Inspiration or Copyright?

Lornamower

Lornamower

Suspended / Banned
Messages
220
Name
Lorna
Edit My Images
Yes
Recently I have started following a few groups on facebook, and tonight I have seen one group slandered and a fast appology posted up to their page after they posted a photo in the style of another artist, and a large argument between people either saying its copyrighted or there isnt a problem.

When I was a photography student, I was very much encouraged to take an artist or photographers work, use it for inspiration and develop and modify it and make it fit my own style.

I expect people have individual opinions on this, but would it not be an honour for people to look up to your work enough for it to spark some inspiration inside of them in amounts for them to want to recreate it in their style?

Furthermore, can the copyright awarded to the photographer after taking a shot then allow them to copyright the whole concept of the photograph...which in turn would surely make it pretty much impossible for any photographer to take many photos at all without encroching suck copyrights.

Little bit of a rant I know.
 
Which makes the oft snapped Blackrock Cottage photo a bit iffy, possibly?

Surely the relatively recent case involving a colour popped bus in front of Westminster Palace on a bridge proves that an idea/style can be copyrighted? The photo that the case concerned (the copy not the "original") wasn't even a direct copy, it was just a photo of a bus in a different place on the bridge from a different angle.
 
Lornamower said:
When I was a photography student, I was very much encouraged to take an artist or photographers work, use it for inspiration and develop and modify it and make it fit my own style.
Click to expand...


Using something as inspiration is one thing, directly copying is another. However, you can't copyright an idea, but you can get into trouble if you make an exact copy of another's work. Even if you didn't get into trouble, it's still plagiarism, and I'm wondering how you can feel proud of work you have copied from another.

This is why I fail to see the point in taking some photographs though, as they've just been done so many, many times. Google "Durdle Door" and select images - You'll see what I mean. That makes a mockery of the "red bus" case really doesn't it?

Be inspired by.. yes. Replicate? No... it's lame... and lazy.
 
Nod said:
Which makes the oft snapped Blackrock Cottage photo a bit iffy, possibly?

Surely the relatively recent case involving a colour popped bus in front of Westminster Palace on a bridge proves that an idea/style can be copyrighted? The photo that the case concerned (the copy not the "original") wasn't even a direct copy, it was just a photo of a bus in a different place on the bridge from a different angle.
Click to expand...

No, we have to be careful not to take that case out of context.
The thief had already been in court for his use of the original image. His answer to that was to copy the image in order to avoid paying the original photographer. The case was all about intent. The thief was quite rightly fined for shocking attitude to IP.
 
I have never taken a photo of the "Durdle Door" but I am sure if I went to Lulworth I would take a few. Never been to the Taj Mahal either but I am sure if I went I would take photographs of it. Why not, most places have been photographed millions of times, but not by me. It is not lame or lazy it is in the main what photography is about (a record of where we have been and what we have achieved)
 
theres a difference between photographing something that has been taken before - and slavishly copying another photographers style and context when you do it
 
Found those answers interesting as I'm also currently a student being encouraged to shoot part of my portfolio in the style of a famous photographer but not copy exactly.

Phew I'm ok :)
 
Found those replies very interesting, I think, with many people, when you first start in photography there's a kind of 'journey' you take, and so for a lot of people those shots that everyone is so fed up with is just part of that until people learn what they do and don't like, and find their own style. I mean we all have to start somewhere!
 
Ah you're a Curvy Kate girl then? I saw that unfurl on FB yesterday too. I think some of the anger was down to the fact that the original image was a social comment about rape/sexualisation of women and the curvy kate image copied it directly but "prettied" the image, put some flowery font on it and omitted the words that were less than pleasant terms about women of ill repute - then used the image as an advertising campaign for their brand.

I personally don't think there is any doubt about the concept, and no way it could have been accidentally copied or even inspired by the original image, it was too similar and their 'interpretation' of the image was an insult to the original.

I like Curvy Kate as a brand, and I really like what they do, their social comments on self image and their use of their own customers as models in their advertising campaign - kind of along the lines of the Dove Real Women Campaign. I do think that their quick recognition of their faux pas speaks volumes and as a company they clearly listened to what their customers fed back to them and removed the image and issued an apology.
 
munch said:
I have never taken a photo of the "Durdle Door" but I am sure if I went to Lulworth I would take a few. Never been to the Taj Mahal either but I am sure if I went I would take photographs of it.
Click to expand...


So would I. Knowing it was such a photographed place though, I'd do some research on ways to NOT photograph it just to ensure I was doing something original.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top