Photography and possible plagarism

Unfortunatly, there is almost NOTHING today that is original.

Everything is a small version of someone elses work, idea, or product.

I personally am glad that there are rules in place to protect people.

Oh, and after reading , and watching the article, it looks to me like it was a blatent rip off as well..

Yeh, the bridge thing seems pretty iffy, given they spoke with the first photographer..

The fellow, what was his name, Gross, had an interesting case, to me - that situation would be tough.

I also understand artists' point of view that everything, absolutely everything, is fodder...

Very true.

And I personally would be lying if I didnt say that I search through other peoples photography for ideas.

Some times out right copying a set up they have.

Not to the point that the people in the story did.
I think that was just rude.
But how do you stamp a piece of open ground as "yours"?

and if it is an easy to reach spot, are all the tourists who have taken a picture similar to that because it looks really cool.. in violation as well?

bookmark......

Aren't copyright laws set up so that you can't make money off of someone else's idea or product? I mean, if a tourist takes a snap of a famously photod scene or building for their own wall at home, it's not illegal, correct?

Well, there are some works that are supposed to be illegal to photo for copyright reasons, but most public places are usually not.

Ugh, I misspelled plagiarism in the title.

I remember something a couple of years ago that the owners of some of the iconic buildings in NYC, the Chrysler Building among them, had copyrighted their buildings and it was illegal for anyone, tourist or not, to take pictures of them without permission. Which in my opinion is carrying copyrights too damn far.

I agree with you, username.

It's funny how A2K is like a major river with all of us floating merrily along and someone, like osso in this instance, will post something that causes one to leave the river and take one of the tributaries and head to the back water where they find something of interest, then return to the gently flowing river.

In this particular case I ended up going from her photography link, through a series of smaller tributaries until I found a reference to a fascinating book by Walker Evans and James Agee, a brilliant collaboration of writer and photographer pertaining to the lives of three families in the Deep South during the height of the Great Depression.

One of Evan's photos is seen here...




There is something beautiful and timeless about that photograph and I would like to thank osso for directing me to it.

You're very welcome. I spend a lot of time on tributaries myself...

Wow, very poetic, Gus. I'll look into Evan's photos.

Yeah, I really like the faux miniature look obtained from using the Tilt-Shift method like this one:



I got this web site from following some of the links in osso's link:

http://hame.ca/blog3/tiltshift/gallery/

Normally, I wouldnt call plagiarism on something like this. But seriously, if they called the guy asking for advice and then published a picture that is nearly identical to his for an art show, then yeah... that, in my opinion, qualifies as plagiarism.

There is a girl in one of my drawing classes that sketches the exact same ideas/pictures that I have done months before her.

Very, very irritating.

Not photography..but I would still love to gouge her in the eye with my ebony stick..

I've been through this a bit, once married to a screenwriter. Hard to own an idea..
anyway, sympathy on that, VioletChild.

Well, this thread started out about photography and plagarism, but I'd like to expand it to other art forms -

interesting commentary on Jonathan Lethem and his play with plagarism and creativity in an article in today's Washington Post, HERE.