Richard Milner
(K=1653) - Comment Date 2/16/2004
|
I agree with you but I don't think acknowledgements will happen. Most people aren't trained in the strict rules against plagiarism that hold force in the academic world.
|
|
|
|
John Orban
(K=725) - Comment Date 2/24/2004
|
Hmmmm...you posted on 2/13, it's now 2/14, and you've received one reply. I'd say most people don't give a damn about etiquette. But why should Usefilm.com be different from the rest of the world?
|
|
|
|
Fabio Keiner
(K=81109) - Comment Date 2/24/2004
|
|
|
|
|
bea rowland
(K=2167) - Comment Date 2/25/2004
|
I was just wondering if anybody else had noticed....not important. thanks for your replies.
|
|
|
|
Jon O'Brien
(K=11321) - Comment Date 2/26/2004
|
Wait a minute - you don't get off so easy as all that :-]
Can you suggest an example? I hadn't noticed anything specifically like that (and I haven't done any "borrowing" yet, but I fully expect to as I think that imitating other people's work will help me improve my skills.)
|
|
|
|
bea rowland
(K=2167) - Comment Date 2/26/2004
|
good.
I think it's a very nice thing to imitate somebody's work. And when one achieves a wonderful image by imitating, one can say "I'm a genius!" and their friends will agree. and they will all be right. :)
|
|
|
|
Zoe Wiseman
(K=822) - Comment Date 3/9/2004
|
my answer...
if you can't think of your own ideas. quit! be original and have some morals when it comes to other artists work.
learn from things you like. it's like the really bad remake of your favorite song... you hear it on the radio.. turn it up thinking your going to like it and jam out... then you realize that someone else is singing ... YIKES! that always sucks.
zoe
|
|
|
|
Irma Vep
(K=1480) - Comment Date 4/25/2004
|
Hi br,
I haven't noticed this phenomenon but I am not surprised.
I don't think it is good "etiquette" to credit an inspiring photograph or photographer. It may be out of respect that a photographer would do this. Art and art production do not exist is the realm of academia, and therefore doesn't follow the same 'rules', thank God. I don't think your analogy applies here.
Artists have always 'borrowed' or 'quoted' from other artists, more or less successfully.
This site is no different. Why worry? - time will be the judge. If I worried about coming up with a truly original idea I would never make any art at all. That said, if I outrightly decide to "borrow" another photographer's idea (pose idea, subject, location, whatever) from this site I am planning on posting the results here also, I would likely mention my inspiration, out of respect. If people don't have that respect, that is fine; their photo will be more or less successful, or possibly just different than it's 'inspiration'.
If I take a photo of a woman in her bath, would I need to credit Degas?
Cheers,
Irma.
p.s. have you noticed that some members copy other members'comments? That to me is worse and not helpful at all.
|
|
|
|
Mike George
(K=3429) - Comment Date 4/27/2004
|
This is a very interesting question/thought line. I'll wade in with my 2 cents worth.
Strictly speaking, plagerism is if you someone else's work in your own and don't credit them (generally this is in print and identified with footnotes etc). However, is using another person's concept, but not actual work, taking something from them? If I used a photo by photographer______________ and said it was mine, or made no mention of whose it was, I would say I was absolutely wrong & illegal.
However, just because I take photo with similiar lighting, focus, model (you get the idea) am I stealing something? Is it unethical? I really don't know. Family portraits and weddings have basically been copying one another for as long as I have been doing photography. Is this wrong? There is the possibility that my photo won't be as good as the photographer/photo that may have inspired me. I might even do it better than the original. I guess the real question is have I harmed the other photographer in some way? Did I prevent him/her from selling their work to the model or client? No.
In my comments to folks, I often note to them that their work is inspiring and creative. In fact, I may at some point I might even try something like it. Am I wrong to try to get better? Artists for ages have tried to emulate those whose work they admired. If I had the opportunity to work with some on this forum whose work I admire, I would. However, geography and finances keep me from it.
From my own view, I am flattered if someone liked some photograph I took enough to try and do one like it themselves, feel free (although, I doubt my work would inspire anyone). I would take big time offense to someone actually using my photo and saying it is theirs.
|
|
|
|
Eric TO
(K=1706) - Comment Date 4/30/2004
|
I do agree with Irma and Mike. It has been inspirative by viewing the photos here in Usefilm. I am a newbie in photography. I have learned a lot. But in related to "etiquette", I want to diverse your attention to another matter. Earlier I saw a photo of a femal beggar with her daughter on the street (author--Gerry YAUM). Incidentally, the day before I encountered a beggar with visually impaired; I did have attempt to shoot a photo of him; I was thinking if I gave him some money for permission; but I gave up the idea after some thought because I kind of respected him; because I did not know what he would react about being taken photo. My concern is when we are taking street photos and involve individual figure inside your frame, should we ask for permission especially when we try to post them in the internet, a place reaching everywhere in the world. I do not know how others' practice in terms of this matter. Please advise and comment
|
|
|
|
Mike George
(K=3429) - Comment Date 4/30/2004
|
To answer Eric's dilemma, it's well, very complicated. Legalities are that you can't use someone's likeness without permission. This however, is contradicted by people found in public places. For instance, the newspapers don't have to get releases because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.
In the case of the homeless persons mentioned, I don't really know if releases are needed or if the person being in public negates this. I would say it would depend on it's use. Making folks aware (via internet) of the plight of those who are less fortunate is more of journalistic application and is probably ok (in my opinion). If you are taking it for personal profit, or to demean the person, this is definately on the bad side of the ettiquette issue.
In the end, I don't think the actual taking of the photo is an issue, it is what you do with it afterward. If it impacts you take it. Decide if you wish to use it for other reasons (such as distibution). If so, get their permission after you take the photo (before hand often kills moment). If you take a photo, no one but you sees it, you have harmed no one. I would likely not have taken the photo. Only because I don't have a way to get that message of despair out and I don't know what purpose my photo would serve since I don't. If I was one trying to help those less fortunate, had a way to do so, I would have taken the photos,explained who I was, what I planned to do and ask for them to sign a release.
|
|
|
|
Eric TO
(K=1706) - Comment Date 5/1/2004
|
Mike, your points are well thoughtand taking. In the place where I live, editors of newspapers are more aware of this issue. What they usually do is have the area of individual's eyes blurred. For example, if a journalist spots a group of teenages with their school uniform smoking in the park, and he find it a serious matter and take a photo. In print, those facing the camera will have their eyes' blurred. I think that is a good practice. Of course, in photography, it will very much ruin the photos if such being done. Then, take Mike's advise.
|
|
|
|
Robert Stokes
(K=4509) - Comment Date 5/3/2004
|
The art as a life
Becomes it's own
Each breath original
Though the substance is old
A brand new story
That has been told
Many true creators
To make one mold
This is a little poem I sketched one night about 6 years ago. I think it was music that first sparked my curosity about just what is original and what has been borrowed, but then I realized that the concept applied to all art. As we travel through time, the raw cumulative mass of human experience and endeavor makes it ever harder to be original, to do what has not been done, to go where none have gone before. I suppose we can take some comfort in knowing that even if we stand in the same spot as say Ansel Adams, looking out over Yosemite Valley, drop in some b/w film and screw on a red filter, we are still capturing a unique moment in time.
Now, that's not to say that I condone the blatant theft of ideas with no creative input from yourself, because I don't. But idea theft and imitation can be hard to distinguish at times, maybe more so in this particular artistic medium. And lets face it, with modern cameras and a little knowledge it's pretty easy to make a 'good' photo. I may get in trouble for that last statement, but.....
So what is an original idea? What is quality? I can't find the right words to define it, but I know it when I see it.
|
|
|
|
Ray Heath
(K=4559) - Comment Date 5/4/2004
|
can any image/concept/art/?? be original?
does originality equal quality?
if I photograph a beautiful woman am I plagiarising someone else because they made images of beautiful women before me?
is it original if I am ignorant to fact it has already been done?
how can I credit others when I have been exposed to imagery for over forty years?
how many original ideas are there, and have they all been done already?
if an artist does something truly new and original but it is so different that it is not even recognised, is that art? or is it art but not as we know it?
|
|
|
|
Robert Stokes
(K=4509) - Comment Date 5/4/2004
|
Ray, I think you hit the nail on the head. This seems like quite the artistic quandary. As you say, we are all exposed to artistic influence every day, and with the advent of computers this influence can come to us instantly from all over the world. If this is a good thing or not should be the subject of another question (hmm).
|
|
|
|
