Returning to FM with a new name.......and straight to the point....
If you see a cool shot that just blows you away, that requires a signifcant amount of technical expertise to pull off and you have the RARE opportunity to do something NEARLY identical, do you do it? Is it ethical? When it comes to being inspired by others, how far goes too far? Where is the line?
Should you credit the original photographer with the idea, even if he lives 6000 miles away? Does that matter?
I've reproduced the shot with a slight tweak, but i'm struggling with whether or not to use it.......so i have a dillemma and need some guidance, before i even process it.
RedWhiteandRed wrote:
John Cougar addressed this serious issue in 1982.
That made me laugh...
To answer the question... I'm a VERY big proponent of simply saying "I got this idea from XXX" or something like that. Why not say it? If someone else came up with the idea, at least give them credit when posting here.
Anyone who posts images for the world to see takes a risk that ideas will be taken and given to other clients. If someone uses an idea and posts it back on FM, the least they can do is say thanks for the idea. Why not?
Well if we're being honest, it's probably not enough.... BUT everyone who posts images should understand that it may happen. Plus it's impossible to regulate anything in the creative field.
The hope is that people are good-natured and are willing to share credit when needed. I sometimes try to remind people to do this although it's a hard thing to police
I'm on the line about this. Some shots are clearly attributable to only one person - that person thought of everything from how to pose, where to do the shoot, where the lighting was, theme, etc. In this case credit should be given. I'm not one who would be upset if someone was borrowing my ideas, so I can't give any more advice past that. I would ask someone who has more experience if you should be giving more credit.
Then there's stealing a concept. It's hard not to accidentally use the same concept as another photographer (it's going to happen, and often unknowingly). It's another thing to purposefully copy a concept. I'm not sure how to approach this. I know I've had ideas on the table (and written in emails to others) and come to find someone has posted the same ideas. Then I'm stuck wondering if it will look like I'm copying even though I have a clear paper trail that I've had these ideas for a while.
Then there are typical engagement or wedding poses that no one really has a right to or was the originator of the idea. In this case, anyone who tries to claim the pose or gets offended that you used a similar pose has nothing to stand on because the pose is so over-used that it doesn't belong to a single photographer. It's usually too difficult to give credit to just one person and I don't think anyone should be afraid of posting.
No one looking to "copy" a shot in wedding photography is interested at all in "paying tribute". They are interested in taking a great shot, then showing it off for their own personal benefit.
Like Marcus said, there aren't many truly unique shots left. If they are unique, they probably won't stay that way for very long. Besides, unless the shot is taken in a carefully controlled studio setting, it is likely not the exact same shot at all - only similar. In that case you can feel a little less guilty about "copying" someone shot.
MDHolmes wrote:
Returning to FM with a new name.......and straight to the point....
If you see a cool shot that just blows you away, that requires a signifcant amount of technical expertise to pull off and you have the RARE opportunity to do something NEARLY identical, do you do it? Is it ethical? When it comes to being inspired by others, how far goes too far? Where is the line?
Should you credit the original photographer with the idea, even if he lives 6000 miles away? Does that matter?
I've reproduced the shot with a slight tweak, but i'm struggling with whether or not to use it.......so i have a dillemma and need some guidance, before i even process it.
IMHO it's perfectly fine to reproduce the shot and it's certainly a good idea to credit the source you got the inspiration from.
One (or more) of the previous replies appear to suggest that it's OK to reproduce an image that has been reproduced by many, but it's "stealing the concept" if you're the first to reproduce it.
Frankly I think that position, while initially pleasing (somehow it seems *worse* to copy Sam H's cemetery shot, than it does to shoot the 25,743rd version of "mother's hands forming heart over pregnant belly) is invalid.
Either it's ok to *steal the concept* or not. If it's ok, then it doesn't matter if you're the first or one of thousands. If it's NOT ok, then it's not ok no matter how many other folks are doing the stealing.
In thinking this through I had come up with the idea that *copying* a shot that requires a LOT of work is somehow worse than copying a shot that takes nothing more than pressing the shutter button. But I convinced myself that that'd BS too. Campbell Soup can anyone? Moreover that would imply that the value of a photograph is to be found in the toil behind it rather than the vision and final product.
Bottom line... if it's nearly impossible to clearly define when it's Ok and when it's NOT Ok, then I default to... it's Ok.
I agree with Marcus... there aren't that many unique ideas.
Nearly every shot I've ever taken has been done by someone else before me, and I likely used it when I did because I saw it before and liked it.
I've shot only one pose that I knew was unique when I did it, and it was borrowed after I posted it...
That was the best compliment of all, especially because of who borrowed it, and because that person acknowledged where it came from.
If I can't keep borrowing ideas from some of the greats here, I don't know what I'd do.
Different people, different location, different camera, different exposure, different lens, different camera, all make for a DIFFERENT PHOTO.
Now if you use the same location, set up the same lighting, use the same f stop and same lens and camera all with the same pose and composition, I would give credit.
it's really all been done before, as marcus says-even if you don't rip off other photogs directly, we still view others' work, read their books, etc., so some level of their influence is with us (consciously or unconsciously)-to a certain point, it's inevitable
on the other hand, i feel it's very important to maintain some sort of individuality in your own work-if you shoot a wedding or an engagement session, attempting to shoot exactly (same shots, same effects, same poses, same comps, etc.) as your favorite photog or "FM idol" has already done, you're not creating anything-doesn't bother some people but it bothers me-i don't want my work to be a bad copy of someone else's stuff
it's about balance between inspiration and personal vision-nothing unethical about inspiration derived from others' work but 1. give them credit and 2. copy sparingly
Hanson Fong begins his seminars with the disclaimer that all of his work is influenced by and derived from the work of others. None of it is purely his own.
Marcus Watts wrote:
In wedding photography what hasn't been copied will be. 98% of shots have been done before by others.
My guess is more like 99.999% of it has been done before!
Would it bother Ansel Adams that his work is "shamelessly ripped-off" constantly? Hmmmm. I think it more important that over time, a personal style is developed regardless of whether it is wholly derivative, or not. Unless making a decent living doing this is less important than the art itself; IOW, you're the Ansel Adams of wedding photography...
