HeyItsJoel
Senior Member
Do you like Coke or Pepsi?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Plagiarize.. [let no-one else's work evade-your-eyes!]
- Thread starter Ken Croft
- Start date
ellover009
Senior Member
Could be either. They either saw your picture and were inspired to try out the same spot, or it was simply coincidental. Even if it was a remote place humans have a tendency to roam around. Like others mentioned put enough photographers in the same spot and there are certain framing that people will gravitate to and you will see a lot of similar shots because psychologically composition wise it will look the most right.
Is it plagiarism? That's some grey territory but there's enough differences that it's a different image. Now if you had a bloke like Richard Prince take your actual image, pass it as his own work of art then I would be upset. It's a bit difficult to think of something as completely your own when it's not a new style of shooting, you didn't add additional elements and it's out there for anyone else to capture because nature, time and the environment did a good chunk of the setup.
If the other fellow's picture was inspired by your work I would take that as a sign of success. People usually don't try to imitate work that they don't perceive as good. Editing wise I will not necessarily comment on it since he may have edited towards his own taste or skill level and not necessarily with the intention to please me. Just because I don't like something does not necessarily mean it's generally bad. I don't love modern art and I hate Picasso's dog line drawing " I find it too successful for a lazy attempt" but because I think it's junk doesn't necessarily mean it is. The world is interesting because it's composed of different things.
Is it plagiarism? That's some grey territory but there's enough differences that it's a different image. Now if you had a bloke like Richard Prince take your actual image, pass it as his own work of art then I would be upset. It's a bit difficult to think of something as completely your own when it's not a new style of shooting, you didn't add additional elements and it's out there for anyone else to capture because nature, time and the environment did a good chunk of the setup.
If the other fellow's picture was inspired by your work I would take that as a sign of success. People usually don't try to imitate work that they don't perceive as good. Editing wise I will not necessarily comment on it since he may have edited towards his own taste or skill level and not necessarily with the intention to please me. Just because I don't like something does not necessarily mean it's generally bad. I don't love modern art and I hate Picasso's dog line drawing " I find it too successful for a lazy attempt" but because I think it's junk doesn't necessarily mean it is. The world is interesting because it's composed of different things.
Ken Croft
Senior Member
Shadowfixer
Senior Member
If you saw it and thought it would make a nice image, why wouldn't another photographer see the same and decide to take it? I've seen many images in local competitions that look like some I have made but never posted. It's not that uncommon.
pcgould
Leading Member
CharlesB58
Forum Pro
This example only demonstrates clone stamp. It doesn't address the different field of view, angle of view, time of day and all the other things that are different. Two people coming across the same scene and producing nearly identical compositions is not uncommon. Just do a search for the Sydney Opera House.It is so easy... try a "stamp" tool.Look closely at the individual sunflowers and their relative positions. Not the same photo. You cannot software individual sunflowers to slightly different relative positions. Not yet.Take it easy and never look back: your poop is somebody food, so let scavengers do their job.That's what Tom Lehrer says!
On 17 July I took this image of sunflowers, including the roll of straw for some foreground interest. I don't claim it be be a masterpiece of fine art, but I was happy with it and I posted it on my Flickr site.
Olympus M1/1. Oly 12-40mm
Then on 23 July, the image below was posted on the web site of the local camera club [I am not a member]. Is this just a flook, or did somebody see me in the field with my camera, or did someone look at my Flickr site? Who knows.
[ATTACH alt="NOT MY IMAGE. Lifted from the site of the "Objectif Duras" camera club."]1711057[/ATTACH]
NOT MY IMAGE. Lifted from the site of the "Objectif Duras" camera club.
Now my image is nothing too exciting, but I think the image above is dreadful. It makes me reach for the sick bucket. In my humble opinion, almost everything about it is wrong.
Now you may realise why I am not a member of that camera club, because the image was made by one of the stalwarts of the club.
Should I be flattered? Or just regard the image similarity as a fluke.
Is copying someone elses images or ideas as closely as this an ok thing to do?
Ken C
Edited:
Well, after reading some comments I want to say that today slightly different point of view does not proof anything. Today software makes not only vignetting, but sky replacement and tilt and shift imitation. I think it is your photo, but guy invest a time in making it look worse than you did.
Cheers
S.
--
Camera in bag tends to stay in bag...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xiafei/
Before
and after
--
Camera in bag tends to stay in bag...
--
Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed. Quote by Garry Winogrand
Zenfolio | Charles Black Photography
Greetings to all, and thank you for visiting my gallery site. You'll notice there are a lot of photos of concerts and other performances. For over a decade I have been the house photographer CSPS Hall. The main purpose of this site is to present photos from my years at CSPS Hall, as well as...
eyeguessphotography.com
daddyo
Forum Pro
It's a common issue, and one that there is no control over. When you shoot a scene in a creative way, you want to feel that your image is very unique. Unfortunately, if you share it on line, someone will often copy your unique approach to that very same scene -- and that looks like what has happened here.
I've had the same experience myself. I shot the image below in 2002 and felt it was a very unique view of the Texas State Capitol -- I titled it "Hats Off To Texas" and have sold a number of prints of it over the years.
Then a year or so ago, I got a free credit union calendar and opened it up to see a virtual replica of my image. It was so close, I had to compare it to my image to make sure someone had not pirated the image. Sure enough, you can find the image licensed by Getty with photo credit to 'SunChan' at this link:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/p...ding-with-statue-royalty-free-image/157732627
This is a much newer image than mine, as the Capitol dome in this one had been renovated a few years back.
Here is my original image:
Just as in your case, my only consolation is that I feel my image is better than the Getty version.
--
God Bless,
Greg
www.imagismphotos.com
www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com
www.pbase.com/daddyo
I've had the same experience myself. I shot the image below in 2002 and felt it was a very unique view of the Texas State Capitol -- I titled it "Hats Off To Texas" and have sold a number of prints of it over the years.
Then a year or so ago, I got a free credit union calendar and opened it up to see a virtual replica of my image. It was so close, I had to compare it to my image to make sure someone had not pirated the image. Sure enough, you can find the image licensed by Getty with photo credit to 'SunChan' at this link:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/p...ding-with-statue-royalty-free-image/157732627
This is a much newer image than mine, as the Capitol dome in this one had been renovated a few years back.
Here is my original image:
Just as in your case, my only consolation is that I feel my image is better than the Getty version.
--
God Bless,
Greg
www.imagismphotos.com
www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com
www.pbase.com/daddyo
Ken Croft
Senior Member
Actually daddyo, I don't feel bad about it at all, I just thought it might raise discussion as an alternative to the "mine is bigger/ smaller/smarter/ etc than yours" that so often prevails in these forums. What did concern me is that I had shown my picture to a newish aquaintance of mine who is a member of the camera club. At first I thought that he must have taken the similar image, and since he is a long time full frame enthusiast with two Canon 5d2 and one Canon 5d4 and a collection of all-pro Canon glass, I was appalled that so much expenditure might have resulted in an image with dreadful colour and in my opinion such terrible over-processing. I was relieved to find the image was not his, and that led on to finding who the photog was. But no, I am not at all upset even if the guy did see my image, seek out the location, and make his own version of the scene. That is his choice.
antoineb
Veteran Member
Hi Ken,
are you trolling or for real?
Your shot is in full daylight and fairly bland. The other shot looks like the same shot, way over-processed. Neither is interesting or good, imho.
As for the originality: where I live, if I do a 20min bike tour I'll see comparable scenes about 10 to 20 times: hay in the lower fields, sunflower fields, the odd tree, the odd church. I probably have a zillion shots like yours, hopefully in more interesting light and with a more interesting composition - note that I only said "hopefully". And it's not just me - it's thousands of other people, times thousand of other fields, i.e. million upon million of similar or probably better shots like yours.
What I mean is, you can hardly claim any original creation here.
are you trolling or for real?
Your shot is in full daylight and fairly bland. The other shot looks like the same shot, way over-processed. Neither is interesting or good, imho.
As for the originality: where I live, if I do a 20min bike tour I'll see comparable scenes about 10 to 20 times: hay in the lower fields, sunflower fields, the odd tree, the odd church. I probably have a zillion shots like yours, hopefully in more interesting light and with a more interesting composition - note that I only said "hopefully". And it's not just me - it's thousands of other people, times thousand of other fields, i.e. million upon million of similar or probably better shots like yours.
What I mean is, you can hardly claim any original creation here.
That's what Tom Lehrer says!
On 17 July I took this image of sunflowers, including the roll of straw for some foreground interest. I don't claim it be be a masterpiece of fine art, but I was happy with it and I posted it on my Flickr site.
Olympus M1/1. Oly 12-40mm
Then on 23 July, the image below was posted on the web site of the local camera club [I am not a member]. Is this just a flook, or did somebody see me in the field with my camera, or did someone look at my Flickr site? Who knows.
[ATTACH alt="NOT MY IMAGE. Lifted from the site of the "Objectif Duras" camera club."]1711057[/ATTACH]
NOT MY IMAGE. Lifted from the site of the "Objectif Duras" camera club.
Now my image is nothing too exciting, but I think the image above is dreadful. It makes me reach for the sick bucket. In my humble opinion, almost everything about it is wrong.
Now you may realise why I am not a member of that camera club, because the image was made by one of the stalwarts of the club.
Should I be flattered? Or just regard the image similarity as a fluke.
Is copying someone elses images or ideas as closely as this an ok thing to do?
Ken C
D
DeWitt
Guest
As an artist who at time paints plein air I painted a scene of some abandoned storefronts. Imagine my surprise when I walked into someone's office and saw a painting that was almost exactly the same as mine, even the same 16 x 20 size. My painting was still in my studio, not quite dry and hadn't been seen by anyone. The other artist obviously set up an easel in the same location sometime before I did mine. Of course, mine was the better painting
--
DeWitt
www.rdewitt.net
--
DeWitt
www.rdewitt.net
Last edited:
No doubt they are similar, but they are in fact, different images. And yes, it is OK to copy someone else's work. Your images maybe copyrighted... but ideas are not.That's what Tom Lehrer says!
On 17 July I took this image of sunflowers, including the roll of straw for some foreground interest. I don't claim it be be a masterpiece of fine art, but I was happy with it and I posted it on my Flickr site.
Olympus M1/1. Oly 12-40mm
Then on 23 July, the image below was posted on the web site of the local camera club [I am not a member]. Is this just a flook, or did somebody see me in the field with my camera, or did someone look at my Flickr site? Who knows.
[ATTACH alt="NOT MY IMAGE. Lifted from the site of the "Objectif Duras" camera club."]1711057[/ATTACH]
NOT MY IMAGE. Lifted from the site of the "Objectif Duras" camera club.
Now my image is nothing too exciting, but I think the image above is dreadful. It makes me reach for the sick bucket. In my humble opinion, almost everything about it is wrong.
Now you may realise why I am not a member of that camera club, because the image was made by one of the stalwarts of the club.
Should I be flattered? Or just regard the image similarity as a fluke.
Is copying someone elses images or ideas as closely as this an ok thing to do?
Ken C
--
JLTaylor
Senior Member
I do a lot of hiking, and have hiked most of the trails in my local area, so I have done many of them multiple times. I have a pretty good collection of photos taken in almost the exact same spot, 3 to 5 years apart. Sometimes with my wife in the exact same spot.
With all the photos being taken these days, almost any reasonable composition has been taken multiple times. I'd assume that since you liked the shot it is likely someone else saw it the same way.
With all the photos being taken these days, almost any reasonable composition has been taken multiple times. I'd assume that since you liked the shot it is likely someone else saw it the same way.
Gerry Siegel
Senior Member
You can never lose your work because it is still yours. We all have different fingerprints as well though some of the whorls are the same. Not something I personally would sweat, but it one of those things out there...I doubt any deceit involved. Musicians have same nagging discoveries as well.
Gary from Seattle
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,770
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 11,570
Quite honestly, I'm a bit surprised at the angst but do agree your image is better; but how many people would have passed that scene in that time and composed similar images?
Most disappointed at the number of people who copied my composition of the Treasury at Petra
If it really does annoy you, why not go back and take an image that is less obvious or generic. Go and do a timelapse. Different perspective, different aspect ratio. Get better skies, or different light.
That'll show them...
On a side note, you should really have put a link back to the original image, even though you might feel you own the concept, the other photographer has rights to their own image.
Most disappointed at the number of people who copied my composition of the Treasury at Petra
If it really does annoy you, why not go back and take an image that is less obvious or generic. Go and do a timelapse. Different perspective, different aspect ratio. Get better skies, or different light.
That'll show them...
On a side note, you should really have put a link back to the original image, even though you might feel you own the concept, the other photographer has rights to their own image.
Loading…
objectifduras.com
Last edited:
samtheman2014
Senior Member
samtheman2014
Senior Member
Sure, apart from the different AOV, the different framing , the very different processing , they are so much alike Seriously unless you are photographing something only you have private access to you can bet there will be very similar images out there. Think of any subject and have a gander through goggle images and see just how many similar photos you can find. By the way did you actually establish when he took the photo he may have taken it before you
Seriously unless you are photographing something only you have private access to you can bet there will be very similar images out there. Think of any subject and have a gander through goggle images and see just how many similar photos you can find. By the way did you actually establish when he took the photo he may have taken it before you Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum