| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/16/2008 11:10:48 PM · #1 |
| what are the takes of DPC'ers on the topic of plagiarism, especially involving photographs |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 11:11:45 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 11:18:17 PM · #3 |
| Oh, I thought this was going to be in "Challenge Suggestions". ;-P |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 11:31:02 PM · #4 |
| My son did it in high school with a paper, got caught and I ripped him up one side and down the other. That should tell you my feelings on it! ;) |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 11:33:51 PM · #5 |
| I know someone who had someone write them a essay when they were little and it won a contest and they ended up going on tv to read it. I wonder if the person who wrote the essay was proud or pissed. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 06:24:10 AM · #6 |
| I've always wanted to plagiarize an essay about plagiarism to see if it creates a black hole. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 06:31:38 AM · #7 |
| Im tempted to start another thread plagiarising this one...! I think it depends on the degree of plagiarisation (is that a word?!) sometimes you can take someones idea and run with it and make it your own, sometimes you see someone else's technique/style for a certain photo or whatever and want to try and replicate it.. I think its all a part oif learning from each other and trying new tricks! |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 06:40:17 AM · #8 |
| I am wondering what DPCers think about plagiarism, particularly relating to photos. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 06:42:31 AM · #9 |
Speaking for myself, I am wondering what DPCers think about plagiarism, particularly relating to photos.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2008 06:49:17 AM · #10 |
| I have often wondered what folks on DPC think about plagues, specifically the frogs. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 08:17:18 AM · #11 |
| I have often wondered what folks on DPC think about perjury, especially Bill Clinton |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 08:33:51 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by didless:
I think it depends on the degree of plagiarisation (is that a word?!) |
No. Plagiarism is though :)
I don't think plagiarism is a problem if it's done for the right reasons, such as learning a new technique, after all we're all guilty of being influenced by the images we see on here.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2008 09:40:46 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by didless:
I have often wondered what folks on DPC think about perjury, especially Bill Clinton |
Sorry, Bill isn't on DPC.
As for photography, I'd say there are thin lines between plagiarism, homage, and just plain "learning from copying." |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 09:42:16 AM · #14 |
| On the whole... I would say am pro plagarism. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 10:13:09 AM · #15 |
In all seriousness... it's very hard to plagiarize a photo unless you submitted someone elses work as you own.
Setting up a similar shot is not plagiarism at all.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2008 10:19:47 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
In all seriousness... it's very hard to plagiarize a photo unless you submitted someone elses work as you own.
Setting up a similar shot is not plagiarism at all. |
I tend to agree, but out of curiosity, what would people say about this situation:
You have a creative but relatively easy to reproduce shot. A company wants the shot but doesn't want to pay. The company produces a nearly identical copy and uses that, instead of the original, at a substantially lower cost. Is that plagarism? I seem to remeber a discussion about a situation similar to this with a yellow fashion photo with a hammer. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 10:24:35 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by sjl2116:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
In all seriousness... it's very hard to plagiarize a photo unless you submitted someone elses work as you own.
Setting up a similar shot is not plagiarism at all. |
I tend to agree, but out of curiosity, what would people say about this situation:
You have a creative but relatively easy to reproduce shot. A company wants the shot but doesn't want to pay. The company produces a nearly identical copy and uses that, instead of the original, at a substantially lower cost. Is that plagarism? I seem to remeber a discussion about a situation similar to this with a yellow fashion photo with a hammer. |
I was thinking on that thread too...
I don't think that is plagiarism, per se. I think the original photographer does still have a case as he/she presented the idea for hire and they decided to steal that idea rather than pay. It's a very fine line, IMO. But if we try to emulate Ansel Adams and sell our own versions, that wouldn't be plagiarism to me.
But I'm sure you could find a lawyer and a judge to come down on either side of any issue. Such is our litigious society. :(
|
|
|
|
12/17/2008 10:37:17 AM · #18 |
I think it depends on what you had in mind, and how you presented the image.
If you did your level best to perfectly recreate a specific image. (For sake of argument, let's say IreneM's onion rings, currently on the front page...) If you did everything you could to make your image exactly like hers, and entered it somewhere as your own idea, then I would consider it wrong.
However, if you did something along that line, for say a food challenge, and labeled it as a tribute image, then you are giving credit to the true creator of the idea, and I don't have an issue.
That's just me, your belief system and mileage may vary.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2008 10:42:27 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by didless:
I have often wondered what folks on DPC think about perjury, especially Bill Clinton |
Sorry, Bill isn't on DPC.
As for photography, I'd say there are thin lines between plagiarism, homage, and just plain "learning from copying." |
Plagiarism=taking someone elses work and calling it your own(ie if you submitted a photo by Mr Adams and said it was yours)=wrong
Homage, taking a similr shot to honor the orginal=compliment and not wron
Trying to recreate a shot to learn the technique= just fine as it will not be exactly the same and is how you learn. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 10:48:04 AM · #20 |
| I think the intent matters. For example if you see a cool lighting technique on some image on the frontpage, and you and you try to reproduce the image exactly as a learning exercise, then that fine. If you are replicating an image for business/money purposes, at the expense of the orginal photographer, it is wrong. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 10:58:06 AM · #21 |
By definition, "plagiarism" is a literary crime, involving the theft of words and, to a lesser extent ideas/intellectual content. Properly speaking, you can't apply the concept of plagiarism to images at all. We "copy" images, but we "plagiarize" content if we reproduce it word-for-word, or substantively so.
There's a good reason for the distinction, since it's very easy to copy someone's words and pass them off as your own, but the words themselves aren't subject to copyright, only the form in which they are linked together. Images, on the other hand, are distinct objects in and of themselves (you can't easily pull their pieces out and rearrange them) and thus are capable of being "stolen", which written words, as a rule, are not unless you steal a very rare book :-)
I'm not sure I'm being clear here, but it's clear in my head. Anyway the main point is that when one talks about "plagiarizing" someone's image, that is basically a misuse of the word, regardless of how common it may be becoming. It's much better to just come out against "copying" another person's image, since that is what is happening, precisely.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2008 11:24:46 AM · #22 |
my all-time favorite photographer, Jack Leigh, successfully sued warner brothers for plagiarising an image of his. basically, he had been commissioned to capture an image for a book cover; when it came time to make the movie, warner bros didn't want to pay him for what he had created, and they hired another photog to essentially recreate leigh's image...
read about it here.
i know a photog who was fired for visual plagiarism; she had seen a photo and faithfully recreated it. it was rather embarrassing when her publication realized (too late) that basically the same image had been published by a competitor a few months earlier.
it's one thing to be inspired or to want to try to figure out how to do what someone else has done. it's another thing to act like you got there first when you know you didn't. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 11:36:26 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
By definition, "plagiarism" is a literary crime, involving the theft of words and, to a lesser extent ideas/intellectual content. Properly speaking, you can't apply the concept of plagiarism to images at all. We "copy" images, but we "plagiarize" content if we reproduce it word-for-word, or substantively so.
There's a good reason for the distinction, since it's very easy to copy someone's words and pass them off as your own, but the words themselves aren't subject to copyright, only the form in which they are linked together. Images, on the other hand, are distinct objects in and of themselves (you can't easily pull their pieces out and rearrange them) and thus are capable of being "stolen", which written words, as a rule, are not unless you steal a very rare book :-)
I'm not sure I'm being clear here, but it's clear in my head. Anyway the main point is that when one talks about "plagiarizing" someone's image, that is basically a misuse of the word, regardless of how common it may be becoming. It's much better to just come out against "copying" another person's image, since that is what is happening, precisely.
R. |
While the strict definition may be exclusively literary, at least one dictionary includes a note that "Similar theft in music and other arts is also called plagiarism" |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 12:08:34 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
While the strict definition may be exclusively literary, at least one dictionary includes a note that "Similar theft in music and other arts is also called plagiarism" |
Right, I understand that. I addressed that issue briefly in my post, actually. What I'm saying is I don't AGREE with this usage of the term as it refers to images. Now that you mention it, music is in the same boat as literature, I'd agree. You can plagiarize music, I'd agree. But I still think it's better to refer to "copying" images. No big deal, I am just being anal.
R.
Message edited by author 2008-12-17 12:10:25.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2008 12:21:38 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by crayon:
what are the takes of DPC'ers on the topic of plagiarism, especially involving photographs |
There is no such thing.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 05:50:23 PM EDT.
