Would you be annoyed if someone copied your image ?

I've had people contact me before and ask how I took a particular shot because they want to do the same kind of thing. If often turns out different anyway as everyone brings thier own interpritation to the party. I'm oftern inspired by films when I take photos, as has been said it's very difficut to be origional. The OP's shot actually reminds me of the Cartier Bresson shot with the bike going past...

artwork_images_424175658_232693_henri-cartier-bresson.jpg


...I'm sure you could go further back and find a painting from the same angle.
 
Forgive me if this has been mentioned already, but how can this guy have "copied" the OP's picture if the OP's was taken on 6th May (exif data on flickr), and the other guy's was taken on 12th October 08 (exif data on flickr) ?

Either I'm confused or I need to re-read this thread again....
 
The OP's picture is the second link posted.

It's the other way around, unless it's me that's got it wrong lol.
 
I liked the angle of the 2nd one better (sorry dude), though I agree it most definitely was inspired by the OP photo. I would be flattered if anybody had tried to copy or even improve on any shot I'd taken, surely that's a sign that people like your photo!! :D
 
The guy who's flickr you're linking too is going to be delighted by the amount of people who have looked at his work today :lol:
 
I very much doubt that the OP's pic is the first from that viewpoint and at that angle. For any photographer with an eye for a picture, it's an obvious shot as soon as you see it. I very much doubt that the most recent copier's version of the shot will be the last, either for the same reason.

I've got loads of pics from the late '70s that I've seen as postcards since (same viewpoint etc) but I'm pretty damn sure that it's purely coincidence. If anything, the OP may like to pity the first copier - or even take some pride in being an inspiration to him/her.
 
scraggs said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

I think "get a life" is a bit harsh. Of course it's a fact of life and of course there's nothing you can do about it! But that doesn't mean it's unacceptable to be a bit miffed, I might well be too! (although I probably wouldn't request they take it down ;))
 
Imitation is the biggest form of flattery.

There really is not much originality in this world and everyone is copying each other all the time.
 
hello all,

i just wonder how many sports photographers have taken bike shots at the montain, at Cadwell Park over the years and thought the same,100's, 1000's, 1000000's.of them.

and if you compare them, they are all much a likeness to another.
slighty different, different lighting, crowd in the background etc etc etc.

so don't be worried or upset.

theres more to worry about in life.

like when will i find a mint EF400mm f2.8 is for around £200.:shrug:

cheers paul.:thumbs:
 
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.

<snip>
Click to expand...

I can definitely emphasise with your initial annoyance but when think about it, as its such a contrasting image you were probably were not even the first person to take this shot to begin with. Obviously in your case you didnt set out to copy someone else and this other person did seem to blatantly copy you by favouriting your pic and then shooting a similar pic in the same location. However, have you never been inspired by a picture and tried to recreate a photo even if its in a completely different location? To me, that is the same thing - no harm in it. A lot of what we do is by the inspiration of others even if we do tend to add our own creativity to build upon that inspiration.
 
Itti said:
I think "get a life" is a bit harsh. Of course it's a fact of life and of course there's nothing you can do about it! But that doesn't mean it's unacceptable to be a bit miffed, I might well be too! ...
Click to expand...
:agree:

I think some of the comments here are a bit unfair.

wavefront shared with us how he felt about the "copy" he has seen posted - we should be generous & help him deal with it. Of course one can't do anything about it, and the most helpful posts are the posts sympathising because it has happened in the respondent's own camera club.

IMO there are many posts on this forum which are far less useful, interesting or unique than wavefront's one. He has at least brought some insightful responses and I for one have learned something from this thread.

Stroller.
 
Hi All,

I didn't expect my query to generate so much interest.... even if for a few of you it was just to to tell me to get a life ;) And as I have one well sorted out and in no hurry to change it (thank you very much), I just wanted to also say thanks to those who gave the genuine and thoughtful input. I also want to say thanks to the photographer I linked to in my original post as he kindly got in contact (he reads these forums too) to reassure me he was indeed only using my image as inspiration. I do now believe that and as he knows from my reply, really no hard feelings and I wish him the best of luck with his photography. :) The only reason I'm posting this is I find the whole debate very interesting and I'm learning lots.

To add a few things since reading the forum replies, I think a few may have missed the point of my initial ramble - which wasn't at all about " how dare another photographer take the same view as me" - it would be completely naive of me to think that I can be the only photographer of a particular view - it was about the boundaries / ethics of openly using a photo as an influence and how much different to the original it should / shouldn't be before it would be deemed deliberate plagerism. And yes, I have been inspired by others shots - many a time - that's a good thing, but for me the inspiration is about how to take a shot, a type of subject matter, atmosphere, types of people - I would say loose inspiration.

I haven't a problem at all with the same sort of shots being taken by different photographers - it's inevitable, and in groups you will always find the same shots etc etc. And photographers will find the "photographers" shot. I have absolutely no issue with that.

But to play the devils advocate here a bit and because I find this really interesting, is that if we are all apparently happy with others taking the same shots (many replies in the thread mentioned that it is inevitable, and even if it's deliberate it should be accepted etc), what is copyright for and why do we all try to protect it ? If I went out and took an exact copy of one of your shots I saw on your flickr site, then theoretically you could own the copyright of your shot, and I could own the copyright of my shot (as I took it and you don't 'own' that view or idea) , even though it is identical to yours ?

Is this acceptable practice ? I'm not to sure many of you would like me doing that, and I'd like to think it's not the right thing to do from my experience in other creative industries, but that's where it gets tricky.

We don't (and can't) 'own' a view/concept that we photograph and get upset if we see others photographers shots are by chance the same - we all clearly agree on that. But I think we should get upset if someone directly copies your work deliberately with no attempt to add their own twist, thought, or creativity. Which leaves me to ponder that fine line between what is a copy or what is inspired. At what point should we get a bit annoyed ?

There is no answer, and it will always be so very subjective and up for debate. Unfortunately it's what I completely misjudged and got wrong when starting this thread. In hindsight I do think Kevin's shot was inspired by mine, and he did actually set out to take his own version and put his own stamp on it - and that is a great way of learning. And I was very happy to hear some of you preferred his version too ! :thumbs:

Enough from me tonight.
 
I liked both shots ... but thats due to the shots being different. Of the same thing I grant you but raising an argument on copyright doesn't hold up in this case ...IMHO. Copyright on the image if anything should be with the original designer but that is difficult to uphold as even building designs are copied.

I think you should just be proud of the picture you took knowing that it was good enough to be inspiration for a fellow tog.

Paul
 
There's nothing wrong with this, legally or ethically. Photographers in the US try to replicate Ansell Adam's work, to the extent of sharing information on forums about the places he visited, where he probably stood and when the light is going to be right.

You can copy a Picasso, or any other famous painting, and sell it as a copy. No problem. You only break the law if you try to pass it off as an original.
 
Wavefront,

I think the points you raise are very valid and I'm see I'm (almost) the only one on here to agree that the other photographer had a bit of a cheek to copy your image. Mind you, if you post your images on the web, you do run the risk of it happening.

There are bound to be many situations where two photographers or any number of them will come up with virtually the same picture. But it seems your situation was different. Someone saw your image and went out and deliberately copied it. I'm not sure how this relates to copyright but there may be better places to look for a solution than here (see for example www.own-it.org).

Anyway you have raised some interesting questions and i hope you don't feel as if you were shot down too drastically.

Perhaps the acceptance by someone that copying is "valid" indicates a willingness to do the same thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top