In Praise of Copying

[jdefoore]

After Annie Leibovitz was recently called out for "artful borrowing," the practice of creating an image from a historical antecedent, and in response to a new gallery show in Chicago called "Under the Influence," American Photo editor David Schonauer writes: "Amid the frenzy to punish plagiarists, it's easy to forget that referencing and copying are time-honored literary and artistic devices."<BR>
<BR>
Just wondering what you guys think of the position Schonauer is staking out here, and if you can think of any other examples where photographers are "under the influence."<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF=http://www.popphoto.com/photographynewswire/2719/in-praise-of-copying.html TARGET='_blank'>Full story here.</A><BR>
<BR>

[JamesNYC]

<BR>
<BR>
This is first and for most theft of another's well thought out ideas or very happy accidents.<BR>
And second this is nothing more than a public display of the photographers lack of creativity or imagination.<BR>
Working on such shoots (Such as "Annie") for the last 15+ years I constantly see photographers showing up on set with tear sheets from magazines printed 20 or more years ago. Or even with photo books of acclaimed photographers and out right re-building that photographers image for the shoot that day.<BR>
<BR>
This is not an homage to a photographer, it is stealing his work knowing that neither he nor his estate will sue you.<BR>
<BR>
James/NYC.<BR>
<A HREF=http://www.PhotoAssistant.Net TARGET='_blank'>www.PhotoAssistant.Net</A><BR>
<A HREF=http://www.DigitalPhotoTechnician.com TARGET='_blank'>www.DigitalPhotoTechnician.com</A><BR>

[bsdunek]

This is not an homage to a photographer, it is stealing his work knowing that neither he nor his estate will sue you.<BR>
<BR>
James/NYC.<BR>
<A HREF=http://www.photoassistant.net/" TARGET='_blank'>www.PhotoAssistant.Net</A><BR>
<A HREF=http://www.digitalphototechnician.com/" TARGET='_blank'>www.DigitalPhotoTechnician.com</A><BR>
<BR>
AMEN!!!

[PhotoArtLover]

I was not familiar with your posting setup and inadvertently made this an entirely new posting. But in case you missed it, I have posted it up here as the response it should have been in the first place. Sorry for the confusion.<BR>
The worst example of copying and the best paid is the Richard Prince direct copy of the Marlboro Man advertisement. One of his "re-photographs" was sold recently for $1.25 million. See the story here: <A HREF=http://www.iphotocentral.com/news/article_view.php/103/97/541/%22Richard+Prince%22" TARGET='_blank'>http://www.iphotocentral.com/news/article _view.php/103/97/541/%22Richard+Prince%22 </A> . As I understand it, the photographer for the ad (not Prince) sold all rights to Marlboro so he can't sue, only Marlboro could--and why would they?<BR>

[pixeldawg]

This is an interesting question. I have to wonder though if Ms. Leibovitz's lawyers would be as charitable to another photographer using her work as they're writing that cease and desist letter...

[the-Vyper]

<BR>
<BR>
I can't see why some people are considering this theft. Just because the people are posed in the same manner and with similar props, it is still different enough to constitute a new piece of art. The only way infringment could be claimed is if Ms. Lebovitz took the original photo and claim it as hers. If we were to prosicute Ms Lebovitz' work as plagerism we run the risk of destroying the photography community. A few months ago Pop Photo had a picture in its "Your Best Shot" section, I thought was wonderful and original. But over the course of the next 5-6 months the shot popped up in calanders, posters, etc. (at Least 4 times). At first I though t it was the smae shot until I have two of the images side by side and saw that the clouds were different. The picture in question was of a popular tourist destination in Arizona. So which of these shot would be considered a copy and therefore privy to litigation? This is the aspect taht scares me, as a guy who does landscape photography. Would taking a picture of a city skyline from a popular location using a similar focal length be considered theft? And so can we copyright a pose?<BR>
<BR>
Brennan the Vyper<BR>

[pixeldawg]

The problem you have is that copyright needs to be defended. If I allow you to "borrow" from one of my images, I can't very well go againzt someone else for copyright violations in a different instance. Otherwise, the lawyers for the defense would simply say "Well, he allowed these people to use this image... why not this one?"<BR>
<BR>
Copyright is there for a reason- it is to protect the artistic and intellectual property of the creators. If you're going to use someone's idea, pay them for it and then use it. Why is it that with the advent of the internet, so many people have this feeling of entitlement?

[the-Vyper]

I agree with you on the fact that copyrights have to be protected. But where do you draw the line? But the photo in question is not the same. Sure elements are similar but the photo is still different. So the lawsuit is without merit. Mark take your leaf photos from last year (still some of the nicest leaf portraits I have seen). If someone came along and took a photo of a fall leaf against a white background, then tried to sell that photo would you consider that an infringement on your photos. Even if they used similar leafs it should still be considered a new and seperate work. By using new models (the actors) Ms. Lebovitz' picture has to be considered a new piece of work. <BR>
<BR>
As to your comment on internet and copyright theft. That can be solved with two simple warnings.<BR>
1) Everything you post on the internet will be stolen!<BR>
2) Do not post anything that may be stolen.

[pixeldawg]

I agree with everything you say here, Viper- but that doesn't make it RIGHT! (Big grin). <BR>
<BR>
As far as my leaf shots go, if someone had taken the images that I shot and put there name on them, or taken part of those images and incorporated them into another image without giving me due credit, then yes, I would consider it theft. Otherwise, you really can't say that I'm the only one who can shoot a leaf on a white background, you know? There were, in fact others who contributed their images of leaves to that same post, which I encouraged them to do.<BR>
<BR>
I used to subscribe to the National Press Photographer's Association list. In that list, there was a female photographer from the Boston area who touted herself as a big photographer's rights advocate. She would call down other publicly about their stealing copyright and even filed suite against a photographer because he used the term "Photojournalist" on his web site. According to her, she had that word trademarked (Which admittedly, is a different beast from copyright, but you get the idea...) Anyway, I had commented on the list that I thought this guy had a nice web site. She and her lawyer stole my post and used it in her lawsuit against this guy- without my permission and when the post had a clear copyright posted with the message. I ended up filing s formal complaint with the Massachusetts Bar, who reprimanded the lawyer and the judge also censured him as well and threw out my letter as inadmissible. Bottom line is that it takes all kinds. On the Internet though, even though most people think that everything is fair game, it is not.<BR>
<BR>
But again, I totally agree with what you're saying here- just using it for discussion.

[the-Vyper]

<BR>
<BR>
Hypocracy, Intellectual Theft, Copyright Infringement. Trademark Violation. Legal Proceedings All we need now is to add some religion, a good bottle of whiskey to this discussion and we can have fireworks. <BR>
<BR>
These discussions come down to a very black and white point of view. What is legal and what is fair use? Lets just be happy that the people involved in this story are all subject to similar copyright infringement laws. That is the rub. Not all countries have or even care about copyright laws let alone trademark laws. Because their are courts that can determine if she is infringing or not. Then we will have a legal definition to go from.<BR>
<BR>
The unfortunate part of this is that when she is found to be guilty of copyright infringement it will shackle more of us photographers, artists, musicians, etc. A hard line on a grey topic is going to hurt more than we know. It will stifle creativity. That is the paradoxx of this. The more we protect creativity the less creative we will be as a people. I'm not for abandoning copyright, I'm for defending fair use. If someone takes a part of your photos and uses it as there own that is stealing. But if someone creates a new image similar to yours and uses it that should be fair use. <BR>
<BR>
Brennan the Vyper<BR>

[JeffA]

<BR>
<BR>
Ok, let's take a slightly different look at this, from a non-photographic angle. <BR>
<BR>
Somebody takes the melody and lyrics to "Yesterday," and changes two or three words from the original song, and rewites the melody into a different key. Don't Paul McCartney and the estate of John Lennon have a valid claim of theft? What makes it different with somebody's images? <BR>
<BR>
Playing devil's advocate, here. Happy Thanksgiving.<BR>
<BR>
Jeff<BR>

[pixeldawg]

Actually, this happened around 1982... Some of you older folk may remember a group called the "Sugar Hill Gang". They produced what was to be the first mainstream "Rap" song called "Rapper's Delight". Well, the song never made airplay by a judge's ruling because the nifty bass beat to the song was "sampled" from a song done by the group "Sister Sledge". Even back then, it was still considered copyright violation to do this.

[ckhd]

<BR>
Let me get this straight... <BR>
<BR>
If I take a picture of a naked woman, Penthouse and/or Playboy can sue me? By now, between the two of them, they have to have taken pictures nearly every concievable pose of a naked woman. Do they sue each other every month?<BR>
<BR>
Also, I live in Arizona, and I love to take landscape pics. Does this mean that if I happen across the same landmark Ansel Adams photographed, and take a picture from the same place, will his children sue me?<BR>
<BR>
What about a picture of the Golden Gate bridge or the Statue of Liberty?<BR>
<BR>
Where is the line? Any judge and/or jury that rules against someone who 'copies' by re<b>creating</b> a photograph should catch a 240 grain piece of copper and lead in their left temple, as well as the insecure sniveling 'photographer' that filed the suit.<BR>
<BR>
Now, if someone actually used the original photographer's work, then that's a different story.

[MarkD]

When copying becomes plagiarism is a legal issue that often has to be settled in court. John Fogarty was actually sued for plagerizing himself. He wrote songs recorded by his band Creedence Clearwater Revival. Later, when he wrote songs that he recorded himself, he was sued by the owners of his old CCR music for plagerizing the music he had written for the band. Fortunately, saner heads prevailed and ruled that one cannot plagerize oneself. Any wonder that comedians get rich making lawyer jokes.

[mamakimberly]

The john fogarty comment made me spew out my nose! Too funny.<BR>
<BR>
Imitation is the best form of flattery. I don't think there was anything wrong with the photos.<BR>
<BR>
Different subjects made the image different anyway...<BR>

[jdryan3]

If I'm not mistaken the John Fogerty issue was CCR owed an album under its original contract. Since his 'new' stuff sounded like CCR, they wanted to say it was a CCR album, and therefore it was theirs. How much of the 'sound' was John and how much the band.

[MarkD]

As I remember, the judge ruled that one cannot plagerize oneself even though Fogerty's CCR music belonged to someone else. A similar situation involved Magen Mallaley when her old TV show (I can't remember the name) claimed that the voice she used on the show belongs to the show and not to her, and they would not let her use that voice for another show or act. The difference is, I believe, that the voice was contrived for the show, whereas Fogarty's music comes from within as is his.

[AndyK]

Mark D, that reminds me of an interview with John Fogerty I saw a while back (after the flap). They asked him if he still sang any of the old CCR songs that made him famous and he said with a smile, "No, but I do catch myself humming them while walking around in my house."<BR>
Best,<BR>
<BR>
Andy<BR>

[MarkD]

<b>Posted by:</b> AndyK Mark D, that reminds me of an interview with John Fogerty I saw a while back (after the flap). They asked him if he still sang any of the old CCR songs that made him famous and he said with a smile, "No, but I do catch myself humming them while walking around in my house."<BR>
Best,<BR>
<BR>
Andy<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Fortunately, he's doing them again. He just came out with a retrospective album covering his CCR music and his post CCR music. Every year, when baseball season starts, I play "Centerfield". Another song of his, "Mister Greed", is IMHO one of the best songs I've ever heard. It's on the Centerfield album, and I don't think that I've ever heard it on the radio.