don't copy photos, I try to not even copy my own work, but I don't have a problem with looking at someone else's work and then combining aspects of it into my style.

[Jono A]

With all the millions of wedding images that have been shot over the last few decades, I cannot image that it would be remotely possible to successfully sue someone for a similar image, and I actually think it would be bizzare for someone to even try! Jono.

[CyberPet]

I think it's very hard to be unique when it comes to something like weddings, as most of them contain the same thing. So even if there's many ways to skin a cat, you can only skin it only a few ways.

[jessiper]

One of my favorite quotes goes something like this-
"Every great artist is first a great thief." or "Good artists copy, great artists steal." - Picasso ;)

[cdifoto]

There's already a thread about this article:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=274177

[oldshooter]

There's already a thread about this article:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=274177

Hey Thanks, I hadn't read that...some pretty intellectual thoughts our there on this subject.

Re: Picasso…I love it! He was indeed the master showman.

My favorite story about Picasso was when he went to dinner and ate a very expensive meal in one of Paris’s finest restaurants. And to pay the bill he handed the Manager a napkin where he had drawn a cartoon of Don Quixote. The manager was a bit perplexed as Picasso was already famous, But a napkin? Last I heard the napkin sold for over a million dollars!

Regards,
Joe

[LBaldwin]

Oldshooter,

The web may make it easier to for newbies to see what has traditionally been sold in nearly every package, but realistically it is not so easy to"copy or emulateanother image. The photographer still needs skills to do so.

In the world of wedding photography, there really isn't much new anyway. Ring shots have been around forever and couples poses and group poses have not changed very much either. The location changes, they clothing styles change, you may add some B&W to mix it up, but really, there is not much new stuff, especially if you belong to one of the big wedding shooter orgs. They HATE new ways of doing things

So much of wedding work is based on what you learned from assisting or looking at bookds or videos etc. So how can anyone actually claim that this image is truly unique to thier work? It would be very tough to prove, an easy to come up with a published work
with enough elements to make it look close.

So how can you put out an image that says that it is a Oldshooter original? Thousands of weddings take place each year...

The subject is too contaminated to make a clearly defined statement...

Les

[Philco]

One of my favorite quotes goes something like this-
"Every great artist is first a great thief." or "Good artists copy, great artists steal." - Picasso ;)

Or as Bono rephrased it: "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief.."

Like the article in Slate pointed out, when it comes to art, it seems rather presumptive for an artist these days to think that they haven't borrowed from somebody. Everybody takes what they can learn from other creative professionals.

Meandering slightly off topic, I would say that in one sense, we should take creative license with our work,- but on the other hand, we're hired to do a "job" so it's appropriate that we take whatever tools we can to work with us to get the job done well. If that means we have our own stock phrases and pet poses that we may have learned from a mentor or elsewhere, then that's okay since the results are better for it when we choose the right tool at the right time. My goal is to have enough tools in my bag so that regardless of the personality of the couple, or the style of the venue, I'll be able to get good results for my clients.

[PixelChick78]

Wow, what has the world come to that we are even discussing this? What's next, I get sued because I have the same haircut as someone!?

How could someone prove they did it FIRST?

[PIXI_666]

I have my own style, but if i see something i like, like a particular pose or way someone has taken a ring shot, then i sometimes try it in my own style. There is no real copying about it, its all about inspiration. LOL pixelchick...too true!!!

[Big Mike]

I took a wedding photography course last fall and one of the assignments was to cut out shots from magazines. Tear sheets, he called them. The idea was that you find shots/poses/lighting etc. that you like...then you try to emulate those shots. He even suggested that you bring these tear sheets with you on the shoot...so that both you and the model/bride can look at it. He also suggested that you tell the bride to find her own tear sheets of shots that she liked...so that you have an idea of what she likes.

Obviously, once you have some of these shots in your portfolio, it would be better to use those than shots from a magazine. After recreating certain shots a few times and putting your own personal spin on them...they can become your signature shots. Brides will see those shots in your portfolio and say 'Oh, I want that one'.

[mace0002]

We are all here to be inspired by and to learn from......

[Mike Reynolds]

We are all here to be inspired by and to learn from......

I feel if the photo is posted you can copy it but absolutely never sell it or represeent it as your own that would unethical! I also feel that some of the finest photos and ideas have been posted right here on this site and because it was posted we should be able to copy and use only to share as ideas but I stress again NEVER do it in an unethical manor.

[motogeno]

I have a degree in fine art, and it is a common assignment to recreate as acurately as possible a work from a master artist. Having said this, any artist worth anything must constantly be trying to produce original work with unique ideas. Within the parameters of wedding photography, there are plenty of shots that have been duplicated and recreated over and over and all of us will have to continue doing this in order to offer brides comprehensive coverage of their day. But if you have any artistic integrity, and want to set yourself apart, then you will constantly be looking for ways to set yourself apart. If someone takes a pose that I created and duplicates it (not steals the image and uses it in their portfolio, because I would be pissed) then I am flattered. It's my job to continue to try to be duplicated. It would be like everyone that plays rock and roll having to pay royalties to Elvis or the Beatles otherwise.

[oldshooter]

I have a degree in fine art, and it is a common assignment to recreate as acurately as possible a work from a master artist. Having said this, any artist worth anything must constantly be trying to produce original work with unique ideas. Within the parameters of wedding photography, there are plenty of shots that have been duplicated and recreated over and over and all of us will have to continue doing this in order to offer brides comprehensive coverage of their day. But if you have any artistic integrity, and want to set yourself apart, then you will constantly be looking for ways to set yourself apart. If someone takes a pose that I created and duplicates it (not steals the image and uses it in their portfolio, because I would be pissed) then I am flattered. It's my job to continue to try to be duplicated. It would be like everyone that plays rock and roll having to pay royalties to Elvis or the Beatles otherwise.

This topic is a of particular interest to me in a similar vein. The last class I took in college was “The Philosophy of Art.” And the inventor like concept of “the creator” of an original work was one defining criterions, or a necessary ingredient. Whether through style, or technique, the inventor’s work is and can be viewed as Art, and copies, often called forgeries, or imitations are not. In particular an almost identical copy of a master’s painting is used as an example. One, the original is priceless, and the identical copy nearly worthless. Why if they look the same is there a difference in value? Using the Beatles as an example, they created work that was creative and unique, but their musical style was often an extension of the rock and roll greats that preceded them.

With the current trends in wedding photography so heavily intertwined with the web, and imitation so common. I was curious about imitation of photographic styles and in particular Wedding Photojournalism. Last Summer, at the Microsoft Pro Photo Summit, I asked Dennis Reggie how he felt about so many followers, or imitators of a style he is credited with inventing. He did not seem as concerned about what other people were doing as finding ways to enhance the wedding coverage of his clients. He laughed at first and said, “ I was too lazy to take the time to set up the lights and do all that posing, so I just wanted to take pictures in a more natural way.” I asked him how many shots he took on a typical day and he said 8,000 with his two assistants! Hmm I wouldn’t exactly call that lazy.

Weddings are in part tradition, with rituals that have been done for centuries, and with photography changing into the digital realm from the film era. I am starting to see technology play a greater role in what is possible. The high IOS’s possible with digital capture are giving more freedom to the journalistic natural light shooters and less dependence on flash. Wedding photographers now are able to change images with Photoshop that the older generation could only wish for.

Art imitates life, and technology makes that possible.

Warm regards,
Joe

[motogeno]

This topic is a of particular interest to me in a similar vein. The last class I took in college was “The Philosophy of Art.” And the inventor like concept of “the creator” of an original work was one defining criterions, or a necessary ingredient. Whether through style, or technique, the inventor’s work is and can be viewed as Art, and copies, often called forgeries, or imitations are not. In particular an almost identical copy of a master’s painting is used as an example. One, the original is priceless, and the identical copy nearly worthless. Why if they look the same is there a difference in value? Using the Beatles as an example, they created work that was creative and unique, but their musical style was often an extension of the rock and roll greats that preceded them.

With the current trends in wedding photography so heavily intertwined with the web, and imitation so common. I was curious about imitation of photographic styles and in particular Wedding Photojournalism. Last Summer, at the Microsoft Pro Photo Summit, I asked Dennis Reggie how he felt about so many followers, or imitators of a style he is credited with inventing. He did not seem as concerned about what other people were doing as finding ways to enhance the wedding coverage of his clients. He laughed at first and said, “ I was too lazy to take the time to set up the lights and do all that posing, so I just wanted to take pictures in a more natural way.” I asked him how many shots he took on a typical day and he said 8,000 with his two assistants! Hmm I wouldn’t exactly call that lazy.

Weddings are in part tradition, with rituals that have been done for centuries, and with photography changing into the digital realm from the film era. I am starting to see technology play a greater role in what is possible. The high IOS’s possible with digital capture are giving more freedom to the journalistic natural light shooters and less dependence on flash. Wedding photographers now are able to change images with Photoshop that the older generation could only wish for.

Art imitates life, and technology makes that possible.

Warm regards,
Joe
Let me clarify about master copies - these are only used as learning tools and aren't ever accepted as art for the recreator. But Marcel Duchamp is famous for recreating the Mona Lisa and then simply painting her with a mustache. You have to add something of your own if you want to be recognized as an artist and not a forgerer.

[oldshooter]

Let me clarify about master copies - these are only used as learning tools and aren't ever accepted as art for the recreator. But Marcel Duchamp is famous for recreating the Mona Lisa and then simply painting her with a mustache. You have to add something of your own if you want to be recognized as an artist and not a forgerer.

It is noted that when you copy you imitate a master to learn their technique, with the hope of eventually developing your own artistic style.

But the problem with copying is this. I had a professor that said, when he was younger he learned to practice and play Mozart Piano concertos, and later in life when he tried to compose everything he created sounded like Mozart.