NEWS: Claim Your Photographic View Now!

Not a pro, yet, myself, I still feel confident enough to say those two images are enough different to legitimize each work as unique. Also, if one were to duplicate, or almost duplicate, a staged/studio shot I think it'd warrant more question of plagiarism than landscape.

Isn't this what Roland Barthes was implying in 'Death of the Author'?

Your only real option here is to go out and take photos that are not simply a record of a time and place but an interpretation of space and time. In other words, you damn well better be an artist or you should expect to see someone else with a similar snap to yours.

exactly.

Couldn't you, as the photographer, being called the plagiarist- bring up the following example. I forget who, but its probably been several artists- who have one into a gallery, snapped a picture, then exhibited their picture of that picture or art as its own distinct art? I mean, yes it IS its own distinct art. Basically. So wouldn't this be the same thing? They took the photo, perhaps its similar, but they STILL TOOK THE PHOTO.

I've been known to be crazy though, so....

get out of my head, the comparison occurred to me as well.

I'm a full-time pro shooter. I think Bialobrzeski is out of line here. There was nothing so fantasticly unique about his original landscape such as to make the Zielske image questionable. It's a fixed cityscape, taken at dusk, at a given shutter speed, maybe with a particular filter (which obviously isn't the same in the second photo.) Big whoop. If both photographers had photoshopped in a pterodactyl flying over that bridge, Bialobrzeski would have a legitimate gripe.

'Good to know that we Americans aren't the only ones wasting each others time with specious lawsuits.

Its something that i am recently having to look at more frequently. Most of you, and the author of this article (Cherry), are photographers of life or subjects that are of a more pure photographic state. I am working on Stop-Motion frame by frame animation as my photographic inclination. With stop-motion there are problems with the entire work being similar.

'...In other words, you damn well better be an artist or you should expect to see someone else with a similar snap to yours.'

Very well put, and very good point.

I guess art is different to all people. While they had the same idea, the other photogs took it from different angles/perspectives. I think what Bialobrzeski's lawsuit is really saying is that he lays claim to how the picture of this area should be interpretted which is counter-inutituve to art as a whole. However, I don't see anything all that spectacular or worth griping about, all the shots look like something you might find on the postcard rack at any German tourist attraction

This is an interesting point. I think the subject matter is a factor, but the interpretation is what defines you as a photographer. I usually only photograph odd abstract things, unusual situations, people I see, or the beauty in the mundane, and experiment with old equipment... so I don't encounter too much of this. But of course when I've taken certain well known landscapes etc, I have seen very similar shots to mine. However it does not bother me too much, as if that happens and I see a version I think is more interesting than mine, I just think, hey! that's great, and I just put mine to one side... or I recycle my version as art material for another project.

It is hard sometimes not to be precious and proud of something you have done... but if you are a naturally creative person always coming up with new things, then the odd potentially plagiarist act on your work should as much as possible be water off a ducks back, well, at least I try and see it that way these days.

I certainly don't think that as a photographer you can really lay claim to a well known view. The only thing you can claim is that you have captured and interpreted a view in your own way. The view itself is not yours to claim. It is in cases like this where the subject matter becomes of least importance compared with it's interpretation.

I get more upset when I've done something that is very personal to me and the way I like to do things, and then I see it has been copied almost exactly by someone else. It used to happen more a few years ago, not so much now. Again, now days I try to not let it bother me, as I can always do something else. I don't know if that's a good attitude or not, but I think I'm at a transitional phase regarding my thinking of certain things I guess.

what about those who wish to record a piece of time and space (as the first photogs did)? and do you think this applies to motion-picture photography (specifically, docus)?

Well the 2 pictures are actually quite different. And it doesn't appear that one was trying have a exact copy of the other I think its silly for someone to take a picture and lay claim to that perspective or view. I mean how many times have you seen this picture .... Does that mean everyone who has taken this pic of that view after the first is plagiarizing. No at best they are being guilty of not being very original.

God knows what kinda probs could be caused by google earth now they allow people to upload shots! Living near stone henge you'll see liturally thousands of shots all the same...why? Because its a famous landmark, kinda self explanitory. At the end of the day it doesnt really make a differance to anyone, I think people should be more worried about using photos without permission, rather than scenes that are exactly the same.

Where's it say anything about a lawsuit?

I totally agree with leopold, sexdwarf, as well as others. landmarks buildings, landscapes in general, are bound to be duplicated there are only so many ways to view a stationary object. The more popular/attractive the object the less original views are likely to be available at any given time...

Live, "studio" shots being duplicated? Thats another story entirely one that I actually had a brush with a little bit ago. Though I don't think it should be illegal I think it's incredibly poor taste to mimic another's work with intent to duplicate and call it "original".

I think what is important and why this can get complictaed is the intent. Did the artist intend to copy someone else's work so he/she could pass it off as their own or was it more that they appreciated that idea, vision, melody, lyric, sentence etc........ and wanted to to add to it and tweak it a bit to make it their own, or just by chance...... It would really be hard to prove one way or the other, and ultimately kinda of waste of ones time to dwell on it. Some photographers like Ansel Adams actually did the opposite of being secretive and being worried about being copied, he woud give exact locations and times of day and the process of taking and printing of the photos he took.

I would also add that it is totaly appropriate to try and mimic or copy someone elses style as a way to learn. Again the intent is what is important. Painters and musicians do this all the time, as a way to improve their skill and maybe broaden their perspective about the world around them. I know some may disagree but I think it is important to learn the rules and master them before you set out to break them. Dali once said, learn to paint like the old masters, then you can do whatever the hell you want.Kinda like following someone elses path so you can eventually go on your own.

I think it's silly to call plagiarism on an unstaged landscape shot. If someone were to, for instance, recreate a David LaChapelle concept portrait piece and pass it off as original, then there would be a problem. (Even so, just to mimic his shiny glossy style, while still creating a whole new composition and point of view, I think would be within one's rights.) But how much can you really change a bridge? If you find it beautiful and striking, why not take a picture?

WHITE NOISE

Plus one thousandy one.

Damn me and my overactive imagination! Sorry, chum!

If you are at the bookstore or around a magazine rack pick up the FEB 07 Issue of PDN, turn to page 80 and you'll see the same thing... a little tighter in composition...but the same idea none the less. But this picture won "BEST IN CATEGORY" Says it was an outtake from a shoot for Intel, shot in 06.

As a drummer I grew up playing to my favorite metal albums, to learn, as I got better, I went out on my own and created music with others and didn't feel the need to know "covers" so to speak. I think the same thing applies to photography. I think that at some point our ideas will mimic those of others. I would hope more as a stepping stone than the theft of an idea.

A shot like that is interesting, it catches the eye...millions of eyes.... to answer the question, I don't think a photographer can lay claim "to a view" but they can lay claim to how they have chosen to capture the view that THEY have seen.

I think there are some bigger fish to fry...


J

I couldn't agree more with the last paragraph. It is at the core of the definition of ART. To have a unique vision, to make things (ideas, vistas, songs, a poem, a landscape, a face, anything) yours by reinterpreting them, by re-presenting them in as-yet-unseen manner, and make them unique. Personally, I have always felt that whatever I photograph is oftentimes just an excuse. The how weighs the most in my work, not the what, to the point that for me is difficult to make "generic" pics... even when required to (visit my albums for some proof)

Cheers
Emilio