Would you be annoyed if someone copied your image ?

W

wavefront

Suspended / Banned
Messages
160
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I was after some opinions ? I'm quite annoyed that someone has deliberately copied an image of mine (one of my favorites).... When I say copy, they took the picture themselves, but they went out and took it the day after seeing and 'favorite' ing one of my images on Flickr.

I'm quite flattered in one way that they sought to go out and recreate my image almost exactly, but as my image is pretty unique and original, I'm annoyed he is passing off the idea of the shot as his own.

Here's his version

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32415099@N00/3513304033/

Here's my original

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ben0509uk/2935924320/


I can't see how you can stop / limit someone taking the same picture (and I don't want to after we all unitentionally take the same postcard shots of the London eye / landmarks etc etc), but as my image is one of my images I would say sums me up the best, or sums up my style of photography (very graphical in composition and makeup), and I spent a fair while getting the composition just right, I feel that he gone out of his way and intentionally stolen my work. Does that sound odd ?

I've asked him to remove his photo from Flickr or credit me in some way.

But now I in hindsight I'd appreciate your thoughts....
 
There is nothing you can do. He's done nothing wrong, except maybe in his own head. Its a different pic. You can't claim any rights to that particular view. Just be flattered he copied you.

If you have a creative mind, then you'll continue to produce cool photos. If he can only do the same by copying, then it just demonstrates his lack of the same.
 
Haha! Until he starts following you around, don't be silly ;)
 
wavefront said:
Hi All,

I was after some opinions ? I'm quite annoyed that someone has deliberately copied an image of mine (one of my favorites).... When I say copy, they took the picture themselves, but they went out and took it the day after seeing and 'favorite' ing one of my images on Flickr.

I'm quite flattered in one way that they sought to go out and recreate my image almost exactly, but as my image is pretty unique and original, I'm annoyed he is passing off the idea of the shot as his own.

Here's his version

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32415099@N00/3513304033/

Here's my original

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ben0509uk/2935924320/


I can't see how you can stop / limit someone taking the same picture (and I don't want to after we all unitentionally take the same postcard shots of the London eye / landmarks etc etc), but as my image is one of my images I would say sums me up the best, or sums up my style of photography (very graphical in composition and makeup), and I spent a fair while getting the composition just right, I feel that he gone out of his way and intentionally stolen my work. Does that sound odd ?

I've asked him to remove his photo from Flickr or credit me in some way.

But now I in hindsight I'd appreciate your thoughts....
Click to expand...

:suspect: :the bolded bit: You're joking right?

I don't think he did anything wrong at all. He probably used your shot as inspiration, nothing more. I know I search flickr occasionally for inspiration, what's wrong with that :shrug: As you say and as it is plain to see, the shot is different to yours.
 
Hi All,

Thanks for your replies, and I think I'll just forget about it, though it has raised some more questions in my head about ethics and visual plagiarism in general (I work in the design industry so it's a subject close to my heart which I've already been researching)......

And Jo, yeah, 10 mins after asking the other photographer, I did think it was a bit silly and retracted my request - it was in his photostream so it was quickly deleted.

If you have any opinions (not relating directly to the images in my earlier post) on what you consider visual plagiarism is, or the boundaries between copying anothers images and being inspired by anothers image I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Does a photographer have any rights to the visual design of his photo if it contains obvious elements ? How obvious or strong would those elements have to be copied to be consider plagiarised ? Is this only applicable to shots which have more 'design' in them ?

Any thoughts welcome ?
 
It's a good photo, and if I was you, I'd just be flattered that someone liked your idea enough to try to copy it! I don't see how your shot is 'unique and original' when that view is there for anyone to take pictures of. I've just searched Flickr for 'worthing pier steps' and there are 4 pictures on there, taken from a similar viewpoint! Now if you had taken the picture and he had put it up on Flickr as his own, that would be a whole different story.
Just think of all the shots taken by famous photographers over the years... how many people have tried to recreate those shots? Hell, on my photography course, I did a full assignment on getting as close as I could to recreating some famous shots!

If you don't want people trying to recreate your images, then the first thing to do is not put them on the internet! There may be lots of people who have seen your images and thought... 'that's a good idea - I'll give it a go'!!
 
I'm a member of a camera club and yes it does occasionally happen ...so much so that I thought one of the images was actually mine:D:D

I guess we all do it to a certain extent as we all see 10000's of photos and subconsciously recreate some of them as we shoot:shrug:

Just take a look at the latest edition of Digital SLR (June) They have tried to recreate the famous Pier Blown dress shot by Bert Hardy.
 
Many images look similar as that's the scene you are presented with, I too also look for inspiration in other togs and artists work, but don't consider it copying, Eosjohn and I often have very similar images, not surprising, as we go out togging together, and we enjoy discussing what drew ourself to a certain composition
 
wavefront said:
Hi All,

Thanks for your replies, and I think I'll just forget about it, though it has raised some more questions in my head about ethics and visual plagiarism in general (I work in the design industry so it's a subject close to my heart which I've already been researching)......

And Jo, yeah, 10 mins after asking the other photographer, I did think it was a bit silly and retracted my request - it was in his photostream so it was quickly deleted.

If you have any opinions (not relating directly to the images in my earlier post) on what you consider visual plagiarism is, or the boundaries between copying anothers images and being inspired by anothers image I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Does a photographer have any rights to the visual design of his photo if it contains obvious elements ? How obvious or strong would those elements have to be copied to be consider plagiarised ? Is this only applicable to shots which have more 'design' in them ?

Any thoughts welcome ?
Click to expand...

This is becoming an increasingly hot topic in the editorial world and more difficult to deal with. Getty images recently lost a court case in Paris for alleged plagiarism then won the appeal in the Parisian High court.
http://www.epuk.org/News/233/getty-images-wins-plagiarism-appeal
However, this is a clearly posed image involving models. When it comes to particular landscapes, buildings, even staircases, I doubt one can actually build a case to say anyone has plagiarized your image or idea, how many people have taken that shot you posted on flickr before you and didn't make it public? How many different shot angles can one achieve from the top of a staircase? The point to watch with buildings or segments of buildings, the staircase for example, is that it could be the copyright of the architect being infringed.
This will also interest you http://www.epuk.org/The-Curve/456/visual-plagiarism
In the nineties new guidelines were introduced to protect the intellectual property/copyrights for photographers, this was hard fought for and gave us the protection in law that was needed. This is now being reviewed and the review was brought about by an increase of rights grab contracts being issued by some of the media giants, stripping the photogs of the copyrights to the images used. This Government announced the review, why? If it is to enhance the protection we have, it isn't needed, although they said they are reviewing it to check we have the protection, my own feeling is that it is a doorway for the media giants to have their way and rights grab everything we produce.
I'm in danger of getting on my high horse here, been mugged off and ripped off by MGs too often.
 
On the bright side, your image is much better.

Is this a problem - I'm not sure it is. I'll freely admit to searching for photo's of a location/area if it's somewhere new I'm going. I also take inspiration from others photo's on here (although not necessarily direct copying). It's a great way to learn.

jerry12953 said:
I'm a bit surprised at the responses here.

It seems such a blatant copy I can understand why the OP was upset.

Is it really acceptable to behave like this?
Click to expand...

Difficult with structures though isn't it? Everyone takes a shot of the canary wharf buildings from the same point, probably the Taj Mahal, etc etc. The copier has appreciated the shot and tried his variation on it, just not as good.
 
Is it really acceptable to behave like this?
Click to expand...

Totally. The 2nd snapper may have seen the first shot and thought "I'd love to see that with the stairs coming in at an angle and the rail at the top going out at a more corresponding angle.

They are actually very different shots, with the 2nd obviously inspired by the 1st. It's how art works.

You know Count Basie once said "average composers borrow, great composers steal." :)
 
Byker28i said:
The copier has appreciated the shot and tried his variation on it, just not as good.
Click to expand...
I'm not clear who has copied who. Which was the 'original' image?

Not that it matters in the slightest. I'm pretty sure if I could be bothered to search through the piles of old negatives from when I was a photography-mad teenager I could show that I took a shot not unlike that I took on a cross channel ferry in the '70's. :suspect:
 
God this is an old argument!

One of my friends actually had a spat with a guy who was miffed because they had both taken a series of photos over a long period of time of one seaside town. In some cases one had spotted something before the other and in other cases it was reversed.

But neither had ever seen each other before until the guy spots my mates Flickr photostream over a year later!

Funnily enough if you let photographers with an eye for a shot loose in the same environment they will tend to find the same things....

Anyway after all sorts of stupidity the guy decided that it was a bit moronic and appologised...
 
minimeeze said:
It's a good photo, and if I was you, I'd just be flattered that someone liked your idea enough to try to copy it! I don't see how your shot is 'unique and original' when that view is there for anyone to take pictures of. I've just searched Flickr for 'worthing pier steps' and there are 4 pictures on there, taken from a similar viewpoint! Now if you had taken the picture and he had put it up on Flickr as his own, that would be a whole different story.
Just think of all the shots taken by famous photographers over the years... how many people have tried to recreate those shots? Hell, on my photography course, I did a full assignment on getting as close as I could to recreating some famous shots!

If you don't want people trying to recreate your images, then the first thing to do is not put them on the internet! There may be lots of people who have seen your images and thought... 'that's a good idea - I'll give it a go'!!
Click to expand...



I totally agree ......just be flattered and move on.
 
jerry12953 said:
I'm a bit surprised at the responses here.

It seems such a blatant copy I can understand why the OP was upset.

Is it really acceptable to behave like this?
Click to expand...

I think everyone can understand why the OP was upset, but instead shoud be flattered that someone thinks they are good enough to be copied.

Acceptable? Depends on what you are using the shot for. If the second photo was just for flickr, to show a few friends where's the harm?
 
There is a common phrase in camera club circles that relate to 'Standing in someone's tripod holes' - meaning taking the same shot from pretty much the same place

When I organise newbie trips for landscape work, it's not uncommon for one or more to ask if they can take the same shot they seem me doing - and I always help them to do just that, even lending a lens where needed

And as for studio training days !!! Well someone sets up a shot and the next 10 people all take exactly the same shot of the same bored model

I'd call it a compliment to be copied in this way - and not worry about it one jot

:)

DD
 
Isn't there a saying along the lines of there's no new ideas in photography just old ones getting re-hashed or words to that effect.
 
I'm afraid as others have said theres nothing you can do. In one way it's flattering, in another annoying.
In this case I'd say you inspited him rather than him copying you, he's liked your idea and run with it.
If you go to any of the "landmarks" you'll see hundreds of people standing in the same place to get the same shot, I once watched them queue up at Sailsbury cathedral, waiting for the one in front to finish his shot, so they could stand on the exact same place.
 
Haha are you serious?

I hope Edvard Munch wasn't pee'd off when I copied his image 'The Scream'

1893_edvard_munch_the_scream-wr400.jpg


3504191344_1722b7f281.jpg
 
jerry12953 said:
It appears that the photographer saw the OP's pic, marked it down as a favourite, then went to exactly the same spot and took the same pic.

It's not exactly the casual repetition of a well-known viewpoint, is it?
Click to expand...

It's not the same picture though, is it?! It's a different photo, of the same subject from a different angle. If it looked EXACTLY the same, then perhaps it would be a little more annoying, but as it stands I can't see the problem.
 
jerry12953 said:
I'm a bit surprised at the responses here.

It seems such a blatant copy I can understand why the OP was upset.

Is it really acceptable to behave like this?
Click to expand...

But it's not a blatant copy though, is it? It's at a slightly different angle and I think it makes a very different image. In fact I would go as far as to say I think the second image is better.

How many times has someone posted images on here, or any other photography forum, of say, a local beauty spot and someone has been inspired to visit that spot and taken photos? There's a high probability that they would come back with at least a similar shot to the one that inspired them in the first place.
 
imitation is the best form of flattery - suck it up ;)

of course, it is entirely plausible that someone else had a similar vision to yourself and has never seen your picture on flickr?

there was a time when someone first took a shot of St Paul's with the millenium footbridge in view and that was original...
 
Following quote lifted from an article about 'copying'
"When I first started in photography (early 1970’s) every shot published in the Photography magazines was listed with full technique, including type of camera, lens, film, aperture and shutter speed. The purpose was to facilitate other photographers ability to duplicate the shot. This is how we learned, and subsequently, how we taught the next generation.

The photographers in the article, especially those who sued, need to be reminded that photography is less a creative endeavor as it is one of documentation and recording. We do not bring into being something out of nothing, as do almost all other artists. We have no blank canvas, virtually everything we photograph is already there. I doubt that any photographer alive today can show me a shot that has absolutely no antecedent whatsoever."

by Matt Larson
 
Can the OP Prove that they were the first to go out and take that shot ?
No its probably been done hundreds of times & appears on forums everywhere.

I took what I thought was a unique shot at the Eden project, only to see another flickr Cornwall user posting an allmost identical one before I got around to posting mine :bang:

We all like to think that we have a good eye & the only way you will ever have a unique image is if you set it up yourself and then people may try and copy it !!
 
There's a nature reserve near Coventry where a Kingfisher hunts close to one of the hides. They have put up a branch close by just so that people can get a good shot. You have to sit in exactly the same spot to get the pic and I've seen several almost identical photos taken there, of the same bird, and I will keep going back until I get one of my own. (Last visit, Mr Kingfisher was not at home :( )

It might not be totally original, but it will be original to me, and will still take a lot of time and some skill with the right equipment to get it. I have never photographed a Kingfisher.
 
Is it just me who is thinking "get a life" does this now mean that at the next TP meet everyone has to be carefull not to take the same shot for fear of offending someone ?.
If someone wants to better one of my shots best of luck to them, it's been happening for years an always will.
 
Looks like about 100 togs taking a photo of a Jarno Trulli cardboard cutout lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top