Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
An 'Ethics' Question
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 748794" data-attributes="member: 9240"><p>To be clear, the two images are not precisely the same and were you to see them side by side the similarities would be blatantly obvious but you would never confuse one for the other. This is where I would disqualify calling it a "forgery". The copy borrows the concept, color scheme and key elements, but also adds some additional elements. So "plagiarism" can be argued in the same way that using wholesale sections of someone else's speech in your own with no attribution and as if they were your words is considered plagiarism. </p><p></p><p>As was brought up, I would posit that all of us have plagiarized other photographers as a part of our learning process, and we've likely shared the results with others. In doing these "recreations" I believe there comes a point where the mindset moves from mimicry to the "Aha!" moment of creativity when what you have in front of you feels like your own because in truth you have made that photograph. It's why there are so many of those egg photos floating around. It's why there are likely millions of images of optical distortions of black and white lines shot through glasses of water. Are these all plagiarized versions of some first photo, or does changing the glass type or adding another glass make it unique enough that it's your own? </p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]349494[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>The "ethics" of this for me come down to intent. Was the image recreated with the intention of submitting your own version for a contest, or was the image recreated as a learning exercise and then, some time later, chosen from your catalog for submission in a contest? The timing in this case is such that very little time passed between the creation of the "original" and the submission of the "copy" to the contest. But we very often cannot evaluate intent, so for me the ultimate question is, "Does mimicry in <em><strong>amateur</strong></em> <em><strong>photography</strong></em> pardon the plagiarism of '<em>conceptual theft</em>' (not blatant forgery) in any form?". I think it has to, particularly under any circumstance where use of the photograph does not realize material gain for the photographer (and I do not consider your name listed among the winners of a club competition "material gain") and did not in any way disenfranchise the original photographer. Again, I am approaching this from a purely amateur/hobbiest perspective (for all photographers involved), and I fully understand the ramifications of the usurpation of someone else's work particularly when the existence of the recreation impacts the value of the original. And I realize this is a slippery slope, but I have to believe that in the realm of true hobbiests there needs to be room for a rewarded lack of originality.</p><p></p><p>With regard to the title, were I to show you the photo (either one) and ask you to send me a PM with a suggested title I suspect over 90% of respondents would send the same thing, so that aspect may be splitting hairs. </p><p></p><p>And with all that said, the one question that's gone unanswered by those who believe the submission to be unethical, what would you do once you learned about the submission to the contest? Would it bother you enough to say something about it, and if so to whom - the judges, the photographer, the original artist?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 748794, member: 9240"] To be clear, the two images are not precisely the same and were you to see them side by side the similarities would be blatantly obvious but you would never confuse one for the other. This is where I would disqualify calling it a "forgery". The copy borrows the concept, color scheme and key elements, but also adds some additional elements. So "plagiarism" can be argued in the same way that using wholesale sections of someone else's speech in your own with no attribution and as if they were your words is considered plagiarism. As was brought up, I would posit that all of us have plagiarized other photographers as a part of our learning process, and we've likely shared the results with others. In doing these "recreations" I believe there comes a point where the mindset moves from mimicry to the "Aha!" moment of creativity when what you have in front of you feels like your own because in truth you have made that photograph. It's why there are so many of those egg photos floating around. It's why there are likely millions of images of optical distortions of black and white lines shot through glasses of water. Are these all plagiarized versions of some first photo, or does changing the glass type or adding another glass make it unique enough that it's your own? [ATTACH type="full" width="60%"]349494._xfImport[/ATTACH] The "ethics" of this for me come down to intent. Was the image recreated with the intention of submitting your own version for a contest, or was the image recreated as a learning exercise and then, some time later, chosen from your catalog for submission in a contest? The timing in this case is such that very little time passed between the creation of the "original" and the submission of the "copy" to the contest. But we very often cannot evaluate intent, so for me the ultimate question is, "Does mimicry in [I][B]amateur[/B][/I] [I][B]photography[/B][/I] pardon the plagiarism of '[I]conceptual theft[/I]' (not blatant forgery) in any form?". I think it has to, particularly under any circumstance where use of the photograph does not realize material gain for the photographer (and I do not consider your name listed among the winners of a club competition "material gain") and did not in any way disenfranchise the original photographer. Again, I am approaching this from a purely amateur/hobbiest perspective (for all photographers involved), and I fully understand the ramifications of the usurpation of someone else's work particularly when the existence of the recreation impacts the value of the original. And I realize this is a slippery slope, but I have to believe that in the realm of true hobbiests there needs to be room for a rewarded lack of originality. With regard to the title, were I to show you the photo (either one) and ask you to send me a PM with a suggested title I suspect over 90% of respondents would send the same thing, so that aspect may be splitting hairs. And with all that said, the one question that's gone unanswered by those who believe the submission to be unethical, what would you do once you learned about the submission to the contest? Would it bother you enough to say something about it, and if so to whom - the judges, the photographer, the original artist? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
An 'Ethics' Question
Top