Too similar ?

[QT Luong]

David Burdeny challenged about similarities to Sze Tsung Leong and Elger Esser
http://bit.ly/9hu0Fd

The comparison was already made by Tim Atherton in his blog http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2010/01/david-burdeny.html and expended on Conscientious
http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2010/01/when_does_similar_become_too_similar.html

Of course, this happens all the time in travel and nature photography, but apparently it becomes a problem only in fine art circles (note also how all those involved are LF photographers). What do you think ?

[Jack Dahlgren]

That the subjects are so graphically disperse and present in both photographer's exhibitions seems like it is much more than chance. I can see two views of a pyramid being reasonable, but in conjunction with a similar view of the Sacramento River just starts to seem unlikely.

On the other hand I live near San Francisco and I know that I am not the first to have taken a photo of the Golden Gate Bridge. I'm sure it has been photographed from every angle at every time of day.

So I think there is a possibility that there is no plagarism, but the possibility of intentional reproduction is higher.

[Robert Hughes]

I can imagine one or two "really similar" shots, but this guy's passed the tripping point into blatant plagarism.

It appears that Burdeny's main rationale is "well, bigger photogs than I are ripping each other off, too, so why can't I?"

[Brian K]

It's understandable that there's a certain inevitability that either you will produce an image similar to someone else's or some one will produce one similar to yours unless you produce very contrived work. This can be especially true in landscape as it's subject doesn't move much and very often some scenes have one perfect and readily available spot where the composition and elements work best. I'm certain I've had my tripod in the same holes as preceding photographs but have attempted to use different techniques or timing or conditions to differentiate it. Failing that, I simply didn't use the images. If photographer X has photographed a scene before, does that mean that that scene is off limits to all from now on? Whether succeeding images are different or not? Are all of the National Parks off the list? Central park? Paris? Venice? Etc?

I travel to photogenic places. Partly because I like looking at beautiful locations and partly because I have a greater chance of getting an image that I like at a place I find beautiful or interesting. I recall going to Iceland in 2000 or 2001 (and again in 2002) and at that time even though Iceland had an actual advertising campaign trying to entice photographers to go there, not many had. I certainly was not the first, or even the tenth or twentieth. But it seems that after I went there, within a few years, EVERYONE went there. Not to say that I started the trend, I most certainly not. But it was inevitable that photographers attracted to bare landscape would end up there. As much as I love Iceland, I am very hesitant to return because B&W images from Iceland have become overdone.

Michael Kenna did not create long time exposures. I can recall my days at SVA in the mid 70's looking at very early photography and the look of cities without any appearance of people because the exposures were so long as to make all but the dead invisible. Time exposures and motion blur were pretty common techniques in the 70's. What Michael Kenna did was execute them exceedingly well ( they're beautiful) and create/promote an extremely effective formula. His own success has made his work seem common because so many photographers copy that formula to the letter.

I've done my share of sticks in water. i don't go out looking to do them, i fact I make it a point to avoid doing them and avoiding water, but alas most of the planet is water, and when you see a great composition with great light that just happens to have sticks in water, well, how can you not shoot it?

But right now there is so much work that looks exactly the same. And while I think (hope) that my work does not have many of the similarities of the Kenna kids, And let's be real here, much of that work is beautiful, I have to admit that I worry that because I shoot minimal B&W landscape ( very similar to what I did in the 1970's) that I too get lumped into that group.

I like a good deal of David Burdeny's work. I especially liked the Iceberg stuff and thought it was the best of that genre out there. The newer work I found rather stiff and sorry to say a bit boring, but I am somewhat distressed that the similarities of that work to several other photographers is so close. I don't think that David consciously tried to copy them. I think it's more likely that he simply went to photogenic locations, was confronted by a scene he found compelling and reached into his technique bag for the best method of capture. I think that often there are some scenes that nearly any skilled photographer is going to stop and shoot, and may very well use a method that might be similar to that used by a preceding photographer. I don't think that a good photographer imposes their technique or style on a scene , but instead the scene itself directs the photographer as to the best way to capture it.

If confronted with the same scenes that Burdeny is being criticized as copying, would I have shot them? No. Those scenes aren't compelling to me. But if I were in Greenland and were confronted with the scenes and conditions he was when he shot his icebergs, I may very well have come back with work that looks very similar to his. Does this mean I should avoid Greenland? I'm already avoiding iceland, and water, and sticks..... Maybe I should go back to still life? I could always shoot flowers, or bowls of fruit, or old worn tools. Or I could shoot portraiture and shoot people against stark white, or photograph people suffering or in distress (that work always makes the photographer seem so compassionate, photograph that drowning person instead of throwing them a life preserver) So much of it has been done before, do we all avoid any subject that's been previously done? Do you instead focus of conceptual work? But wait, that's also been so overdone and so much of it hangs on the thinnest of concepts and lacks any content except novelty. Originality in an image lacking any other merit is still a meritless image. Originality with meritorious content is the goal, but one that few seem committed to make.

Maybe we should just acknowledge that in a world where even your phone has a camera and that more than half the world's population takes photos, that true and qualitative originality is getting nearly impossible to find, and instead focus more on the content of the images.

[Ken Lee]

My Mathematics is rusty, but as human overpopulation increases towards Infinity, the probability of everyone taking all the same photos reaches... a big number :)

[Steven Barall]

Are you kidding me???? These are all tourist locations. ARE YOU KIDDING ME ??? If you think you can own a view of something that is already on the earth meaning something that you didn't put there, like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame building or the HOLLYWOOD sign or a work by Christo, then you are just stupid.

This is crass commercialism taken to an absurd level. Yossi Milo is angry because it hurts sales and not for any other reason but what an idiotic position for an art gallery to take. They are supposed to support "The Arts" knowing that a rising tide lifts all boats. Imagine professionals in the Art business intentionally wanting to make the Art community smaller because they think that's what's best for The Arts in the long run. STUPID !!!

The gallery owner is supposed to make the case that their artist is just better for whatever reason and not go out and hire a hit man (lawyer).

Do they really want someone to search museums and other photo collections to find thousands of other photos of those same locations taken over the last 150 years?

Can you imagine the hubris of Leong that he thinks he is doing something original? This guy Leong and Yossi Milo both need to be set adrift. Well, now that I think about it that's a bad idea. They'll just claim that they own all photographs of water.

[Songyun]

My Mathematics is rusty, but as human overpopulation increases towards Infinity, the probability of everyone taking all the same photos reaches... a big number :)

the probability of everyone taking all the same photos reaches... 0
the probability of two people taking all the same photos reaches... a big number (still it can not exceed 1) :D :D

[Robert Hughes]

The probability of one gallery artist ripping off a few other gallery artists and claiming it as a chance accident becomes ... 1.

"It's not stealing, it's appropriation."

[Brian Ellis]

I wouldn't say plagarism on the basis of the pyramid photograph alone. I made a photograph at Bodie that was a virtual duplicate of one I later saw in a book by George Tice. And that was a far more unusual subject and composition than these pyramid photographs. But when it goes beyond just this one pyramid photograph things look a lot more suspicious.

[Toyon]

I don't think of it as plaigarism, but an "homage". Homages can result in new and interesting work emerging from the original, but in this case Burdeny is unoriginal and untalented. In addition, his photoshopping of the image to remove high rises and telephone poles is crass, tasteless, and worst of all... bland.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Are you kidding me???? These are all tourist locations. ARE YOU KIDDING ME ??? If you think you can own a view of something that is already on the earth meaning something that you didn't put there, like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame building or the HOLLYWOOD sign or a work by Christo, then you are just stupid.

Cutting wharf on the Sacramento river is very far removed from being a tourist location.How many other photos of this spot can you find? Pryamids sure, some backwater on the Sacramento river and that pyramid - uh... no.

[Mike Anderson]

I've always thought if you're going to copy something, copy something that's obscure.

Seriously, even if Burdeny is completely innocent of any kind of plagiarism (he hadn't seen the prior stuff), the value of his similar work is greatly reduced.

...Mike

[Mike Anderson]

Have you folks seen www.tineye.com? It's an image comparison/search engine. I plugged in the earlier works (of Sze TsungLeong and Elger Esser) and it didn't find any matches. That service doesn't seem to be up to speed yet (it's database isn't built up yet), but if and when it does get up to speed it could add a whole new dimension to this issue.

...Mike

[Bob McCarthy]

my sense is that many images of a scene exist w/o there being any plagiarism. What I understood was the entire portfolio presented was a near copy of the other artist.

"One" picture OK, "many" appears to me to cross the line

[MIke Sherck]

The world is finite; the supply of photographers is expanding and with the Internet, distribution of the work of many, many photographers is widespread. Given that, I think that wounded cries of, "Hey, that's my picture" will only increase. In most cases I think the transgression, if it is one, is innocent. More to the point, if you've never seen work by a particular photographer but happen to take a photograph close to one of theirs, is that wrong? How does the rest of the world judge innocence or transgression, given that mind reading is still the province of carnival sideshows?

To me, the two original photos of pyramids seemed too unlike each other to justify claims of plagiarism -- but there's no way for me to know that, I'm just guessing. But an associated question bothers me: at what point do we not dare to enter Yosemite with a camera, just in case we unwittingly duplicate the work of someone else with a short fuse? I hope and trust that things never get that bad, but I'm also pretty sure that if I take enough photographs of tangled branches in woods here in Indiana, sooner or later someone's going to find half a dozen of them which they think look like six of someone else's tangled branches in the woods photos, and then what?

I choose to look at things generously: I don't think most people would deliberately copy someone else's photographs, except as a student trying to figure out how it was done, and so I refuse to believe a charge of plagiarism without proof beyond mere similarity of the image. So far as I'm concerned, it's innocent until proven guilty.

Mike

[r.e.]

Mr. Sze Tsung Leong and his agent have made an extremely serious allegation. At the moment, this story is mostly noteworthy for the fact that there isn't anywhere close to enough information to judge whether the allegation is true or false. It is a pity that internet pundits and gossips have no compunction, given the paucity of actual facts, as distinct from self-serving statements by people like Sze Tsung Leong's agent, about stirring the pot.

[Greg Blank]

Hi QT;

I think that if one purposefully looks for the same angle and photographs the place under the same conditions, one has seen previously "the image presented as"....then one is a wanker. More suited to practicing self gratification. Now if one say's I am going out and put my tripod in the very holes left by a photographer such as "Ansel Adams" lets say... but with the intent of making a better image based on having a different sky or some other change then one is only a partial wanker :)

Now if it occurs that I photograph a place, and someone else comes along unaware and makes the same angle and more or less the same shot, its kind of natural that the eye finds a similar resting place, thats why people like images and find them and desire to own at least a representation of the place or its magical qualities (so to speak). Although I also strive to make a lot of unique stuff, I do take some of the "here is the spot" let me hit you over the head with it as a blatent representation of it, type thing :) When you at at Niagra Falls its sort of normal to want to take at least one image of the water going over the edge :)



David Burdeny challenged about similarities to Sze Tsung Leong and Elger Esser
http://bit.ly/9hu0Fd

The comparison was already made by Tim Atherton in his blog http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2010/01/david-burdeny.html and expended on Conscientious
http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2010/01/when_does_similar_become_too_similar.html

Of course, this happens all the time in travel and nature photography, but apparently it becomes a problem only in fine art circles (note also how all those involved are LF photographers). What do you think ?

[Thom Bennett]

I was called as a witness in a court case a number of years ago when a photographer who I printed for was suing another photographer for infringing on his copyright of a well-known local landmark. He wasn't claiming that said landmark could not be photographed by anyone but him but that his interpretation (moody, foggy, early morning light, particular composition) could not be blatantly copied and sold. The key word here being "sold". The "infringing" photographer had a gallery literally around the corner from my client and my client claimed that buyers would be confused and think that the cheaper version was his also. It was a tricky case and, in the end, the judge ruled against my client stating basically that if a buyer of fine art photographs can be duped by a cheap copy then they deserve to get fleeced. Not his words exactly but that was the gist of it.

[evan clarke]

Tripod hole photos...EC

[Brian Ellis]

I was called as a witness in a court case a number of years ago when a photographer who I printed for was suing another photographer for infringing on his copyright of a well-known local landmark. He wasn't claiming that said landmark could not be photographed by anyone but him but that his interpretation (moody, foggy, early morning light, particular composition) could not be blatantly copied and sold. The key word here being "sold". The "infringing" photographer had a gallery literally around the corner from my client and my client claimed that buyers would be confused and think that the cheaper version was his also. It was a tricky case and, in the end, the judge ruled against my client stating basically that if a buyer of fine art photographs can be duped by a cheap copy then they deserve to get fleeced. Not his words exactly but that was the gist of it.

I can certainly see the infringement in that case. What photographer would ever have come up with the idea of making a photograph early in the morning, and in fog to boot, all by themselves? Clearly your client had something novel and unique with that early morning fog idea and the other photographer was just copying.

[Robert Hughes]

I don't think most people would deliberately copy someone else's photographs... So far as I'm concerned, it's innocent until proven guilty.

That's so charming. Most people wouldn't deliberately bulk-package a bunch of underwater mortgages and fraudulently sell them as AAA securities, then take out insurance on their bogus work either. And we all know how that's worked out...


judge ruled against my client stating basically that if a buyer of fine art photographs can be duped by a cheap copy then they deserve to get fleeced Hey, it works on Wall Street...

[Kirk Gittings]

I think in such cases as these, easily accessed public views of landscapes, it is extremely difficult to prove that someone copied another WOA. I also think that an artist who bothers to photograph such subject matter takes an inherent risk of being copied and therefore has no legal basis for a copyright lawsuit.

I say this because, I was involved in a similar case, someone claiming I copied their photograph. Similarly, it was from a common POV on a public trail in a New Mexico state park. The main difference between the images was mine had a powerful storm brewing in the background (otherwise I would not have bothered)-his was just a nicely framed shot of the structure. I was aware of his image before I made mine. After doing some research his lawyer convinced him he had no leg to stand on. My image went on to become widely reproduced and exhibited. We later became friends.

No one owns a point of view of the landscape, even if you hiked 20 miles off the beaten track to get there carrying an 8x10. I think especially if you are going to photograph in from popular easily accessible POVs it behooves you to try and do something spectacular, because that is your best protection from being copied.

The below image is the one mentioned above. It is a bit dark but you can get the idea. His had a blank gray sky.

http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab248/kgittings/KG%20Upload/KirkGittings2359499953.jpg

[John Bowen]

I made a photograph at Bodie that was a virtual duplicate of one I later saw in a book by George Tice.

Hey Brian,

Me too. I photographed in Bodie in 1988. I've had one image from that trip on my office wall since 1992. I picked up a book of George's work at the library last year and there was my photograph. Actually George was there first, but our tripod holes couldn't have been more than a couple feet apart.

I'm sure George is flattered :D

[Brian Stein]

I think there is a difference between

1. same subject, different interpretations/techniques (eg Kirk's case)
2. same technique different subjects
3. generic subject, generic technique (eg photogenic location, moody low light case above)
4. same technique, same subjects

To me 1 and 2 are not plagiarism because a different aspect has been chosen, 3 may be to most often convergence not plagiarism (how many pictures of ... can be made). 4. is more likely to be plagiarism: its not just that you admire ... and do similar work/seek to emulate, but that you then go and make the same images of the same things that takes it out of the convergence argument for me. A defence might be reasonable if all images are of common photogenic subjects, but when we see relatively obscure subjects duplicated I think that defence falls over.

[Dirk Rösler]

So every photograph has to be unique huh and not look like anything like it? And only show what's true, of course. Hello, reality check please!

[Jack Dahlgren]

If you take a look at the two exhibitions - the similarity is obvious across a large number of images. Even the exhibition text has very similar sentences in it. It is clear that Burdeny was aware of and was at least "paying homage" to his predecessors.

Kind of like doing a series of peppers against a black background. It might be an interesting and useful exercise that one might undertake, but good luck in getting respect if you try to sell it in a gallery.

[Dirk Rösler]

I think that may actually be his point. "Originality" is perhaps also a bourgeois concept. If one photograph is considered valuable art, and one which is very similar to it is not, then what makes the difference apart from "having been there first"? And even that, we don't know which picture was taken first as looking at the works in isolation they cannot tell us that. And is having been there first a major value aspect of a piece of art? Very good question that he is asking. Photography as a medium has a nature of its own, not always the sacred art we want it to be.

[Greg Blank]

No its not sacred, an original concept should not be overtly molested though, whether done with a camera or a brush. Scores of artists have ripped each other off over the years, its nothing new.

A few years back I was at Cape Henlopen in Deleware. I had my 4x5, my brother and I had arrived about at sunset. I had been raining and the sky broke right around sunset. The sun went down really nice. I of course was set up on a tripod and suddenly a camera club of people arrived and gathered all around me pointing their cameras at the location I was photographing. Suddenly I decided that the image was better from down the beach further and I yanked my pod up out of the sand. I set up further down the shore and was glad I did. But the nincompoops followed me. I laughed and said rather loudly get your own damn picture! It was funny because it almost seemed to irritate them at the first place that I had the "best" position :)



I think that may actually be his point. "Originality" is perhaps also a bourgeois concept. If one photograph is considered valuable art, and one which is very similar to it is not, then what makes the difference apart from "having been there first"? And even that, we don't know which picture was taken first as looking at the works in isolation they cannot tell us that. And is having been there first a major value aspect of a piece of art? Very good question that he is asking. Photography as a medium has a nature of its own, not always the sacred art we want it to be.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I think that may actually be his point. "Originality" is perhaps also a bourgeois concept. If one photograph is considered valuable art, and one which is very similar to it is not, then what makes the difference apart from "having been there first"? And even that, we don't know which picture was taken first as looking at the works in isolation they cannot tell us that. And is having been there first a major value aspect of a piece of art? Very good question that he is asking. Photography as a medium has a nature of its own, not always the sacred art we want it to be.

I think it may be more driven by the fact that it was a successful concept which led to fame and fortune and he wanted to take the same route. No art to that. Just commercialism. But hey, you gotta eat.

[Bill_1856]

Why should we presume that Leong made the first-ever photographs of these landscapes? There's nothing especially original about them to justify a copyright. Don't get your knickers in a knot about it, Sweetie -- they're there for anyone to snap.

[Dirk Rösler]

No its not sacred, an original concept should not be overtly molested though

Why not - and who defines what is or was an original concept? The galleries, the art historians? "Commercialism", yeah...

In a copy and paste world, appropriation is a daily occurrence, whether it is conscious or not. This takes it one step further.

[Thebes]

I am reminded of a certain church in Ranchos de Taos. I must have seen at least 100 different photos of it, and probably as many different paintings too, all of them similar enough to each other to have been labeled "plagiarism", as here. I'm not saying that intentionally reproducing another's idea can't make one a jerk and possibly invalidate the importance of one's art. But, certainly its not a copyright infringement or legally actionable. At least it should not be, it makes the plaintiff into an even bigger douche.

Given easy to access limited numbers of viewpoints, many photographer's will make similar images. Unless there is some intent to misappropriate the ideas of another, there is no problem. It does little for the images' value as art, but its not even necessarily plagiarism.

[QT Luong]

If you take a look at the two exhibitions - the similarity is obvious across a large number of images. Even the exhibition text has very similar sentences in it. It is clear that Burdeny was aware of and was at least "paying homage" to his predecessors.


That's the point.

When you look at the individual images that make up "Horizons", they do not come up as extremely strong images. What makes "Horizons" work is a concept: having a fixed horizon line and a whitish sky in all images of otherwise disparate locations.

It appears that "Sacred and secular" uses the same concept (although it is refined further, with more uniform skies and waters). If you look at this updated post on PDN http://bit.ly/c4dfqy you'll see a comparison of the two installations. I find that more troubling than the similarity of individual images.

While there has been some clever post modern work that was a commentary on photographic originality, that intention was made clear in artist's statements. It doesn't appear to the case here.

[Dirk Rösler]

While there has been some clever post modern work that was a commentary on photographic originality, that intention was made clear in artist's statements. It doesn't appear to the case here.

Well, that would be terribly boring (read: unoriginal ;) ) if it said how to interpret the art right on the package, wouldn't it? Let the audience do a bit of thinking at least...

[Brian K]

I can't fault someone shooting a well known scene from a familiar compositional view point. There are simply some scenes that work exceptionally well from a particular spot and those scene are going to get captured that way over and over again even if they're not widely known. If you have to rule out shooting any location that's been shot before you're just going to run out of planet. So in my view you need to bring something different to the image.

Now while the notion of shooting a horizon centric, blank sky, blank foreground style is far from new or original, in fact it's not used that much because most often it's boring, I have to agree with QT that it's the fact that this same style was used with the same subjects from nearly the same POV's that is troubling. I can understand being influenced by or inspired by someone else's work, I can't imagine Burdeny intentionally copying someone else's work. But yet the similarities remain.

The art world as we know it is very different today as concept has become the guiding principle and content has taken a back seat. I still find it incomprehensible that Prince's out and out copy of the Marlboro man photograph/advertisement is not considered plagiarism by the art world and that the piece itself sold for over $1 million. To me concept is the easy way out for art and content the hard way. Anything can be conceptualized and then justified with enough verbiage. But standing in a freezing rain holding an umbrella over a camera day in and day out waiting for the sun and clouds and conditions to be just right for a scene is not easy and few today show that commitment. Not when one can head to the diner, sit down, have some coffee and eggs then take a photo of the messy post breakfast table, spend 20 minutes coming up with a title and post exposure "concept", and head home with a piece of art.

Maybe I'm old school, but to me while a concept of some sort is needed, it isn't some over reaching, self important, aggrandizing theory of universal connectivity that really doesn't even apply to the image in question. It has to be about content. What you put in that image is all that matters, the composition, the elements, the light, the mood, the moment, NOT what you can say about it. If you need to write an essay to justify/explain your imagery, maybe you have chosen the wrong media. Maybe you're a writer NOT a photographer.

So we go back to the "too similar" images. What's funny is that if Burdeny's announced concept was to show the repeatability of photography, or the shared vision of photographers, or some other Prince like rationalization for copying some image, this whole thing would not be considered an issue, in fact Burdeny might be considered bold for examining a common issue in photography.

When did we get away from photography, where the photograph is what mattered, and get to a point where what matters about a photo is what we say about it?

[Brian Stein]

I can't fault someone shooting a well known scene from a familiar compositional view point. There are simply some scenes that work exceptionally well from a particular spot and those scene are going to get captured that way over and over again even if they're not widely known. If you have to rule out shooting any location that's been shot before you're just going to run out of planet. So in my view you need to bring something different to the image.



I think this is well said, and to me summarizes the difference between the good/great and the mediocre.


I also think in terms of the plagiarism thing there is a large difference between a similar image and a similar body of work. For example if I post a soft focus picture of model trains here folk might think "one from the Jim Galli school", if I then pursue cowboy weddings, model A Fords.... I would expect eyebrows to be raised. This is essentially what QT is saying above:



If you look at this updated post on PDN http://bit.ly/c4dfqy you'll see a comparison of the two installations. I find that more troubling than the similarity of individual images.


As regards this:

Well, that would be terribly boring (read: unoriginal ;) ) if it said how to interpret the art right on the package, wouldn't it? Let the audience do a bit of thinking at least...
this bit of the audience concludes on a charitable day unoriginal hack who is afraid to follow in many great footsteps and acknowledge the precedent (the classical music world has many "variations on a theme of...") , and on an average day rip off merchant.

[Jack Dahlgren]

QT,

Yep, when you look at the whole it becomes more obvious.

For example writers may use the same words (perfectly good ones like obsequious, derivative, and flounder) as others writers - in the same way photographers may compose their landscape portfolio from majestic peaks, natural arches, flowing rivers or rusting bits of metal which form the basic elements of outdoor photography.

Together these words form sentences, paragraphs and internet screeds and the images form portfolios and exhibitions. This is where the artist earns their pay. Very few can get by with a single word or image - as much as we would like that to be so.

When the portfolio is on display and it matches word for word and image for image with another it is more than coincidence. The near impossibility of a blind photographer selecting the same images at random points to a higher power behind the action.

[r_a_feldman]

There is a saying from the military: “Once is chance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.” David Burdeny’s images, taken as a whole, indicate to me that he is copying at least the style of Sze Tsung Leong’s photographs. I have not seen the whole exhibition, so I do not know how completely Burdeny is also copying the content, although the overlap in subjects does not seem coincidental.

Bob

[Robert Hughes]

In a copy and paste world, appropriation is a daily occurrence, whether it is conscious or not. This takes it one step further.
Like all those appropriated songs on my MP3 player, you mean? :rolleyes:

[Greg Blank]

There is a certain sense of decorum in not ripping someone elses idea and art off. In some cases its illegal as well as it should be. Its like the jackasses that tailgate at high speed in motor vehicles, best if not done for a variety of reasons.

If your a jack rabbit as a hunter with permit I have a right to shoot you, if I blast your legs and ears off first one at a time then finish you off- someone may take offense at that, because their is no decorum :D Then again if the hunter is the only witness the fun is all his :D


Why not - and who defines what is or was an original concept? The galleries, the art historians? "Commercialism", yeah...

In a copy and paste world, appropriation is a daily occurrence, whether it is conscious or not. This takes it one step further.

[vinny]

This story made the paper this morning. Doesn't look good either. The excerpts from their exhibition statements seem quite similar as well. The online version which may not be ase complete as the paper version is here: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-photoplagiarism28-2010feb28,0,4200255.story

[Greg Blank]

If you look at these two high profile photographers, the legal issues are complex for sure. If you look at infringements going on of the average photographer its much more disconcerting and shows just how crooked this industry can be.

[Lenny Eiger]

I think this is all too predictable. Two photos from the same viewpoint of the pyramids? There are two problems (aside from the accusations of plagiarism, which I doubt, and am not concerned about.) The first problem is that neither of these nincompoops ever looked at the History.... we have superb photos by Francis Frith and Samuel Bourne, all more interesting than these. Does no one study anymore?

The other issue is this whole idea of what photography is? I find so many photographers in galleries littered along coastal towns who are collecting their shot of this vantage point or that one, for purposes of sale to the tourists. Collecting and being an artist with some understanding to share are not the same.

I think both of them are shooting garbage, that is visible right from the road, at least in this case. I haven't researched any of their other work, but these two images do not appear to have anything to teach me.

As to the Marlboro man photo by Richard Prince, which actually sold recently for $3,401,000, that's just pure stupidity.

Lenny

[tgtaylor]

It's probably impossible to photograph a scenic without coping the camera perspective of another photographer.

About 15 years back while hiking the crumbling cliffs and beaches of San Francisco's Lands End region by the Golden Gate, I came upon Helmet Rock - a large sea mount along the southern shoreline of the entrance - and snapped a photo with my new Pentax K1000 that I had purchased to document my hiking trips. Years later while viewing the Ansel Adams at 100 exhibition at SFMOA, I was surprised to see a print that Adams made of Helmet Rock when he was 16 years old with the identical perspective. The only differences were mine was a color negative developed and printed by WalMart and his was a B&W print that he developed and printed himself.

The above was echoed last weekend at a LF outing at Point Lobos - another scenic location that's been photographed to death. Years back I took a 6x7 image of a picturesque dead Cypress tree along side of the trail and pointed that out to one of the group. Later he told me that a lady came by and said that the tree was photographed by Minor White. Well it figures.

[Brian Stein]

Yes, you inadvertently copied AA and White *BUT*
1. you did it with one photo, you did not go and rephotograph a big chunk of AA/White's work.
2. As your photo was processed by walmart I am assuming you didnt put it up in a gallery/show/website/whatever as 'fine art'/new artistic interpretation/whatever

For me this is an example of convergence (minds sometimes think alike in a single image) not plagiarism (small minds copy others body of work and call it theirs)

[mortensen]

... It's been five months now - does anyone know, wether they have reached a verdict or whether charges was at all pressed?

The discussion concept vs. content (not sure, whether you can actually say 'versus' to that, but...) is interesting. I, too, find myself in the camp that thinks using the same exhibition concept is the most appalling in this case. The similar/identical shots from the pyramid and seine, for instance, is probably not coincidence, when you take into account the information stated in the LA times article (receipts from Burdeny actually buying the Horizons catalogue).

What I find really strong about the Horizons series is the concept, as it allows Sze to include such different locations and subjects, while still telling a tight, nuanced story about our (mankind's) geography. And that exhibition/book concept should certainly NOT be borrowed.

I remember being told at the academy, that borrowing someone's ideas was showing lack of talent, while stealing (ie. the originator doesn't realize, that his/her ideas have been grabbed) was a true sign of talent... I guess it translated to the ability to obtain, translate and elaborate on already visited ideas.

Enough blabla, here's a few other interesting post on Conscientious regarding plagiarism:

http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/extended/archives/photography_copyright_and_plagiarism/
http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2006/09/on_plagiarism_and_similarities/
http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2010/01/when_does_similar_become_too_similar/
http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2010/02/way_too_similar/
http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2010/02/more_on_similar_photosplagiarism/



I don't think of it as plaigarism, but an "homage". Homages can result in new and interesting work emerging from the original, but in this case Burdeny is unoriginal and untalented. In addition, his photoshopping of the image to remove high rises and telephone poles is crass, tasteless, and worst of all... bland.

... where do you see this photoshopping? which images? just curious...

[Stephane]

I remember being told at the academy, that borrowing someone's ideas was showing lack of talent, while stealing (ie. the originator doesn't realize, that his/her ideas have been grabbed) was a true sign of talent...

Is this what you mean?
http://www.onionmag.no/blogg/wp-content//2009/06/picasso.jpg

[mortensen]

LOL :)

(never realized the origin of that saying, though... wonder what that should tell me about my time at the academy, hmm... :) )

[Brian C. Miller]

How many times has that Jeffries pine atop Sentinal Dome (now deceased and fallen) been photographed? Is everybody plagarizing Carleton Watkins, who first photographed it in 1867? Does this mean that Uncle Earl Walton and Ansel Adams should both be castigated for photographing that tree (let alone for both using view cameras and common glass plates and living in California)?

A person owns the image that they make with their camera. That's it, end of story, get used to it. Plagarising means copying someone else's existing product, not recreating a similar product from scratch.

In Washington state, east of Bellingham, on the way to Mt. Baker, is a really picturesque area called Heather Meadows. Lots of people go there to make photographs. Of course I have been there a few times, and that's where I asked a fellow if I could have a peek at his 4x5. We both photographed Highwood Lake at the same time. Could our photographs be mistaken for the other? Yes. I helped him compose one of his shots! He stayed to make the shot that he really wanted, and I moved on. I've seen quite a few other shots that look pretty much just like mine. After all, there is a limited area to stand and photograph that lake.

Here's the best idea of all: Load your camera with film, and go forth and photograph.

[Jack Dahlgren]

How many times has that Jeffries pine atop Sentinal Dome (now deceased and fallen) been photographed? Is everybody plagarizing Carleton Watkins, who first photographed it in 1867? Does this mean that Uncle Earl Walton and Ansel Adams should both be castigated for photographing that tree (let alone for both using view cameras and common glass plates and living in California)?


There is no doubt that AA was just copying Uncle Earl.

That said, the issue in this case is not a single similar shot. It is a series of shots taken around the world which indicate a pattern of imitation. There are only so many ways to photograph many of the iconic sights in the world, but to build an exhibition which is similar and which stretches across the entire world makes that argument less compelling.

[rdenney]

There are only so many ways to photograph many of the iconic sights in the world...

We hear this a lot, and we feel it when standing before one of those iconic scenes unable to be creative in the face of what everyone else has done.

But I conducted an experiment to test the notion. I went to Google Images and searched on "Delicate Arch". In 36 pages of images, two things were true:

1. I didn't see any two photographs that really looked the same, and

2. My online photograph of Delicate Arch wasn't in those first 36 pages.

The photos coming up in that search were sufficiently varied that I was able to ascertain both of those facts within several minutes.

I narrowed the search to "Delicate Arch Sunset", and my own photo (which is titled "delicate_arch_at_sunset.jpg" or something like that still did not appear in the first 36 pages. And even limiting the photos of Delicate Arch to those made at sunset didn't impose enough sameness to make it hard to see the infinite variety.

I had to add my own name (Delicate Arch Rick) for my photo to appear in the first page.

That tells me there are thousands and thousands of images of Delicate Arch on the Internet. Yet all of them that I saw were different. Some of those photos were highly stylized, some heavily manipulated, and some straight out of the camera. Some made me laugh, some made me long for a trip back to Utah, and others were just dreadful. Some said something profound, and others were mundane. But none of them were duplicates.

About a hundred years ago, the composers of music started to get the notion that after about 300 years of exploration, there was nothing left to be said about the major and minor tonal scales. I enjoy the direction some of them went, some in total rebellion against the notion of tonality. But I don't think they were right.

That accusation of being derivative is really just something sophisticates say to demonstrate their sophistication. (I know that's why I've said it.) "John Williams is derivative of Gustave Holst" gets said a lot in musical circles. But I really think most of them say it because John Williams has made a zillion dollars doing what most of them can't make a living doing, or because he did it for money and not for "art". We too often revere innovation above beauty, but in looking at the art hanging on the walls of just regular people, beauty gets a lot more respect than innovation. We can call them low-brows if we want, I suppose. But to my thinking it's a big world, and they are the bigger part of it.

Let us not give up on nature, or on searching for our personal view of it. Yes, we should study what has been done so as to avoid quoting someone by accident. But I think making an image just like someone else's is actually rather difficult to do in the end. Nature just presents too many variations, as do the people who experience it. If we are true to our view of nature, the variations will emerge.

Rick "happy to capture mere beauty" Denney

[Barry Trabitz]

Just back from a visit to the Clark Museum. The show concerning how Degas influenced Picasso was wonderful. A statement by Picasso was printed on the wall at the entrance to the exhibit. " All artists copy. Great artists steal." Seem relevant to this thread.
Barry.