Copycat or not

H

Halflap

Messages
291
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Recently there was a discussion here about whether it was right to imitate or copy style or photographs from other photographers

I have just seen this about one photographer accusing another of copyright infringement over a series of similar photographs

Just wondered what people on here thought

[Edit] Part II of this story here
 
it,s almost impossible to photography something thats never been photgraphed before, specialy shots of famous landmarks.
one of the guys on here took some photo,s of glasgows city centre clyde area at night and I decided i,t like to do the same, does that make it a copyright incident.
you.d never get two identicle photos anyway.
 
Ohhh this looks a little bit more blatent than I was expecting! Although, maybe David Burdeny may not have blatently gone out to photograph the exact same pieces of work... but it's awfully peculiar how similar a lot of the pieces are. All the same, not sure how someone can claim copyright over a place. It's not as if he photographed the other guys photograph and then claimed it as his own work. But there's quite a lot of similar photos all the same. Could be a toughie to decide who's right on that one!
 
Now, I have taken a pic purposely the same as someone else's for my book. However I know the guy, I asked if he'd mind at all before I took the shot and used it, and I did mention him as inspiration in the credits. :)

However copyright of his shot is his, and my shot is mine... It gets a bit whacky... o.O
 
Surely to breach copyright, the copy you have would have to be almost identical to the original, and in photography thats not going to happen, theres to many variables.
 
Xarra said:
However copyright of his shot is his, and my shot is mine... It gets a bit whacky... o.O
Click to expand...

That is my feeling about this. Even if he has intentionally gone out to take the same shot from the same place, each of the photographers would own copyright on their shots.

I have done this in the past. I have Googled an area that i am going to visit and made a mental note of the pictures I find and tried to recreate them (usually unsuccessfuly)

Maybe we should reword the phrase "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" to "imitation is the sincerest form of copyright theft"
 
Although they are of the same subjects the pic's are not the same, these are two different interpretations of the same subject so I don't see how copyright has been infringed.
 
same answer...take your bloody photos and stop worrying...if you are inspired by others its a credit to them
but dont get inhibited

was that a swear word up there...;)
 
I frequently try to emulate othere photos in the studio because its a good way to learn how to light but they never look the same
 
not, most of Burneys are better shots, he was inspired by the other fella. Improved on a few, went off on a dodgy tangent with others :D
 
david1701 said:
not, most of Burneys are better shots, he was inspired by the other fella. Improved on a few, went off on a dodgy tangent with others :D
Click to expand...

I agree his "versions" are generally better, but overall none of them really inspire me :shrug: (IMO).
 
Interestingly, part of the NCFE photography course includes a section on studying the biography of famous photographers and doing your own shots emulating their style! ;)

I guess we all look to improve, and there are some stunning photographers which we all aspire to. :thumbs:
 
lol they are different photographs of the sameish place.

bit like taking the effel tower at night or the london eye etc totally not the same. two people standing next to each other at the same place taking a picture would not constitute copyright breach - the images are even processed differently.
 
hmm well the question that pops in my head is Why the hell is he going to the same locations..all over the world????

it does happen a lot, we've had our forum names and text copy and pasted before, as well as some of our custom posts that weve written (thats WE have written, not VB standard stuff..)Plagaristic bastids are everywhere, you either take them to task or let them get away with it.
 
matty said:
hmm well the question that pops in my head is Why the hell is he going to the same locations..all over the world????

it does happen a lot, we've had our forum names and text copy and pasted before, as well as some of our custom posts that weve written (thats WE have written, not VB standard stuff..)Plagaristic bastids are everywhere, you either take them to task or let them get away with it.
Click to expand...

or a better alternative is to **** in their shoes ;)
 
POAH said:
I frequently try to emulate othere photos in the studio because its a good way to learn how to light but they never look the same
Click to expand...

Indeed quite a lot of people do, (myself included) i think it's all part of a learning process, i doubt very much if it would ever stand up in court, as has already been mentioned there are to many variables ;)
 
matty said:
hmm well the question that pops in my head is Why the hell is he going to the same locations..all over the world????
Click to expand...

Yup, I thought that as well.
I'll freely admit to searching for photo's of places I'm going to, especially if I've never been before. If they are good then I'll make a mental note to visit, perhaps copy the idea, but this seems almost to be stalking another photographers work?

I like the 7 trees one, but most of them do nothing for me either
 
Hmmm...tricky this...many landmarks can only be photographed from certain angles and at certain times of the day to avoid intrusive and unwanted elements getting in the frame and to get the 'right' light - Ayers Rock at sunset and the pyramids at Ghiza at dawn being perhaps the most well-known examples. But think of the Flat-Iron building in NYC there's only one place to stand and pretty much one time of day to shoot if you want that 'iconic' look to your image...(I'm not going to tell you - go there and stand there all day like I did and figure it out for yourselves...lol).

Looks to me like he owns a few books (as we all do) and noted the ones he liked best and set out to see if he could do better...in some cased he's succeeded, in others not so much...
That first pyramid shot is well below-par IMO compared to the 'original'...if that's what it indeed is...
 
Interesting. Can't see it being a copyright infringement though. Perhaps its a ploy to generate some traffic to their sites.
 
Not really a crime, just showing a lack of artistic inspiration
by putting together an exhibition based on another photographers exhibits
 
Icee said:
Although they are of the same subjects the pic's are not the same, these are two different interpretations of the same subject so I don't see how copyright has been infringed.
Click to expand...

I argree, i thinks theres more than enough differences between the two shots.
 
the second reply to that article challenges o post up an original picture of the Eiffel tower, citing that it had already been taken from every angle, distance and lighting condition. Here's my shot, can you find one similar?


eiffeltowerforsteve.jpg
 
Well I looked at them.

The individual shots are just different interpretations, and for each shot in it's own right there is no case to answer.

But for the series to bear many of the same shots as the original one then that is something where there may be a case.
 


blackpool at night...been done before but never with this particular composition
 
Very intriguing indeed. Take the images in isolation against each other and although there are big similarities, it's fair game if the object/landscape is there for public taking as such. However, when you see them together there is a very distinct 'style' and the similarities are a bit too much of a coincidence.
 
mrcrow said:
blackpool at night...been done before but never with this particular composition
Click to expand...

Very interesting, I like how you have kept the shadows clear of noise.
Could maybe use some foreground interest though.
 
Arkady said:
...But think of the Flat-Iron building in NYC there's only one place to stand and pretty much one time of day to shoot if you want that 'iconic' look to your image...(I'm not going to tell you - go there and stand there all day like I did and figure it out for yourselves...lol)...
Click to expand...

I only went there on an errand for the missus. There's a well-known makeup brand with the same name as a computer who have a store on the entire ground floor.

I didn't have time to stand there all day...I had makeup to buy. So I just shot where and when I could!

Came out alright, and it was my take on it...it's different but it's my interpretation.

What I'm trying to say in a long-winded makeup purchasing way is that...

With only a finite amount of photogenic objects, surely it's impossible to expect that no-one else will use them.

One that I keep thinking of (and god how I wish I didnt) is Annie Leibowitz's shot of a pregnant Demi Moore...every Z list celeb who's not been smart enough to keep her legs closed to a footballer has had that shot replicated on the front cover of Heat magazine.
 
What a load of tosh and tbh I'm surprised it got so much attention. Fair enough if the pyramid belongs to the complainer but it doesn't so tough Sh.. just be flattered some is trying to be as good you.
I'm just leaving now to go up to Glen Coe, does this mean now I have to write to every other photographer and his brother for permission to take a photo of Beauchaile Etive Mor from a similar position they took theirs?

I don't think so, I'm off now for a 2 1/2 hour drive.
 
Interesting, on that note though, JustDave and I have very similar photographs when we went to Santorini, his was earlier in the day and then I happened to go along to the same spot that afternoon unknowing that Dave and Julie had been there and got the same shot, literally the same shot. Now, we only found this out after Dave had posted on here - freaky - could be that photographers' minds think alike???

I'll find the thread
 
Angles are different, lighting is different, framing is different.

simples!!
 
mrcrow said:


blackpool at night...been done before but never with this particular composition
Click to expand...

Is that the city or a pool of water, just checking to make sure I never leave the lens cap on and claim sole copyright of the result:)
 
What amazes me about this is the statement that "Leong's prints sell for as much as $25,000, and Burdeny's for up to $10,500" (LA Times 28 Feb 2010)

That's pretty good going for what are essentially holiday snaps.....
 
When I’m going away for a few days, or on holiday, I search Google images with the place name I’m going to, to get ideas of picture possibilities.
If you search Google images with the place names in the article it’s of no surprise to me that many image variations of the same theme arise.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
What amazes me about this is the statement that "Leong's prints sell for as much as $25,000, and Burdeny's for up to $10,500" (LA Times 28 Feb 2010)

That's pretty good going for what are essentially holiday snaps.....
Click to expand...

Bit like buying apple stuff then:)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
What amazes me about this is the statement that "Leong's prints sell for as much as $25,000, and Burdeny's for up to $10,500" (LA Times 28 Feb 2010)

That's pretty good going for what are essentially holiday snaps.....
Click to expand...

I find it very hard to believe that either of them got anywhere near either of those amounts for any of the pictures shown in that story...maybe for some of their other (better) stuff...but not this. I think it looks bland, uninvolving,and uninspiring in the extreme. (I know, I've just displayed my ignorance yet again :'()

It's pretty unoriginal to go to spots where someone else has been and take a very similar shot...but it's not breach of copyright.
 
For $25,500, you could buy the kit and a ticket and take the shot yourself!

I often use a local tog's gallery for inspiration. He seems fine with it, he even has a fb group set up so people can share their photos (free inspiration for him).

He sells an A2 print for £410 without a frame. I have very simillar images for rather a lot less!

I agree with wobbler. Unoriginal, yes; breach of copyright, no. (Cheap, maybe)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top