On Plagiarism and Similarities

[tim atherton]

an interesting post on Joerg Colberg's blog

http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/002287.html

(fits with some of the discussion in the Where did you take that picture? thread)

[Greg Miller]

Pretty interesting. I find the sample images similar enough that you have you could easily assume the Zielski images are the Bialobrzeski's if you were to only take a quick glance. And especially so if they were not side by side. I don't know if technically that qualifies as plaigarism but I would personally be embarassed to use these images if I were the Zielskis. At least they could have changed the angle, focal length, or lighting to distinguis their images from Bialobrzeski. Again, my personal criteria is if a person would reasonably see the image as someone else's unless one stops to really study the image would be too close too plaigarism for comfort.

[Donald Brewster]

Well, they are different in angle of view, etc. And I much prefer the Zielskis versions (to the extent one can say from a computer monitor image). If they did copy Bialobrzeski, at least the Zielskis had the decency to make a better image. Beyond that, I think I'll re-read my Walter Benjamin.

[Greg Miller]

Well, they are different in angle of view, etc. And I much prefer the Zielskis versions (to the extent one can say from a computer monitor image). If they did copy Bialobrzeski, at least the Zielskis had the decency to make a better image. Beyond that, I think I'll re-read my Walter Benjamin.

I agree the angle of view was changed, but I think it is subtle enough thatthe casual viewer would not notice. This is obviously a very subjective issue, and opinions will vary, but in my book the images are too close for comfort.

[Gordon Moat]

Looks really obvious to me. If they are getting paid for them, I guess they could be embarrassed all the way to the bank to make their deposit.

One thing that came to mind is the numerous images of various slot canyons and multi-coloured rocks in the US Southwest. Obviously on a lesser level than works hanging in museums, though it seemed some places have been so photographed that many images look really close.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[harrykauf]

They should have just gone to the building next door :)

http://www.sooshee.com/tmp/sh18b.jpg

[Patrik Roseen]

Harrykauf, that's brilliant!!

The image you posted actually fits what I was thinking as I looked at the two upper photographs in the article.

When trying to achieve plagiarism (copy someone's work...being inspired of...) one has to not only appreciate the original photograph but also figure out the process used, i.e. how it was made...I do that all the time when allowing myself be inspired by other photos in book and journals etc.

In the pictures of the bridge there is the effect of continuous lightstreaks from moving headlights on the cars, which one only gets from a long exposure thereby making the sky brighter which can be seen in the two photographs. Not only is the scenery the same but the process is probably the same too...

as compared to Harrykaufs image where only the scenery is the same...

In music there are rules for how many sequential notes a composer may 'steal' from another song without being accused of plagiarism...are there any rules regarding photographs, i.e. scenery, time of day, exposure time, colour settings...?

[cyrus]

Shooting and re-shooting already cliche subjects can't be plagiarism. If the second photographer "stole" the fist guy's photo and called it his own, that would be plagiarism. But simply taking a photo of the same subject can't be - that would make everyone who snapped a photothe Eiffel Tower into a plagiarist! I think this would be especially true when there is only one reasonably accessible angle that people can take the photo which still results in a decently-composed photo.

[Alan Davenport]

It might be that, for some subjects there are only, say, five sets of tripod holes. Does that mean everyone from #6 on, can't photograph that subject? Anyone doing so, and striving for a high quality image, will probably produce something similar to what came before.

If we take this idea to its logical conclusion, anyone wanting an image of something should go back and use the first one ever made of that subject. I guess we all better stay the heck outta Yosemite; Adams was already there...

[harrykauf]

ha..I just went to the zielke website and found this:
http://www.zielske-photographie.de/fotos/shanghai/zielske-shanghai-005.jpg

this is my version from 2005:
http://www.sooshee.com/tmp/sh5862B.jpg

they have nicer colours but we both choose to colour correct a warm, orange scene
to a cool blueish tone. So who should sue who?

[Greg Miller]

Harry - your images, to me, are immediatley different than Zielskes'. While similar they are also distinctly different. That's why the "five sets of tripod holes" or "reshooting cliche subjects" arguments don't hold water for me. There are so many other variables such a time of day, time of year, type of weather, type of lighting, compostion, focal length, type of film, aperture setting, shutter speed, filtration,... I think it's actually hard to make an image that's almost exactly the same as someone else's. I'm always amused by wokshops where there are 12 photographers all shooting the same subject at the same time in the same conditions and they all end up with very different images. And even with static landscapes, how often do you hover over the camera waiting ever so patiently for that magic nanosecond where the light and all other conditions come together before you trip the shuttter?

[Bruce Watson]

Shooting and re-shooting already cliche subjects can't be plagiarism. If the second photographer "stole" the fist guy's photo and called it his own, that would be plagiarism. But simply taking a photo of the same subject can't be - that would make everyone who snapped a photo of the Eiffel Tower into a plagiarist! I think this would be especially true when there is only one reasonably accessible angle that people can take the photo which still results in a decently-composed photo.
Yes. Well said.

Another way to look at it is that anyone who bothers to make the shot does the same amount of work. They have to get their own permissions to shoot from the buildings. They have to schlep their equipment. Do their setups. Wait for their light. Both of them. And they both end up with an original photograph (a sheet of film). They can't be copying each other -- they make prints from their own originals.

The argument against plagiarism is that one person should not profit from another's work. In this case, they both did the work. And while you could maybe argue that it's not ethical for them to shoot the same scene (questionable argument to my way of thinking) then you have to flog them both. I can't believe that either of them was the first to photograph that scene. Surely someone in Shanghai got there first, probably while the building where these two photographs were made was under construction. Does that mean that they are both plagiarising some poor Chinese construction worker's cousin who has a large format camera (he got on eBay of course)?

[harrykauf]

Greg, I agree it is impossible to make exactly the same photograph. I just
wanted to show that you can come home from a location with a suprisingly
similar image. I didn't know about the spiral for example when I went to shanghai
but it is at the end of the bridge that I crossed in a taxi coming from the airport.
I wanted to see how it looks from above so I walked around the area untill I
felt comfortable to ask a guard in one of the apartment blocks if I could come in and
take a photograph. After that I started seeing that image everywhere, even
on a box of chocolates in a duty free shop at the airport. :)

Edit:
I find this quote from the original article a bit over the top:
"Concerning details, colors and lighting, the Zielskes’ 'Nanpu Bridge, Shanghai 2002' and 'Xuhui II, Shanghai 2005' clearly [...] bear resemblance to a work which is well-established on the international art market as an original statement, both aesthetically and in content, "

I wouldn't call it an original statement but rather artistic interpretation. It is different from
works like that of Gregory Crewdson for example where the artist has full control over light and
content.

[paulr]

Shooting and re-shooting already cliche subjects can't be plagiarism.

I kind of agree with that ... although it's not the subject that makes the image a cliche (or an example of someone's unique vision) but rather the way it's seen. Photographing an avocado in the manner of weston is more derivative than photographing a bell pepper in a new and unique way.

What's troubling in these examples isn't that they both photographed the same subject, but that they did it in the same way, down to all but the most trivial details.

If this is already a cliche vantage point of these subjects, then the whole argument becomes moot .. but this I don't know about.

[Jim Ewins]

A photograph depicts a subject at a unique moment in time, never to be repeated.

[JW Dewdney]

If you're worried about giving away your location because the photograph will be 'stolen' - well, you're not really doing your job as a photographer, it seems to me.

[400d]

I think the plagiarism idea is just stupid. Why don't you (whoever) go patent your Grand Teton then?

[Joseph O'Neil]

A bit off tangent, but this situation reminds of of sometimes I setup my Tachi and tripod, andduring tourist season (where ever and when ever that might be), sometimes a person or people will look at what I am photographing, even go as far as to say out lout "oh good idea" or "good shot", then have the audacity to stand right in front of my camera while they take their shot.

I think we can all see very quickly, in most circumstances, the differnece between two people who independantly saw the same great shot at different times, and someobdy who sets out to copy another's art right from the start.

joe

[tim atherton]

I think the plagiarism idea is just stupid. Why don't you (whoever) go patent your Grand Teton then?

I think the sense of plagiarism speaks as much to lack of imagination as to anything else

[Paul Coppin]

I think its presumptious at best to think that anything in the "public domain" can be plagiarized. Its very possible that two people can have the same basic vision of something (including the tweaking, such as colour). It only becomes plagiarism if I take your work and make it my own.

[Gordon Moat]

It can create an questionably ethical ground for opportunists. Suppose someone famous had an interesting image, but prints of that image were quite expensive. Then some opportunist comes along who can do a very similar image at the same location, and sell a print for substantially less. Sure, each image is unique, and a question of copyright is left somewhat open. Just because someone can do something does not make it right nor proper, though those of lower morals will find a way to exploit these situations, and sadly enough probably find ready buyers for such images.

It is probably difficult to go to some locations and not get similar resulting images. While the value in the final images might be dependant upon marketing or networking, the first one to publish will be seen as the original concept by which all later versions may be judged. To know of anothers images and intentionally do similar images to me is unethical, and lacks original thought and creative vision.

I recall a conversation with one of my photography professors. We had weekly assignments given to us, usually some concept or theme loosely worded and open to interpretation. After getting our weekly assignment, we would be shown a series of images relating to the previous week, or to some historical aspect of photography, but specifically not related to our current assignment. After several weeks of this, I asked him why we had this structure to our classes. His explanation, with an example, was that if he gave us an assignment about walking, then showed us images of shoes, 3/4 of the class would come back with shots of shoes . . . in other words he wanted us to be creative and come up with our own solutions, with as little influence as possible. We were not so much learning photography as we were learning to express our creative vision through photography.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[paulr]

I think its presumptious at best to think that anything in the "public domain" can be plagiarized. Its very possible that two people can have the same basic vision of something (including the tweaking, such as colour). It only becomes plagiarism if I take your work and make it my own.

But that's where it gets tricky. How can anyone know for certain if someone took your work and made it theirs, vs. arriving at the same conclusion as you did, independently? It's so hard to prove one way or the other that copyright law pretty much ignores the question--whoever is first to copyright (by registration or by publication) owns it. End of discussion.

We get indignant in photography, claiming that no one owns the landscape, but this misses the point. The landscape is there for all, but your vision of it (if it's demonstrably yours) is protected.

It's the same with language. The words in the dictionary are public domain. But your way of selecting and arranging them (again, if it's demonstrably your way) is protected.

[tim atherton]

It's the same with language. The words in the dictionary are public domain. But your way of selecting and arranging them (again, if it's demonstrably your way) is protected.

one reason titles (of books, movies, poems, musical pieces etc) are usually excluded from copyright protection

[Brian Sims]

The discussion of cliché and plagiarism seems to reoccur here. It wanders in and out of ethics, aesthetics and artistic merit, and at times the law. Perhaps the root of the issue is creativity. I think we all strive for perfection in our craft and creativity in the use of it. Each time we have a picture post, I am delighted at how different you all see the world—big sweeping expanses of it, and intimate delicate bits of it. There is humor. Passion. Sadness. Joy.

There are several dimension to creativity: originality, fluency, flexibility, and elaboration. Fluency is the ability to produce many ideas. Flexibility is the knack of easily moving from one kind of idea to another. Elaboration is the creativity of developing and perfecting a single idea. Originality is the capacity to break from the visions of the past and produce something entirely new. Artists often equate originality with the only dimension of creativity that merits recognition.

But what is worthy I think may depends on motive. If we pursue our art merely to express ourselves (perhaps the purest form of the artistic impulse) then replicating the work of others may be an exciting challenge to our flexibility. If our motive is to be fresh but marketable (most professional artists) we need a light dose of originality with good measures of fluency and elaboration. If we seek to move the audiences of the future, regardless of rejections suffered today, then we won’t rest until we have that original vision.

[Dirk Rösler]

The fact that even photographs of China are 'plagiarised' is priceless. Surely this is a plot by the two artists. On their own the pics seem not that interesting, but the "emulation" adds a lot of value to the combined work.

[Mike Mayer]

Maybe we can get "look and feel" laws like Apple sued Microsoft over. I have a photo of fall color from New England. Your photo of fall color from Wisconsin is a an attempt to copy the look and feel of my photo....

Maybe attorneys are trying to start up a new area of litigation.

[paulr]

Mike, I was actually the first person ever to make ironic remarks in online forums. Kindly cease and desist ...

[paulr]

Similar debate here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/theater/27magi.html

“magicians are not unique in their absence of creativity.”