Is Photography Dead?

Mike Warburton

Mike Warburton

Suspended / Banned
Messages
798
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Bit of a bold statement I know but I came across a pic uploaded to one of the many Facebook Photography Groups I am a member of the other day by one of the many Pro Photographers we have as members.
It was a fantastic image but was a composite.I have no problem with anyone doing composites or using layers etc to get to the desired image,each to their own.The fact that all the subject matter used,including the model and all the surroundings and setting except for the sky were taken by a different Photographer and downloaded from a stock agency library didnt sit right with me to be honest.
When I brought this up to him I did ask `How can it possibly be your image if practically all the subject matter was taken by someone else?`His reply was `Well I did all the processing after watching the Photographers tutorial so of course its mine`.
He couldnt understand my point that his very limited Photographic contributation (the sky) didnt mean the image was his.
Is this common practice now to download stock images (with permission) and use them in composites and claim full rights to the pic?
I can understand folk downloading and using layers and textures but is using practically all the subject matter taken by another Photographer right......I dont think so in my opinion or am I just an old Dinosaur that needs to move with the times?
 
One dinosaur to another ... no it isn't right :)
 
I don't think he can claim full rights to the image legally. It's a derivative work and I suspect the licensing on the stick images would preclude him from doing so.
 
I have to say that the image wasnt made for any commercial gain,just the result of a tutorial.The group rules state though that images should be your own.Morally I think it is wrong,I just wondered what others thought?
 
Mike Warburton said:
His reply was `Well I did all the processing after watching the Photographers tutorial so of course its mine`.
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like the response of a pro photographer to me. Define pro? He's done the odd bit of work for £100 a job? There's pro defined by the dictionary, and there's real professionals. He doesn't sound like the latter to me.

Using appropriated imagery is nothing new. Tons of artists do it. "Less Américains" by Mishka Henner is a good example. At least he was doing it to make political and social statements though. Sounds like your guy is just arsing about with no intellectual or artistic reason behind his actions... in which case, no, it doesn't sit well with me either.
 
Last edited:
Strictly speaking the title is a little bit off as someone has still had to shoot the images used, I do worry about the person you've communicated with as he does seem to be a little misguided
 
^this...

...forgot to add... Is photography dead? Why.. just because someone has done a composite image? No... of course it's not. I really don't get your thread title if I'm honest.
 
What I meant by the title is that he downloaded the images from a stock library with permission. So technically it is possible to create a whole image without even having to own a Camera or take a Photograph hence `Is Photography Dead`.A bit vague I suppose lol.
Thanks for the input so far and by saying he is a pro I believe he earns a living from it (Weddings etc).
 
Pookeyhead said:
Using appropriated imagery is nothing new. Tons of artists do it. "Less Américains" by Mishka Henner is a good example.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Pop Art was founded on it (Hamilton, Blake and Warhol Spring to mind immediately); Picasso and Braque used collage of found material in the early days of Cubism.
 
Musicman said:
Indeed. Pop Art was founded on it (Hamilton, Blake and Warhol Spring to mind immediately); Picasso and Braque used collage of found material in the early days of Cubism.
Click to expand...

Cheapskates! :LOL:
 
Its still his work as a retoucher, you just have to say Im a retoucher rather than photographer. Same as a darkroom technician would show other photographers work to show what they can do with it. He cant claim this as his work though. He should be clear and say he is retouching only and then we may find artistic merit in his retouching.
 
I think we'd need to see the work in order to establish what merits it has. Anything else is speculation on our part.
 
very true.
 
Regardless of how it stands up as a piece of art, its still photography, as its made up of photographic images, but I wouldn't necessarily say the creator was practising photography, more a digital artist.
 
I dont want to name the guy or show the image here (it isnt mine to show) but just wanted folks views on whether or not its right to call an image yours if it was 90% made up from another Photographers images.
Many thanks for the input,much appreciated.
 
its a difficult one, he may have taken 5 very average or even weak images and made something amazing. in which case the photographers were merely button pressers and he had the artistic vision to make something of it. In that case hes more entitled. We should value artistic vision regardless of how it is created. As an example if you made an amazing sculpture out of empty milk bottles you might be credited as an amazing artist, i dont think cow&gate will get much of a look-in :D
 
Mike Warburton said:
I dont want to name the guy or show the image here (it isnt mine to show)
Click to expand...

No.. of course.. but has HE published it? Is it on a website anywhere? Nothing wrong with posting a link.
 
I belong to a club and one of the rules is it has to be your work. i have no problems with using multiply images or parts of images but it is my work. i am doing nothing that hasn't been done before even pre computers
 
wave01 said:
I belong to a club and one of the rules is it has to be your work.
Click to expand...

And there is the problem with most camera clubs. Closed minded and out of touch and imposing rules on what is acceptable... usually from old men with beards who have no idea what's happening in the art world/industry because they've never actually been involved with it. Artists have re-appropriated images for decades.. centuries even. Nothing new here.
 
I think you are missing the point no one objects to being creative in fact we promote it. the problem is as i understand it it was not his original work and to me thats not right.
 
wave01 said:
I think you are missing the point no one objects to being creative in fact we promote it. the problem is as i understand it it was not his original work and to me thats not right.
Click to expand...

The work is his largely as he put it together, he needs to adhere to the photographers terms of use. Which is normally a mention, sometimes nothing, maybe a link, who knows. Within reason you must value artistic vision over pressing a button on a machine. To me the issue here is more about copyright/lisence to use. The tone of the thread feels slightly along the lines of "you cant touch it if you didnt take it"
if this guy has created this image then the final image is his work providing he adheered to terms of use.

Look up what retouchers do, they basically only work on the images if others. Those images make the portfolio of both photographer and retoucher, on retouching forums people go wild over the retouchers images for their retouching skill and say wow check out xyzs latest pic!
 
Last edited:
Are we talking morally or legally?

The music industry went through a lot of law suits around this topic in the 1980s when digital sampling took off.

Legally, he's the author of a derivative work and has rights to the original elements of that work (the specific arrangement of the photographs in your mosaic example) but not exclusive rights.

The owners of the original pictures that make up the mosaic retain their rights to those elements in the final product. The rights to the mosaic image are shared between all the parties.

However, fail to secure the proper permissions to reproduce the elements that make up your mosaic picture and you may find yourself with nothing left at all.

Back to the music example, The Verve got into serious trouble with the Rolling Stones over using more of a sample on Bittersweet Symphony than had been agreed in their licensing agreement. The Verve ended up losing all of their royalties in an out of court settlement; they never made a penny on what was a huge hit single.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Sweet_Symphony#Song_credits
 
Last edited:
coldpenguin said:
So what about, playing devils advocate, a photomosaic? (Slightly off topic, but not by far really)

I am not the author of this picture.
However, what if the 'author' of this picture, used none of his own pictures to create the image. Is the 'art' still theirs?

Suggested image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mosaicr_seagull.jpg
Original article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_mosaic
Click to expand...

As an artist they they are the creator of that image, to what extent the image can be used depends on the photographer and their rights of use that they issue with the images. you can go onto deviant art and find pictures that no one minds if you sell in a gallery as long as you alter it fairly significantly from the original, even sell as stock for yourself as long as you change it in post production. You can find images that just want you to credit them and link back or you can find people that want payment every time you use it and wont let you use it commercially at all. in the end it depends on the photographer. But to say the final image is not the work of the retoucher is incorrect. The situation simply is not black or white. My main issue with this is the idea that I feel creeping in that this is somehow wrong even if photographer consents and that it somehow isnt art if the picture was taken by someone else. This makes no sense at all. As musicman pointed out many musicians sample or copy parts of other songs. If you really look into that youll be amazed how many songs do this. It is standard in the art world to copy and use other peoples work to make something new which is still art.
 
Hi all.
The first rule in the group he posted it in states `Only post images that are your own`.
The guy made up a composite of someone elses images through a Youtube tutorial which is fine and his finished image was almost identical to the tutorial.He then uploaded it to the group and was happy to get all the likes and comments such as `Amazing work` etc including by me.
Over a week later someone popped the link to the tutorial saying `I have seen this image before` and then the guy came back on and said `Oh yeah I forgot to say that this is a composite`.This I find deceitful as it was only when the link was put up did he decide to explain how he made the image. I was genuinely interested in how he could use someone elses images to make a composite and then put his watermark to it and call it his own and then it turned sour.The group admin has since deleted the image (which was very good I have to add) as it didnt comply with group rules.Had he posted a link to the tutorial saying `This is how I created this image` then it wouldnt have gone the way it did as it was a very useful tutorial.
This is a moral issue to be honest as it wasnt made for financial gain but in my opinion purely to dupe members into thinking it was his concept,images and processing that made the finished image in order for it to be popular.I have since been sent links to seven other almost exact copies of tutorial images he has uploaded to various groups claiming they are his.

I have no problem in anyone doing whatever they wish to create an image but when it is done like that where do basic Photography skills come into it such as Exposure,Lighting,Composition,Depth of Field and Camera Settings etc? They dont,just a skilled hand with a decent editing programme and that in my mind isnt Photography.
Photography means `Painting with light` not `Painting with a cursor on a PC`.
 
MWHCVT said:
I'm sorry to say that sounds just a bit like sour grapes to go around other groups calling him out as it were :(
Click to expand...
I wouldnt say I am calling him out as I havent and wouldnt name him.
All I wanted to know was folks opinions on here as to whether or not what he did was defined as Photography and whether or not they think the image is his?
 
Mike Warburton said:
I wouldnt say I am calling him out as I havent and wouldnt name him.
All I wanted to know was folks opinions on here as to whether or not what he did was defined as Photography and whether or not they think the image is his?
Click to expand...

But as I understood your post you said you'd posted on his photo in multiple groups a link to the tutorial he had followed...it has to also be understood rightly or wrongly he was working from a position that he had done all the processing to create the end work so it was he work, the reality however from looking at it from an external perspective is that it's a derivative work at best as its made up mostly of other photographers images
 
Its digital art, not photography as its not taking a picture. Photography probably being the simpler of the two.
 
MWHCVT said:
But as I understood your post you said you'd posted on his photo in multiple groups a link to the tutorial he had followed...it has to also be understood rightly or wrongly he was working from a position that he had done all the processing to create the end work so it was he work, the reality however from looking at it from an external perspective is that it's a derivative work at best as its made up mostly of other photographers images
Click to expand...
Not in multiple groups Matthew,just the one.
 
Last edited:
Mike Warburton said:
Not in multiple groups Matthew,just the one.
Click to expand...

I do apologise I did somehow read your post in some totally random order when seeing the bit about sent links to seven images in groups :(
 
Mike Warburton said:
The guy made up a composite of someone elses images through a Youtube tutorial which is fine and his finished image was almost identical to the tutorial.He then uploaded it to the group and was happy to get all the likes and comments such as `Amazing work` etc including by me.
Over a week later someone popped the link to the tutorial saying `I have seen this image before` and then the guy came back on and said `Oh yeah I forgot to say that this is a composite`
Click to expand...

Trying to pass off appropriated imagery as your own original work is just plagiarism, pure and simple. This "Pro" you refer to sounds less and less like a pro the more I hear about him. If you make it clear from the start that the work is a composite of found, or already published work, then it's a different matter, but to deceive people like this just makes you look like a nobhead.
 
IMO there is far too much manipulation going on with software etc. Back in the day (yawn) we used to call it 'bracketing' and 'composition', a little adjustment of each and ,as long as you had nailed focus and exposure you got a nice,usable image.
It seems to this dinosaur that some folks just point ,shoot and then use a program to create the picture on a computer instead of photographing it in the first place. It all seems very artificial and false to me.
This is not a criticism of PP I hasten to add.
I'll also add that I'm not very literate when it comes to computers and PP programs like Capture1,Lightroom,Photoshop etc.
 
This case seems to have nothing to do with art, photography, appropriation, or anything really.

He followed a post production tutorial and used the source images they provided(?). That's for practicing at home, and should never have been published in the first place - unless for some reason he wanted to say, "Hey look, I followed this tutorial!".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top