Another "Artist" not respecting photographer copyright.

Pure plagiarism.
 
kendo1 said:
Pure plagiarism.
Click to expand...
And yet the article comments very little on the copyright breach and concentrates entirely on the subjects of the photos.
It doesn't comment at all on the fact that the photos shouldn't have been used, even if the subjects had given permission, as the final decision to allow the use would have been with the photographer.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a problem with artists using found photographs without permission. Photomontage has always worked like that. Warhol and the Pop Artists did it. Francis Bacon did it. The list goes on. Fair game in my eyes. Photographers ought to be used to it by now. :D

What is outrageous is the artist claiming they took the original photographs.
 
There is a passing mention of pinching from photographers, but in this instance the photographer is not known, we do not know if the photographer has held copyright. The only known is the person whose photographs have been used without authorisation.
 
Last edited:
Orangecroc said:
Ed Sutton said:
What is outrageous is the artist claiming they took the original photographs.
Click to expand...
A blatant attempt to avoid copyright, and you can see he has flipped images and removed recognisable parts of them to try and hide it.
Click to expand...

He's transformed the images and re-purposed them. So what?

Really, some people get far too precious about their photographs.

It's the lack of artistic integrity of lying about having taken the photos himself which is shameful. Are the 'quotes' equally fictitious? Credibility down the pan.


(Where's the stirring it smiley? :LOL:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah. Here it is.

icon_stir.gif
 
DemiLion said:
...and yet you have a copyright disclaimer on your website stating that the text and photos may not be copied.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's just for show though as I know it makes no difference because this photo of mine from elsewhere is all over the place. I've had others taken down in the past, but that one isn't worth the effort.

I still think there is a difference between copying a photo (or a text) and passing it off as your own work or using it unaltered for commercial purposes and taking someone's picture and reworking it. I don't see it as black and white.

But, today I was bored and mostly I felt like
icon_stir.gif
.

:D
 
I have to agree with the sentiment of Ed's 'trolling' - the worst allegation is that this is a fundamentally dishonest piece of art, and that the line Besant fed the magazine interviewer (and presumably the sponsor) was nonsense. After all, who would want to hang about in an underpass accosting random strangers? - much easier to sit down somewhere warm, grab some random photos off the Internet, and make up the quotes (allegedly). It would have been almost as bad if he'd taken shots of his mates down the pub, and represented them as strangers in the underpass.
 
I tend to agree with our local dissident. Breach of copyright is of little or no importance here - if you actually want a nice mono portrait of Bisha Ali, you're hardly likely to settle for a blurry version with WANT LOVE written across it :-) You want the original. I can't see Jayde Adams as losing out in any way.

What *is* a disgrace is that he claimed to have photographed local people in the subway, but couldn't be bothered, or found it too hard, and just used random pics of minor celebs instead. Artistic integrity down the pan.
 
The copyright infringement is naughty, especially for a piece of work he was being paid for. But 'reworking' existing work is pretty commonplace so often seems to fall into the "technically wrong but we'll overlook it if you do it well and in good faith" category.

But in this case it is compounded by the breathtaking mendacity of fabricating the whole basis of the project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top