Art imitating art - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/25/2010 12:00:01 AM · #2

Yeah, Labelle's bemusement turned to indignation when he realized that Turgeon received $2,500 for her painting. My guess is he'd like to cash in on her winnings.

For my $0.02, the painting is not an exact replica of the photo. It's an impressionist painting that resembles the photo.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/25/2010 12:12:43 AM · #3

Originally posted by Mick:

You don't have to be an exact replica to be a complete ripoff.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

12/25/2010 12:29:08 AM · #4

I don't see what the issue is. They wanted a cover, so she covered an existing piece of art. If it was original it would not have been a cover.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/25/2010 12:33:28 AM · #5

I've had several artists ask for my permission to paint from my photos (actually, in one case it was a carving).

I don't see anything wrong with it other than she should have asked.

I also think it's the photographer trying to get a piece of the pie.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/25/2010 01:06:42 AM · #6

Originally posted by nshapiro:

I don't see anything wrong with it other than she should have asked.

Yes, and that's the only thing I see wrong with plagiarism, too.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

12/25/2010 01:13:02 AM · #7

Looks like a pretty blatant ripoff to me.....

Mick

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/25/2010 01:20:44 AM · #8

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Mick:
Yeah, Labelle's bemusement turned to indignation when he realized that Turgeon received $2,500 for her painting. My guess is he'd like to cash in on her winnings.

For my $0.02, the painting is not an exact replica of the photo. It's an impressionist painting that resembles the photo.

You don't have to be an exact replica to be a complete ripoff.

Yeah? What do you think of these?

Natural Cathedral - by

charliebaker

The way is straight, and the path is wrought fair... - by

DrAchoo

Jason's photo is much closer to David's original than Turgeon's painting is to Labelle's photo. They're even the same medium (photograph), which isn't the case with the painting.

So, would you say that Jason's photo is a "complete ripoff" of David's photo?

There are lots 'n lots of other photos on this site that are very nearly identical. Water drops, wine glasses, auroras, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Are they all ripoffs too?

Message edited by author 2010-12-25 01:21:40.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/25/2010 01:26:35 AM · #9

Man, I wish I had won $2,500 instead of a virtual ribbon!

senor_kasper

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

12/25/2010 03:23:25 AM · #10

Originally posted by Mick:

........Jason's photo is much closer to David's original than Turgeon's painting is to Labelle's photo. They're even the same medium (photograph), which isn't the case with the painting........

I disagree. Jason's photo is similar in location, theme and general idea but it is a somewhat different composition, different trees and colors. The painting is an exact replica of the composition, subjects and colors, the only difference is the medium and the use of impressionistic brush strokes. It is almost as if the painter would have painted over a print of the photo.

idp

Canon EOS-30D

12/25/2010 03:42:19 AM · #11

I can't see the problem here. People have been doing paintings from photos since forever. The photographer has copyright in his image but not in the subject matter of his image, which seems perfectly right. After all we have had challenges that have involved recreating other works haven't we ?

Strikeslip

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

12/25/2010 07:57:46 AM · #12

Originally posted by Mick:

I don't think it's worth half of $2,500 (or all of it) to act indignant in a high profile way. If I were the photographer I'd be glad to have a credit, and thank the painter for their interest. That's my opinion without reading the story, anyway.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

12/26/2010 12:15:32 AM · #13

As someone who actually paints, I know this is a total ripoff. When you work from a photograph this closely, the work (and therefore the $$$$) is not completely yours. This is paint-by-numbers.

And examples of the blatant copying of high scores that constantly goes on at dpc hardly helps her case. Doc made the point succinctly and perfectly. There is no claim of originality at DPC, and nothing real at stake.

fotomann_forever

12/26/2010 12:39:48 AM · #14

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Man, I wish I had won $2,500 instead of a virtual ribbon!

Considering how many you have won, you could definitely quit your day job :)

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

12/26/2010 04:55:26 AM · #15

Originally posted by posthumous:

I'd say copying a challenge entry at DPC would be harder work than painting that photo.

Lightfast

Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO DG Macro HSM for Nikon

12/26/2010 08:48:57 AM · #16

I've had a good look at the painting and feel that if somebody had won $2500 from my art I would be upset, it seems that it is being looked at from what is an art perspective too deeply, think of it from effort, because that is what this art debate is about who's given the effort? and who has received the rewards

Photographer effort:
the initial concept / imagination (which can't be learnt)
Planning of the image
cost of camera equipment
making the effort to visit the image site in a BLIZZARD!!
technical understanding of how to take the image
taking the image as he wanted it making it his personal art
post editing
taking the time to share it, uploading onto the web

received = $0

Artist:
Cost of painting materials
technical understanding of painting
Google !!!

Received = $2500

Even if you take the cash out of the scenario, as we and everybody really says you credit the original artist which she never did!!! at the least get permission or give a heads up.

bohemka

Nikon D700

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

12/26/2010 12:09:04 PM · #17

This story bums me out and I could go on, but I'll keep it simple for myself and blurt out the points on my mind:

1. Absolute certain copy, maybe even projected on canvas and painted over.
2. She essentially lied about it and dismissed the notion that she even used it as an influence as she "looked at dozens of photos."
3. The photographer is not looking for money, he's trying to figure out how he and others can protect their work.
4. This is nothing like copying another photographer's shot or style; you still have to go out to the scene and shoot it, process it, etc. A far cry from downloading a picture in your living room and copying it.
5. The rules asked for an original piece of art, and if I were a judge I'd be bumping her prize to the second place finisher, which is more creative anyway.

tanguera

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

12/26/2010 12:26:43 PM · #18

I think the painter is completely missing the point. No one is denying that what she created was art. But if you compare the two images, it is impossible to believe that she did not copy that photograph. She may have been inspired by dozens of other images, but his is the one she copied exactly - even the placement and coloring of all the headlights (trolley and cars) is identical. At the very least, she should have credited the photographer for the "inspiration".

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/26/2010 04:47:06 PM · #19

Originally posted by posthumous:

There is no claim of originality at DPC, and nothing real at stake.

Nothing at stake except honesty and respectability.

Mick

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/26/2010 05:54:29 PM · #20

Originally posted by posthumous:

Doc made the point succinctly and perfectly.

The only point he made was that he'd rather have $2500 than the ribbon. Who wouldn't?

Originally posted by posthumous:

There is no claim of originality at DPC...

That's not true. There's a lot of originality and creativity exhibited here. Of course, there's also a lot of blatant copying going on too. Most will say they do it to learn, however, if that were true there would be no reason to enter their copy in a competition.

Originally posted by posthumous:

...and nothing real at stake.

DPC, like all web sites, exists in a virtual world, and in that sense the ribbons are just as real as the people and photos that receive them. I doubt very much that anyone here would be willing to give up his or her ribbons for nothing in exchange. I certainly wouldn't.

hihosilver

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

12/26/2010 06:20:47 PM · #21

C'mon everybody...sing it with me...

Show me the $$$!

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

12/26/2010 06:39:41 PM · #22

Looks like the newspaper is trying to get as much attention as possible as well. The "crop" they use for the article is *exact* where as the painting's perspective is not.

Will be interesting to see how it all pans out

eta: "perspective isn't exactly the word I'm looking for. my point is that it is a close copy, but not as close as the initial picture shows

Message edited by author 2010-12-26 18:48:34.

jomari

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

12/26/2010 06:51:15 PM · #23

It all comes down to where the line is drawn between inspiration and copying. Although the artist has made a feature of her own style, I think that she has drawn too heavily on Labelle's original photo to say it was merely one of many photos that she drew inspiration from. I think that copying photos is just fine - *IF* you took the photo yourself. And why didn't she? She claims to have viewed that scene many times herself, so why not go and gather her own resource material?