It's a contentious issue, however a previous remark I made about watermarking photos and providing them in a low resolution was met with "No!!". Can't seem to win here.
You can see it from both sides. Typically a painter is moved by something and paints it (standard practice). As far as it being plagiarism, I don't think so in this case. He has clearly stated where and how he got the image, and is paying homage.
If its your image you can complain, if it's not your image then why piss on someone else's fire? The internet is plagued with hiding behind a monitor and bitching about people knowing they'll never knock on your door and knock your teeth out. If it is of concern to anyone, then send a private message and sort it out.
Previously any issue with someone online has been swiftly dealt with using the PM's. Why publicly flog someone? I'm trying my best not to turn to stereotypes, political or regional slurs.
Thank you, Ash.
I see it as George paying the photographer a compliment.
"There are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something." - Thomas A. Edison
Back to the whole thought about art objectifying; My own approach to photography is to personalize things using photography as the means. I don't take nude photos, at least yet, though I have nothing against it.
I think the 'objectifying' can be something the artist intends a viewer to do, but I don't think that's always the case. Many photographers I know, want someone to be emotionally moved by the photograph; that's the opposite of objectifying.
Culturally, we are inundated with man made images thousands if not millions of times a day - as a result of that, I think many people do objectify images and art, no matter if they are nudes or not.
My own goal, is to bring something to the viewer they may not have otherwise noticed,felt, known, sensed or otherwise been moved by. I like photographing people, though not in studio settings right now. I like nature photography too, and there are other things I like to shoot. Personally, I like viewing nudes for a variety of reasons; all of them are sensual though not all are sexual. But that is true of other kinds of photography too.
There are images I objectify though too. I'm pretty sure everyone is guilty of it in some capacity or other, but I don't think that's the purpose of any branch of art - though I could be wrong about that. I have learned that when I'm taking photographs, or drawing, that I need to be objective in my observations; viewing any art can be done objectively too, and that can lead to finding relationships between parts of the image/frame/tone, etc. But I don't think that's it's purpose.
If I have stepped out of line here, I do apologize. I still have a lot to learn, but I have liked the images and discussion here so far.
The photographer had control over the image. That's the issue with copyrights. He may have promised the subject that his image wouldn't be sold or reproduced. Does the subject know that his image was to be reproduced? Would he have permitted it?He is brave to come to my studio and asked me to take a series of portrait for him. He believes that taking photos of his body can be a process to accept himself
The issue with copyright is that it's up to the copyright owner to enforce, however they choose.
That, of course, never stops a bunch of armchair-lawyers on the internet from feigning outrage at any perceived slight that had nothing to do with them in the first place.
"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word." --Andrew Jackson