An 'Ethics' Question

I'm guessing more than a few of us participate in various photography sites and clubs where there are "contests", most of which provide little other than self-satisfaction to the winners. Say someone is a member of an online site where these contests take place and they see an image that they absolutely love and set about recreating it. The result is a triumph but more than closely resembles the original, again taken by another amateur. The person then submits their version of the photograph using the same title to a local club-based contest.

You are a member of both communities and are familiar with the source of inspiration for the photograph, and to the best of your knowledge that photograph was an original concept.

Do you consider the submission by the person as something bordering on plagiarism? Is the photograph a forgery? Is it in any way unethical for them to have submitted the nearly identical photo with the same title to a contest that the original photographer would never be a part of? If the answer to any of these is "Yes" in your opinion what, if anything, would you do about it?

Literally asking for a friend so I will save my thoughts for later, while at the same time admitting to having won a tripod in a contest early on in my photography with this utterly unoriginal shot...

Firstly I love your (assuming it was yours layful: ) winning photo.
It is a difficult one to answer as every photographer at some stage in their hobby/career must have looked at a photograph and thought 'I would love to be able to do that'.
I think when it comes to still life shots or macro shots there must be millions of 'duplicates' out there as there is only so much you can do indoors. I mainly shoot landscapes myself and often frequent previous favourite locations but it is near impossible to obtain 'duplicate' shots due to the every changing light and weather.
In my opinion nobody should be critisised for tying to create a certain image they have admired, but to use the same title as someone else and then submit to another competition is a bit much.

Peter7100 said:

Firstly I love your (assuming it was yours layful: ) winning photo.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Yes it was. These are some of the photos that are not... LOL

Jake, I remember when you posted this image years ago! On one hand, recreating someone's image can be viewed as a form of flattery. However, submitting the image in a photo contest and using the same title is unethical in my opinion.

There are some people who start out mimicking the work of another photographer but lack the understanding as to why certain things were done in an image. This is the most basic form of learning - and it's called rote learning. Kind of like children who recite the alphabet without understanding the letters. Eventually many of these photographers want to know the why's and delve into the knowledge on their own. And as they learn, they climb to higher levels of learning (such as synthesis and analysis).

But then there are others who are simply unscrupulous. For example - I'm in a Facebook group which covers portraits. I joined because I heard there were posts about legalities of photography and was interested. What really surprises me is the people who go out and buy a camera with an f/1.8 lens and consider themselves to be photographers. They download a posing app, charge people for sessions, then come back asking questions how to sharpen faces in groups (because they shot groups of people at f/1.8 without understand the basics of DoF).

Sorry this happened to you. As I said, I remember when you posted the image so it is definitely memorable. If your image is on Flickr, maybe sent the link to those in charge of the contest? That should show the date taken, date posted, and title.

@hark I think you misunderstood. This isn't about me, I was just copping to being guilty of committing the the "transgression" in question.

It's truly about a friend who is the outside party in the scenario above - the person who knows that an image submitted in a contest is an almost identical remake of an image from an online contest site, down to the title. Let's say simply that I am in utter disagreement with them about the situation (it's not the first time) and I'm trying to assess whether what would normally be considered blatant plagiarism and theft in the fine art community is effectively excusable in the world of amateur hobbiests?

I remember reading about someone who had an award winning photo of an iceberg. Someone else produced a RAW file that looked exactly the same to prove it was his photo that had been stolen. Turns out they were both on the same ship and took the picture at the same time. When examined very closely, there was a very slight difference in the perspective of the two photos. EXIF data showed that they were take at the same time on the same date.

My only point here is that pictures can, in some cases, be virtually identical by coincidence. Landscape shots will be taken that look identical. People can set up pictures in the studio that look just like someone else's shot without having ever seen it. The sheer volume of photographs taken by the millions of photographers on the planet assures us that very little will actually be totally original, I suppose.

Now, to the case of a photo being copied right down to the title, I have to suspect that this was intentional and plagiarism. In that case, I see it as being unethical.

Can I just copy and paste what Woody said? He took the words right from my fingertips, except the part about the iceberg! I am in a facebook group that deals with the law and photography, so I am really just getting an understanding of copyright and usage rights and that kind of stuff. Yeah, I said stuff, because there is a lot of info I didn't really know about! I did, however understand what plagiarism is, and I wouldn't knowingly do something like that person. I might try to recreate something I see, but not to copy it closely and submit it!

Rob

So, what about if they weren't photographers, but painters? Say, someone saw another's painting of Yosemite Valley, as a scene from Tunnel View, and decided to paint it themselves and it ended up almost exactly like the first. Would that be ethical, or not? They, just like the photographer, had to capture the form of the image onto their respective media. Are the two that different?

In my opinion, other than the title, it isn't unethical. If it is unethical, I'd say that a lot of unethical activity is involved in photography. Now, if the second photographer took a photo of the first photo and claimed that as their own work, I'd say it was definitely unethical.

As far as entering something like that in a contest, I wouldn't do it. Were I a contest judge where such an image was submitted, I wouldn't judge it very highly if I recognized it as a subject explored thoroughly by others before.

WM

BeegRhob said:

Can I just copy and paste what Woody said? He took the words right from my fingertips, except the part about the iceberg! I am in a facebook group that deals with the law and photography, so I am really just getting an understanding of copyright and usage rights and that kind of stuff. Yeah, I said stuff, because there is a lot of info I didn't really know about! I did, however understand what plagiarism is, and I wouldn't knowingly do something like that person. I might try to recreate something I see, but not to copy it closely and submit it!

Rob

Click to expand...

As long as you give him complete credit in your document...

This is, after all, a discussion about ethics.

WM

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?



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 amateur photography pardon the plagiarism of 'conceptual theft' (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?

Ethical? The question is does it fall outside of the contest rules. The person considering wanting to saying something needs to examine their motives for doing so.

Needa said:

Ethical? The question is does it fall outside of the contest rules. The person considering wanting to saying something needs to examine their motives for doing so.

Click to expand...

Contest rules generally deal with how the photo is taken and what you can do in post to alter the capture. It has to be your photograph, but that doesn't mean it can't be your version of something you've seen elsewhere. If that something is as ubiquitous as the egg and water glass photos I've shown then it's likely not going to have the impact on the judges that something more original is, so in a way copying ideas will eventually police itself. But a lesser known recreation executed with great skill can still make a great photograph, and if it is then I'm not quite certain that ethics factor in to whether or not it can or should be submitted to something that will in no way cause harm to the original photographer or that photograph.

Jake, I kind of feel your mixed-feelings here. Personally I believe nearly every idea in photography under the sky has been done by somebody at this point. It is difficult to not duplicate somebody's work to some degree. But don't intentionally duplicate and give the same title. That is poor ethics.

In 2005 I spent multiple days working on a concept for a wrist-watch photograph that has become a signature of mine. To the best of my knowledge, I originated it. I never did serious research to see if that is actually so. But since I share the images online at watch collector forums, Google images displays my photos a lot, and I see online sellers try to recreate my image (usually poorly). I only object if they attempt to actually use my work as their own. I've given permission for sellers who ask nicely ahead of time.

The photo style? A layer overlay to give a night-day transition. Here is an early version.



Then I refined the process over the years.

Jake, in your situation, you know that the second photograph was influenced by the original. What about if the photos are so similar, but neither photographer knows about the other? What is the take at that point? (I'm not arguing, but am interested in people's opinions.)

In one instance, I once saw a photo that was a take-off of the egg on the forks photo in a local contest. (The photographer had seen an egg-on-fork tines photo.) However, in that photo, the egg was broken. A portion of the broken shell was still on the forks, while another part of the shell was on the counter surface with the egg insides over the counter and forks. The photo didn't do well in judging, and two of the judges thought it was very un-creative, although one argued the exact opposite, claiming it was brilliant.

WM

Whiskeyman said:

Jake, in your situation, you know that the second photograph was influenced by the original. What about if the photos are so similar, but neither photographer knows about the other? What is the take at that point? (I'm not arguing, but am interested in people's opinions.)

In one instance, I once saw a photo that was a take-off of the egg on the forks photo in a local contest. (The photographer had seen an egg-on-fork tines photo.) However, in that photo, the egg was broken. A portion of the broken shell was still on the forks, while another part of the shell was on the counter surface with the egg insides over the counter and forks. The photo didn't do well in judging, and two of the judges thought it was very un-creative, although one argued the exact opposite, claiming it was brilliant.

WM

Click to expand...

In this case both photographers compete in subject-specific challenges on an online forum that I participate in, so they are aware of each other and the image reproduced is one that won a challenge just a couple months ago. The reproduction was submitted to a statewide club competition with a month of the original, so the original photographer is not aware of the "copy" and likely never would.

As for two random photographers colliding on an idea and executing it nearly identically, whether completely originally or both being influenced by a 3rd photographer, that's "just one of those things", and it can very well happen in subject-specific contests. Were I to know of a photo that could have influenced both and these were nearly identical then I might kick 'em for originality assuming they both saw that one, but if I just happened to see two nearly identical photos submitted for the same contest I don't think I'd be in any way worried, because who would purposefully do that?

BF Hammer said:

Jake, I kind of feel your mixed-feelings here... I only object if they attempt to actually use my work as their own. I've given permission for sellers who ask nicely ahead of time.

Click to expand...

And that's an entirely different topic - theft. A friend actually saw their work reproduced and for sale at various sites (long story short, a site he participated in offered photographers an opportunity to sell their shots thru the site, which he allowed. What he didn't know was they weren't just selling prints they were selling rights.). I'm always thankful when someone reaches out to me and requests permission to license or buy a photo. I was actually blown away when someone wanted to know if I'd sell one as a desktop background.

BackdoorArts said:

In this case both photographers compete in subject-specific challenges on an online forum that I participate in, so they are aware of each other and the image reproduced is one that won a challenge just a couple months ago. The reproduction was submitted to a statewide club competition with a month of the original, so the original photographer is not aware of the "copy" and likely never would.

Click to expand...

In a case like that, I'd probably give the original photographer a heads-up and let him/her decide whether or not to pursue it (if I was the original photographer, I'd want to know). There is a Facebook group run by a photography lawyer called TheLawTog® - the legal resource for photographers. That might be a resource for the original photographer or for you to ask this question. I'm guessing there would be a lot of interest in this topic although most of what they do are client portrait/wedding shoots. But they still might offer good suggestions.

BackdoorArts said:

(... What he didn't know was they weren't just selling prints they were selling rights.).

Click to expand...

That could be very disturbing. (It was probably there in the "fine print," which has mutiple meanings in the photography world.) I bet that most of us have signed away our photo copyright rights at least once when posting online.

WM

hark said:

In a case like that, I'd probably give the original photographer a heads-up and let him/her decide whether or not to pursue it (if I was the original photographer, I'd want to know). There is a Facebook group run by a photography lawyer called TheLawTog® - the legal resource for photographers. That might be a resource for the original photographer or for you to ask this question. I'm guessing there would be a lot of interest in this topic although most of what they do are client portrait/wedding shoots. But they still might offer good suggestions.

Click to expand...

Again, this is all amateur stuff and there's no way you would look at the two and say that one was "stolen" from the other, at best it is heavily inspired. If this was one professional looking to cash in on the creativity of another then sure, I'd reach out to the original photographer. But it's a photographer in FL who made a modified re-creation on an NJ photographer's photo submitted to an online challenge site (with fewer than 100 members) and then entered it into a local club contest. We can debate the ethics of doing that but there's literally no harm done to the original photographer, who we cannot even confirm didn't take the idea from somewhere else (I've found similar concept photos with the same name, so while it was a specific creation it was not an original concept - at least from the internet's perspective).

Whiskeyman said:

That could be very disturbing. (It was probably there in the "fine print," which has mutiple meanings in the photography world.) I bet that most of us have signed away our photo copyright rights at least once when posting online.

WM

Click to expand...

I read somewhere else that a photographer walked into Walmart and saw one of their photos on a bunch of towels and other beach paraphernalia. Seems when they signed up with a stock photo service they didn't realize what they were losing for that small fee they get when someone licenses it.

I've been real careful with stuff and will not enter contests that all perpetual use of the submission, usually even if I don't win. There's a birding magazine that I could likely be featured in easily, but everything they published would be theirs to use and to sell. Screw that. Even when I have sold rights to photos I've been very careful with the particulars. A retail company in the UK wanted to license my photo for wall prints and asked for "exclusive right of sale worldwide" and the right to "renew those rights without consent" after the 1 year deal was over. I told them they could have exclusive rights outside the US and that renewal would require renegotiation. They were perfectly fine with it and I laugh when I think that many a couple may have shagged on the couch underneath my photo as they decorate their new apartment. But I also wonder how many people who got the same offer from a clerk browsing Flickr took it with no questions asked?