| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/17/2005 05:35:30 PM · #26 |
Just a quick update -- Paul has updated his comments appropriately. He claims he did not recall where he saw the original, and I see no reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Anyone who commented may wish to revise accordingly.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:37:55 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by moodville:
What exactly is it that is annoying people about this?
2) That he copied the image and didnt give credit to Scalvert. |
For me, it was this one. Nonetheless, I chose to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest mistake, and I'm glad I did. The issue has been corrected.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:47:37 PM · #28 |
Not to pick on Kiwi but this is just for an example. The above is a ribbon-winning shot on DPC. In the details it states it was not his idea. Although he states he asked for permission he does not credit the original.
Now granted I havent seen the original but if the problem for most people is that he copied an idea and didnt give credit then surely this is just as 'horrific a crime'. |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:48:26 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Just a quick update -- Paul has updated his comments appropriately. He claims he did not recall where he saw the original, and I see no reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Anyone who commented may wish to revise accordingly.
-Terry |
Fair enough, I've edited mine... |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:51:09 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Imitate, no problem, I agree. Try it for yourself, learn what you can. Let me ask you this - would you enter that shot in a challenge here on DPC (Deja-vu challenge exempted)? I don't think so. |
Of course not. and neither did the copy photographer. He did admit though that it was NOT his original idea. If he said it was, then thats just lame. It would have been better if he had given credit to shannon, but he didn't.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:56:55 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by debbybris:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
That's standard text added by Photosig.
-Terry |
That's maybe what we should have on here, then he would of had to email or had to get permission..thanks for responding terry |
I think we do have something like that at the bottom of every page here at dpc. I hope I'm right because I think an awful of us rely on those words down there.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 06:42:00 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by bear_music:
The Konador/heart/filter image is sort of a "public domain" thing; Ben would be the first to acknowledge it wasn't original with him (as moodville points out). But two things stand out about "nightbulb"; it's a strikingly original picture which the other photographer duplicated so precisely as to render all creativity moot, and the photographer entered the remake in a contest, facripesake. I can't imagine doing that. I have many times attempted to duplicate great images to learn how they were done, but I draw a lien betweening using the ame technique to create an original image and doing a straight duplication. I'd never enter the "dupe" in a contest or exhibit it, but the technique (of course) is fair game.
Robt. |
Aren't you being a little hypocritical here? You said pretty emphatically that there was no limit on how much outside help an entrant in our challenges could receive with their images, but now you are condemning someone who used scalvert's blue ribbon shot as inspiration, and apparently learned well how to use the same techniques. Where do you draw the line bear? Or is there still no limit as you, and others, espoused in that other thread? Would it have made any difference if the other photographer had credited scalvert more directly? Please explain this apparent paradox. |
Regardless of how much help I may receive from someone else, or from some book, or from some website, in my pursuit of better photographic skills, I personally draw the line at copying another work as closely as I can and entering it as an "original" submission in a competition. There's no hypocrisy here. This is a pretty rare situation; the "pirated" image is almost a direct copy of the original, save for the completely different tonalities of the "moon". It's a matter of personal pride for me.
I wouldn't submit as an original for publication a poem that began this way, either:
Whose house this is I think I know.
His car's not in the carport, though;
he will not see me stopping here
to watch his yard fill up with snow.
I MIGHT, though, submit it to a website or a magazine devoted to poetic parodies. See the difference?
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-04-17 18:55:46.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 06:50:50 PM · #33 |
I'm thinking about entering some poety
I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden woodpeckers,
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and floating in the breeze
I saw this once on a website but can not remenbre where, I added my own twist to take it further.
on this statement my WORD iS WORTH my bond ;)
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 06:58:24 PM · #34 |
I'm surprised there's so little discussion of what i think's important here; calvert's image isn't just about technique, which anyone is free to borrow and build upon, but about a very specific imaginative vision; the moon in a lightbulb, held by a hand against a field of stars.
Be assured, if I ever wanted to shoot TMIALB,HBH,AAFOS, I'd be damned sure it was a totally different appearance from Calvert's fine shot. So there'd be something of ME in it.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 07:07:41 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I'm surprised there's so little discussion of what i think's important here; calvert's image isn't just about technique, which anyone is free to borrow and build upon, but about a very specific imaginative vision; the moon in a lightbulb, held by a hand against a field of stars.
Be assured, if I ever wanted to shoot TMIALB,HBH,AAFOS, I'd be damned sure it was a totally different appearance from Calvert's fine shot. So there'd be something of ME in it.
Robt. |
Its a fine line between 'copy' and 'inspiration'
I agree with the above observations made by Robt, as Shanon came up with a totally unique approach and idea, however if I was to take a picture of London Bridge or the Empire State Building in the same style as some famous picture would this be seen as blatent plagerism.
For me the copy is OK providing full accreditation is provided, and obviously in this case it was rather slow in coming.....
Message edited by author 2005-04-17 19:08:18. |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 08:22:18 PM · #36 |
Let me start out by saying that I think scalvert's blue ribbon winning Nightbulb was, IMHO, a truely unique and creative idea; and it was very well executed within the confines of dpc's editing rules. It's not the kind of photography that I prefer; or the kind I do. Personally I much prefer his The Artist, which is also very creative and well done.
If I am reading the consensus of this thread correctly we feel that it was ok for the photosig guy to copy Nightbulb as long as he gave clear credit for the idea to it's originator.
And bear_music says that it's ok to do your own version of someone else's idea as long as you put enough of yourself into it.
Does any of this carry over into the recent discussion about help with dpc entries?
Can you use someone else's idea as your challenge entry if you give clear credit for it?
What if your entry is entirely your own original idea but you needed tons of help (help in physically setting it up, help in selecting the best camera angle, settings and composure, and help with post-processing) to bring it to fruition? Should you then give credit to the people who helped you? I don't mean giving credit as a way of thanking your helpers, but rather as a way of acknowledging to the community that you couldn't have done it on your own.
It seems to me that we were busting chops (rightly so) on the photosig guy for not acknowledging that he ripped the idea. What if the idea is yours but that was the only part you could do for yourself?
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 08:57:56 PM · #37 |
I have to add that I find it interesting and somewhat disappointing that the basic principles of copyright (not to mention the ethical questions that arise out of passing off someone elses idea as your own) that apply to other artforms seem to be overlooked and ignored when it comes to photography.
Imagine for argument's sake that John Setzler's waterdrop/flag shot happened to be the first ever instance of such a waterdrop shot. Now if we can maintain this little fiction for a moment it will help me make my point. I'll wager that a person who would have no problems whatsoever creating a photograph entirely derived from such an image, to the extent that it's virtually the same, would never even dream of going and painting an exact copy of some artists watercolour.
Now do we accept these kinds of actions with photography more than other artforms because of the perception that photography is merely a representation of an object in real life ?
Whether such actions are permissable at law are questions for those more knowledgeable than myself to answer...
But I find the apparent disdain for originality shown by some in the photography world to be a little disconcerting on an ethical/moral level. I can see why you would want to imitate someone elses work to learn certain techniques - but keep those imitations to yourself, don't go posting them virtually uncredited and allow the kudos to roll in. |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 09:00:52 PM · #38 |
I'm not in the concensus. I do NOT think it was right to copy Nightbulb to the degree he did - with or without giving credit to Shannon. The technique, ok - try it for yourself, but do something different. This guy copied it almost verbatim. Not right.
Originally posted by coolhar:
...If I am reading the consensus of this thread correctly we feel that it was ok for the photosig guy to copy Nightbulb as long as he gave clear credit for the idea to it's originator... |
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 09:12:55 PM · #39 |
In summary:
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
If you copy directly, give proper credit where credit is due.
If you were inspired by - and learned from - the technique, then USE it, don't copy it..... make it your own.
If you were the copyee (new word?), hope you'll be given proper credit, but feel flattered and bask in the glory in either case. |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 10:03:41 PM · #40 |
| It is good that he has given credit where credit was due. Interesting that many of the first comments on the photo praised the creativity of the photograph- but the replies to this comments just said 'thanks' but did not comment on the creativity aspect. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 01:54:40 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
What if your entry is entirely your own original idea but you needed tons of help (help in physically setting it up, help in selecting the best camera angle, settings and composure, and help with post-processing) to bring it to fruition? Should you then give credit to the people who helped you? I don't mean giving credit as a way of thanking your helpers, but rather as a way of acknowledging to the community that you couldn't have done it on your own. |
You mean like Zoomdak did with his Blue Ribbon winner in "Separation"? Seems to me this isn't much of a problem...
Robt.
Edited for booboo
Message edited by author 2005-04-18 02:28:00.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 02:24:03 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
You mean like Zoomdak did with his Blue Ribbon winner in "Surrealism"? Seems to me this isn't much of a problem...
Robt. |
Do you mean his entry in the "Separation" challenge? |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 02:28:39 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Originally posted by bear_music:
You mean like Zoomdak did with his Blue Ribbon winner in "Surrealism"? Seems to me this isn't much of a problem...
Robt. |
Do you mean his entry in the "Separation" challenge? |
Yup, sorry. Mental lapse. Edited my original post. Thanx.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 03:39:38 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by samtrundle:
Imagine for argument's sake that John Setzler's waterdrop/flag shot happened to be the first ever instance of such a waterdrop shot. |
Unsurprisingly enough, this debate has raged before - around John's waterdrop shot : )
Originally posted by samtrundle:
I'll wager that a person who would have no problems whatsoever creating a photograph entirely derived from such an image, to the extent that it's virtually the same, would never even dream of going and painting an exact copy of some artists watercolour. |
So no art student has ever painted a bowl of apples, or a sunflower, or a vase of flowers on a table, in a way which deliberately copies another painting of the same? I'm not going to try and prove it, but I would think it happens on a daily basis.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 03:51:02 AM · #45 |
The issue isn't whether artists copy other artists' work for learning purposes or just for the hell of it (they do) but rather whether they try to pass it off as their own, original work when they do. It's a very muddy area for sure, but IMO this particular ripoff of this particular image is a straight copy, not an original work. And that's all I'm saying; that he shouldn't have entered it in a contest as his "original" work. And it's just my opinion, based on my own moral code. There is, incidentally, an entry in "tacks" which uses the same technique to make an entirely original composition, and assuming someone other than scalvert made it I have no problem with that.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-04-18 03:51:40.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 04:20:23 AM · #46 |
wow...i just woke up with a splitting headache, and found this at the top of the forums. can't believe it's still raging...
for the most part, it's not a matter of getting twisted everytime you see something that looks like credit is missing. it's more a matter of gently educating people as to what needs to be done. if the purloiner doesn't get it, then unleash.
as an education site, though, we here can police ourselves, hold ourselves to a higher standard, set examples for those around us, and send out subtle messages as terry did. it's not that hard to do the right thing, once one knows how. check out my original notes for this image
this isn't a new topic. if you'd like some background reading, here's a few threads...
leaning red phone box squabble (my personal favorite)
plagerist rant thread
stolen images thread
Message edited by author 2005-04-18 04:25:36. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 04:28:37 AM · #47 |
There was also a thread a while back where some guy was absolutely stealing shots from this site and entering them elsewhere - pixel for pixel; but I can't remember where that thread was.
I actually think that this 'new' version of Shannon's shot is an improvement - whilst I'm not wholly convinced about the light on the hand, and think Shannon made it less imactful and therefore emphasises the 'moon' more, the definition of detail and light in the moon is better done in the 'new' shot.
E |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 06:36:05 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
The issue isn't whether artists copy other artists' work for learning purposes or just for the hell of it (they do) but rather whether they try to pass it off as their own, original work when they do. |
In this particular case the guy did say right from the start that the idea wasn't his own. You can question the lack of a link to Shannon's version, but he never claimed it as an original idea.
I've never seen the original that inspired "Liberty and Justice" either.
Originally posted by bear_music:
It's a very muddy area for sure, but IMO this particular ripoff of this particular image is a straight copy, not an original work. And that's all I'm saying; that he shouldn't have entered it in a contest as his "original" work. |
If we compare to another art form ... cover versions of songs are all over the place. Some stay so true to the original that they're pointless, yet they still "get entered into" the charts and make money.
Originally posted by bear_music:
And it's just my opinion, based on my own moral code. There is, incidentally, an entry in "tacks" which uses the same technique to make an entirely original composition, and assuming someone other than scalvert made it I have no problem with that. |
I'm entirely with you on this. I did do a "copy" of the Liberty and Justice idea, and entered it in a challenge, but hope I made it my own first. I also prefer cover versions where the artist makes the song their own. I can't expect everybody (especially the music industry heheh) to share the same morals though, and is it really such a crime to try to emulate or improve on the original? Although I don't think I would ever do it, I don't think so.
Skip - hope the head's getting better, sorry to "rage on" : )
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 06:48:59 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by bod:
If we compare to another art form ... cover versions of songs are all over the place. Some stay so true to the original that they're pointless, yet they still "get entered into" the charts and make money |
Just thought that I should point out that whenever a cover of a song is released(unless of course the holder of the original copyright has been dead 70 years) permission must be obtained and, generally, royalties (often a considerable amount) have to be paid.
In the present cicumstance, the photograph, which is a closer reproduction of the original than most song covers was not taken after the granting of permission, and the acknowledgment granted (until someone from here made their objection known) was a very casual reference to 'somewhere on the web.'
I have no problem with someone taking an idea and developing it into something that really is their own - hell, I think that's how we get that delightful thing we call 'progress.' But to copy an idea directly without permission and submit it somewhere, with such a meaningless acknowledment, then happily accept the kudos thrown your way goes beyond what I personally am okay with.
Message edited by author 2005-04-18 06:55:13. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 08:10:40 AM · #50 |
The "copy" fortunately is a poor one in comparison. Shannon's is much clearer overall with much better lighting. Shannon's hand is in focus, along with the base of the bulb - where the other one is not. Plus Shannon created his using basic editing rules where the imposter had free reign to do as he pleased in post-processing. No contest.
Originally posted by e301:
...I actually think that this 'new' version of Shannon's shot is an improvement - whilst I'm not wholly convinced about the light on the hand, and think Shannon made it less imactful and therefore emphasises the 'moon' more, the definition of detail and light in the moon is better done in the 'new' shot.
E |
|
|
