Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69

 ... 940

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Cherry

Cherry

SUICIDEGIRL

British Columbia, Canada

FEB 12, 2007 09:52 AM





Can photographers really lay claim to a view that has been seen hundreds or thousands of times? This is a question that's been brought once again to the attention of the photographic community since German photographer, Bialobrzeski, denounced fellow photographers Horst and Daniel Zielske for plagiarism.

Peter Bialobrzeski, accused the pair of ripping off two images from his highly acclaimed series "Neon Tigers"—right down to the luminous, Blade Runner-like glow that was the "Neon Tigers" signature.



The two images are rather similar, but is it possible that the pair just looked out and saw exactly the same thing that Bialobrzeski had seen when capturing his piece?

This is the question that this article on Slate.com is trying to answer. The reason it has sparked interest and discussion in the photographic community is probably due to a basic feeling of pride amongst photographers. For me, the art in photography is not in the subject matter but in how we interpret it. The fact that someone else might take a similar photo because they happen upon a place at a similar time that I did is inevitable. It would be unfair (and downright arrogant) of me to claim that the view in question is mine alone.

I truly think it is also something we are going to see happening more frequently as the medium of photography gathers momentum due to the digital age. It is constantly appearing on flickr.com and has been aptly named a Flickr Coincidence. As a fun way to procrastinate take the time to search flickr tags of famous landmarks and see how many photos you can find that are similar or even practically identical.

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.

Sexdwarf

Sexdwarf

Hermosa Beach, CA
February 2003

FEB 12, 2007 11:24 AM

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.

sexgodess

sexgodess

United Kingdom
June 2005

FEB 12, 2007 11:31 AM

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

Zoetica

Zoetica

NEWSWIRE

Los Angeles, CA

FEB 12, 2007 11:34 AM

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.

C6H12O6

C6H12O6

Detroit, MI
September 2005

FEB 12, 2007 11:38 AM

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....

RileyStClair

RileyStClair

Los Angeles, CA
September 2006

FEB 12, 2007 11:49 AM

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



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

geo35

geo35

Minneapolis, MN
January 2003

FEB 12, 2007 12:10 PM

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.

Glacian

Glacian

Minneapolis, MN
August 2006

FEB 12, 2007 12:10 PM

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.

Iris

Iris

United Kingdom
October 2004

FEB 12, 2007 12:36 PM

'...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.

Cherry

Cherry

SUICIDEGIRL

British Columbia, Canada

FEB 12, 2007 01:19 PM

yourfashionwar said:

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



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



Oh yes, that is definitely one of the themes in the piece, although, I'm not sure the essence of the essay applies to photography in the same way because something like a landscape or cityscape is less open to interpretation than, say, a piece of written work. Having said this, there are always exceptions, especially if the creator (in this case the photographer) says there is more to the works than simply what can be seen. God, I'm rambling.

Glacian said:
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.



I often photograph cityscapes as well as my more "known" photography on SG as live subjects, so I encounter it rather frequently. I'd be interested to hear how you're encountering the same problems within stop-motion, and how you deal with it smile

Happyboy

Happyboy

Berkeley, CA
December 2004

FEB 12, 2007 01:32 PM

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

Dinos

Dinos

United Kingdom
December 2006

FEB 12, 2007 02:04 PM

For me, the art in photography is not in the subject matter but in how we interpret it. The fact that someone else might take a similar photo because they happen upon a place at a similar time that I did is inevitable. It would be unfair (and downright arrogant) of me to claim that the view in question is mine alone.



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. smile

Cassiel

Cassiel

Aurora, CO
September 2004

FEB 12, 2007 02:28 PM

Zoetica said:
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.



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)?

Cherry

Cherry

SUICIDEGIRL

British Columbia, Canada

FEB 12, 2007 02:41 PM

Cassiel said:

Zoetica said:
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.



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)?



Then there is a great possibility that you will see a similar piece and I think you shouldn't be surprised if you do smile

leopold

leopold

Oakland, CA
January 2005

FEB 12, 2007 02:46 PM

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 zoom image.... 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.

Andrew77uk

Andrew77uk

United Kingdom
February 2005

FEB 12, 2007 03:16 PM

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.

Cigarette

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH
April 2004

FEB 12, 2007 03:32 PM

geo35 said:
'Good to know that we Americans aren't the only ones wasting each others time with specious lawsuits.



Happyboy said:
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.



Where's it say anything about a lawsuit?

CheshireGrinning

CheshireGrinning

Tonawanda, NY
January 2007

FEB 12, 2007 04:51 PM

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".

leopold

leopold

Oakland, CA
January 2005

FEB 13, 2007 09:08 AM

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.

_DictionaryGirl_

_DictionaryGirl_

NEWSWIRE

San Diego, CA

FEB 13, 2007 09:56 AM

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?

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

FEB 13, 2007 10:06 AM


THE MOST PHOTOGRAPHED BARN IN AMERICA. We counted five signs before we reached the site. There were fourty cars and a tour bus in the makeshift lot. We walked along a cowpath to the slightly eleveated spot set aside for viewing and photographing. All the people had cameras; some had tripods, telephoto lenses, filter kits. A man in a booth sold postcards and slides-pictures of the barn taken from the elevated spot. We stood near a grove of trees and watched the photographers. Murray maintained a prolonged silence, occasionally scrawling some notes in a little book.

"No one sees the barn," he said finally.

A long silence followed.

"Once you've seen the signs about the barn, it becomes impossible to see the barn."

He fell silent once more. People with cameras left the elevated site, replaced at once by others.

"We're not here to capture an image, we're here to maintain one. Every photograph reinforces the aura. Can you feel it, Jack? An accumultion of nameless energies."

There was an extended silence. The man in the booth sold postcards and slides.

"Being here is a kind of spiritual surrender. We see only what the others see. The thousands who were here in the past, those who will come in the future. We've agreed to be part of a collective perception. This literally colors our vision. A religious experience in a way, like all tourism."

Another silence ensued.

"They are taking pictures of taking pictures," he said.


WHITE NOISE

Cigarette

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH
April 2004

FEB 13, 2007 01:13 PM

leopold said:
I think what is important and why this can get complictaed is the intent. ...

I would also add that it is totaly appropriate to try and mimic or copy someone elses style as a way to learn. ... as a way to improve their skill and maybe broaden their perspective about the world around them.



Plus one thousandy one.

Happyboy

Happyboy

Berkeley, CA
December 2004

FEB 13, 2007 03:25 PM

Cigarette said:

geo35 said:
'Good to know that we Americans aren't the only ones wasting each others time with specious lawsuits.



Happyboy said:
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.



Where's it say anything about a lawsuit?



Damn me and my overactive imagination! Sorry, chum!

Jesterrace

Jesterrace

USA
November 2005

FEB 23, 2007 06:34 PM


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

emarvil

emarvil

Chile
October 2008

OCT 08, 2008 12:17 AM

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 frown (visit my albums for some proof)

Cheers
Emiliozoom image

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next