Copying..... it's a nono... right?

[KevC]

Hey,

I look through people's portfolios and magazines and just in general to get ideas of how to get a "nice shot". I've thought about themes I'd really like to do. Girl dressed in Japanese schoolgirl uniform with a katana, girl with a gun, girl in headphones ala headphone ads. (girl... girl... girl... i like shooting girls hahaha). I've got all these ideas in my head, how she'd be sitting, how she'd be lying, what she'd be dressed like.

Then dawns on me, it's very.... *very*... similar to what I've seen everywhere. Just different models. That sounds awfully like "copying" to me!

I realise to stand out, I'd need to be more original.

But I'd still like to these shots! Is this a bad sign? Would people just look at it and go "oh that's sooOoOoo cliche?" It's not just people photography either!

I really want to do a slow shutter waterfall shot.

The standard "lone tree in the field" shot that everyone has done.

There are more out there, but I can't think of them right now.

But this has more to do with portraits/fashion/glamour. People photography. If I'm going to build a portfolio when I get good enough, is it not a good idea to add these shots in them?

[Curtis N]

KevC,
Sometimes there's a fine line between "classic" and "cliche."
But consider this: Every piano player has learned Fur Elise and a hundred other classic compositions. They are challenged both by the goal of technical perfection and the desire to find a creative way to do it differently than everyone else. I'm currently in a production of Oklahoma! It's a musical that's been done a million times, and everyone involved is challenged by the desire to make this production special in some way.

There's also a very real difference between imitation and copying. Copying is something you do with a scanner. Imitation is something you do to compare your skills to the masters. I think it's an important part of the learning process.

If you do have some measure of creative talent in photography, it's sure to surface on its own.

[robertwgross]

If you see classic photographic subjects and poses published somewhere, then it is certainly OK to try to go out on your own to duplicate those same subjects and poses. It is good training. Try to duplicate them even to lighting and mood. It's harder than you think.

However, that should arm you will some technical skills so that when the unique subject or pose presents itself, you have the technical skills to capture it the way your mind envisions it.

---Bob Gross---

[aam1234]

Agree with Curtis and Bob, excellent points.

For me at least, to be able to duplicate what pros do in say magazines is like winning 95% of the battle. Once one achieves that then the sky is the limit in terms of originality and creativity.

[mkh]

I see nothing wrong with that unless you try to represent it as someonelse's work. In the art world that is called forgery.

You can't just stop taking pictures of people, cars, trains etc just because someone has already done it. How many times has someone photographed the Eifel Tower? Just try to think of a new angle on the subject.

Now if you could get a picture of dogs playing poker that would be awesome. :lol:

[Andy_T]

KevC,

To me, it certainly makes sense that you try to reproduce a shot you think is great. For example, if you want to take a picture of a girl with a katana, then it certainly is important to have the experience which kind of flash to use, which posure works best, etc...

You are right, there *are* a lot of images already of girls wielding katanas, but maybe the model you will be shooting as a paid job will want to have that picture done ... then you better know how it works best.

Best regards,
Andy

[PhotosGuy]

To me, it certainly makes sense that you try to reproduce a shot you think is great. For example, if you want to take a picture of a girl with a katana, then it certainly is important to have the experience which kind of flash to use, which posure works best, etc...
And, make sure that she holds it correctly, too!
I don't think you can avoid copying someone, even a thousand someones. Try to be in the group that does it better than the others! ;-)

Everyone starts by imitating. We call it "School", no?

[Tom W]

Now if you could get a picture of dogs playing poker that would be awesome. :lol:

It's already been done, you copycats! :) :D

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/44210530.jpg

[Longwatcher]

I must be original, I take pictures of women carrying Naginata's, Scimitars and spears :) 8) [I love Bud K for cheap weapon props that look cool, but I would never want to use]

On a more serious note, lately I have been visiting art museums and galleries for some inspiration. What I do is find a style of painting I like and then attempt to duplicate the style (not the shot) in a photograph. Not as easy as it sounds, but it provides inspiration and a challenge.

Last year I tried to duplicate the style of 19th century Orientalist painters (think Persia, Turkey, Egypt around late 1800's. Not completely successful in that I could get the model and foreground in the correct style, but I found I needed more elaborate backgrounds then I had time or space to constuct. And yes I could have photoshop'd the backgrounds in, but that would have defeated the purpose of the exercise. It was fun trying though and got me some nice photos.

Just my experience,

[jfrancho]

I can make a corrolation to the way I learned to play drums. I emulated my favorite players for many years. Eventually, and I did not notice this process, my own style began to develop. My style is made up of bits and pieces that I picked up from listening to others. I sometimes throw things in intentionally, as a tribute of sorts to my "mentors".
I have a huge stack of Amercan Photographer and Rangefinder magazines, given to me by a friend. I study these, and try to emulate what some these photographers are doing. Eventually, I imagine my own style may develop.
So, I see no problem with emulation as a learning process.

[Jon, The Elder]

KevC - There is a guy on this forum who shoots old cars (among other things). Now cars are a favorite topic of many people. This guy goes the extra mile and his shots (at least the ones he shows us), have a definate 'look' to them. I actually like one or two of them (just don't tell him). He didn't get that 'look' overnight. He also works within his style to create new variations. He's been shooting for some time - yet still strives for better each time. Once your 'style' clicks in your mind, you can spend the next 40+ years perfecting it. Photography is as much a state of mind as anything.

[tim]

I've seen the comment made somewhere that there are no original pictures, and that every picture you've taken will have been taken before. Exact people and location may be different, but that's about it. One well known motorsports photographer here in NZ said he regularly looks in motorsports magazines from all over the world to get ideas for new shots for him to do.

[Huckaback Photo]

Tom
just wondered about your post above, I realise were talking about copying other peoples ideas for the advancement of our own photography, this is fine with me.

But what we do have to be carefull of is the actual "copyright" of images and works of art (you know where going don't you) sorry for pointing out the obvious. but the bottom left corner of the picture you put up not only is the name there but also the copyright symbol, be carefull.
what do others think about this.

Last year I refused to be the judge of a national competition, because the people running the comp
wanted the full use of all pictures entered and therefore the photographers giving up there copyright to the images. I did not agree with this. I've since found out that they wont have to buy any photos for years because they had lots of entries.

As photographers we should all stand up for our rights if we are to keep the copyright of our pictures.

Kev
I would think if we started a thread with a picture and then invite others to post up similar shots there could be hundreds looking just the same.
I think study all the images you like and try to produce your version in your own style.
a thought... just because digital and photoshop are relatively new, we dont have make new style way out images, but traditional shots and scenes, look back to the early days of photography for some great ideas. Then use digital and create your version.
Often a lot of thought went into making just one picture with a large format plate camera, unlike some of todays motor driven shoots ( take 500 shots one will sure be OK). I'm not against taking lots of shots its a great way to get experiance if starting digital .
wish you luck
Martin (Huckaback Photo)

[Tom W]

Tom
just wondered about your post above, I realise were talking about copying other peoples ideas for the advancement of our own photography, this is fine with me.

But what we do have to be carefull of is the actual "copyright" of images and works of art (you know where going don't you) sorry for pointing out the obvious. but the bottom left corner of the picture you put up not only is the name there but also the copyright symbol, be carefull.
what do others think about this.


Martin (Huckaback Photo)

Interesting that you should notice - I hadn't noticed it until recently, and it's been in my possession for a couple of years now. The picture is very common, almost generic in nature, but also fairly famous. The image is a photograph of the picture on my wall, which is itself a reproduction of C.M. Coolidge's "A friend in need" painting. It's a saleable product in the commercial world, but not from an 798 pixel wide internet image. I've seen similar-sized images on retail web sites.

Anyway, the reason it is up there is partly to inject a little humor into the subject, and partly to spark a little discussion. Where does the line need to be drawn? Granted, we should do everything in our power to protect our own images, but there is also the notion that they are free to be observed if displayed publicly.

Some of this is covered (at least in the US) by the Fair Use Doctrine in US copyright laws. The fair-use doctrine allows the use of copyrighted material specifically for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research" and in those uses does not constitute an infringement of copyright. It also outlines a few factors that need to be considered in using copyrighted work including:

1 - the purpose and character of the use (needs to generally be non-profit and not plagarized)
2 - the nature of the copyrighted work
3 - The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the work as a whole (this covers excerpts used in other published works in most cases)
4 - the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

What does all this mean? It means I can post an image or other copyrighted material for the purposes described above, but not for personal gain. I can't pass others' work off as my own, and I can't make money from it. I must protect the owner's property with some sort of care, even as I use that same property for one of the above-mentioned "higher" purposes.

[Huckaback Photo]

Tom
Thats great a lot of usefull info there.
I thought the way you found and posted was indeed fun and spot on to to what was posted.
It was my concern for you in pointing out what I saw.
well done.
we may get other info from this I expect. a good subject to discuss.

Cheers
Martin

[mkh]

Tom, that picture you posted doesn't count. It's really a painting (which I've seen many times)

I want to see it with real dogs.

Also, lots of good info in your second post. Thanks.

[Tom W]

Y'all are welcome - there's a lot of information available from the US copyright web site at:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

Research if you wish, but if you're even thinking that something might be borderline as far as fair use is concerned, consult a professional lawyer. I only play one on the internet.

Caveat Emptor.... :)

[DocFrankenstein]

I'm not stupid enough to re-invent the wheel.

[KevC]

Thanks for all the replies.

I understand it's excellent practise and experience to try to "imitate" and recreate things you see.

But my biggest concern is portfolio reptition. I want to do portraits and fashion/glamour. So I would like to build my portfolio with that in mind. Obviously variation is great, I'll have some insect/flower macros, land/cityscapes, architecture, nature, but mostly I'd be "selling" my people stuff.

Now shooting people can get reptitive, no? There are certain poses I like, I look around and see poses I like so I try to get my models to imitate that. In a portfolio, you don't want just *one* model, correct? So you have a couple of models, and a couple of poses. You don't want overlapping poses. It'd look really stupid if every model in your portfolio had the one of the same pose.

*just thinking*

I really need to check out new poses...

[primoz]

Some people would say it's copying other don't. In my work (shooting sport) you are pretty limited so after few events everything looks like copying... even copying of yourself :) In some skiing race there's only so many places for photographers. Every gate is same as one before and one after. Every single skiing track looks exactly same in those few degres which 300mm lens covers. So there's no wonder if 5 other photographers bring back same photos as I do. We were all standing together on those 5m of track anyway. Same goes for every single sport even there is. Ok you can try to be creative and use different lens, different time etc. But you are basically really limited to what you can do.
I can't really say anything about fashion photography since I never do it, but I guess it's kinda same case.
Another thing is when trying to learn photography and you look those cool photos trying to re-create them. For me this is just fine. You learn those things through "copying" too. And since it's not like "I go out and just copy that photo" you really do learn. You don't have copy machine but camera which you have to position right, choose right settings etc. so even if photo looks same on end it's still your photo. And once you go through those basics you will start thinking more and more about other things in photography, since technical things will be automaticaly there.