"Copied" work won contest and $2,500!

True not everything is PS,

As for assuming, well that's my choice to do or not as I please.

I don't see the big deal... If I take a picture of a building, Does the architect get all mad about me "stealing" their "art"?

joelvdvies wrote in post #11516975
I don't see the big deal... If I take a picture of a building, Does the architect get all mad about me "stealing" their "art"?

Actually, I'd bet that some do.

joelvdvies wrote in post #11516975
I don't see the big deal... If I take a picture of a building, Does the architect get all mad about me "stealing" their "art"?

If you built a copy of his building, he probably would.

nonameowns wrote in post #11516879
um it's a painting on a canvas, not photoshop.

You are right. Sorry, I did not read that, but it is still a blatant copy.

I like the photograph better. In terms of actual content it might be stated that while this moment in time was captured uniquely that it may not be as unique as we would like to believe. This may be a scene that has a traffic pattern that produces this kind of image repeatedly in the day though the placement of different colored headlights suggests imitation. Note the imitation is not exact either. There is no rain in the block style graphic art and it's most likely the image was a starter seed. Lots of painters use photographs.

There are entities who protect their visual identity in the world. This happened in Paris with laws about who can shoot the various landmarks and I don't really remember the details in that case but I believe if you were going to use a landmark in a publication it had to clear French bureaucracy.

CallumPhoto wrote in post #11515909
but that photo is really nothing special

Wonder what you align "special" with and is photography about topping the last great image or is it about a mood, a place, subject, and setting. That is a beautiful image in my eye.

jetcode wrote in post #11517183
There are entities who protect their visual identity in the world. This happened in Paris with laws about who can shoot the various landmarks and I don't really remember the details in that case but I believe if you were going to use a landmark in a publication it had to clear French bureaucracy.

I'm going from memory here, so bear with me, but I think the Eiffel Tower is a perfect example. The tower itself is not copyrighted, but only due to its age. The lights on the tower, however, are copyrighted.

There may be some nuances that I'm missing, but I think that's the gist of it.

nonameowns wrote in post #11516879
um it's a painting on a canvas, not photoshop.

Project the photo onto the canvas, mix the paints and dab them on paint-by-number style!

If I were the newspaper, I'd demand the prize money back and disqualify the winner for plagarism.

joelvdvies wrote in post #11516975
I don't see the big deal... If I take a picture of a building, Does the architect get all mad about me "stealing" their "art"?

If you take a photograph and represent the work as "your own", then yes, you are infringing on a copyright.

If you cite the original owner and have their permission, or if you change it up enough that it's clearly a separately created work, then it's different.

I think this example is that the painting so closely emulates the photo, with little or no effort to make it different. That's not "inspired" by the original, it's essentially paint-by-number copying!

Copyright infringement?

See Shepard Fairey v Associated Press (and Associated Press v Shepard Fairey).

Go to Fairey's exhibit, yak a photograph of the print, have a few hundred printed, sign them and start selling the at half the price of Faireys.

How much you want to bet he will come unglued and fill copyright charges.

photoguy6405 wrote in post #11517234
I'm going from memory here, so bear with me, but I think the Eiffel Tower is a perfect example. The tower itself is not copyrighted, but only due to its age. The lights on the tower, however, are copyrighted.

There may be some nuances that I'm missing, but I think that's the gist of it.

That's right. I think the lighting design company placed the restrictions because it was their intellectual information being copied.

TopHatMoments wrote in post #11517390
Go to Fairey's exhibit, yak a photograph of the print, have a few hundred printed, sign them and start selling the at half the price of Faireys.

How much you want to bet he will come unglued and fill copyright charges.

already done: http://myartspace-blog.blogspot.com …airey-and-baxter-orr.html

short and sweet: you're right.

I'm pretty sure that's not PS, I would hope that the judges of an art or painting contest would be able to tell the difference between a PS edit thats been printed and an actual painting.