Maybe it is just a figment of my overstretched imagination, but plagiarism seems to be a hot topic.
There is a discussion on, of all places, slashdot. Maybe this all a consequence of some of the more ridiculous copyright and patent laws being presented. (I won't provide any examples, as there are way to many to choose from...) or the perception of loss of personal freedom, especially in the USA.
My father had a (tongue in cheek) saying, plagiarized from some unknown person no doubt, "What's yours in mine, and what's mine is none of your business". That seems to be a prevalent opinion of many. I can learn from you, I can take your ideas and expand on them, but you cannot copy my ideas. Maybe that is one reason I really like the open source software movement. This movement basically says we, as a society, are much stronger when we collaborate and share ideas.
Maybe as a society we need to grow up and become less petty. Just let me keep all my ideas to myself...
Showing posts with label plagiarism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label plagiarism. Show all posts
Monday, February 12, 2007
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Self Plagiarizing Artist
I came across this artists site the other day, and it got me thinking yet again about plagiarism.
If you did not know the first series of fingerprints, for example, were all taken by the same artist, you would call it plagiarism. But what if you see this idea and come up with a concept of your own, say using spaghetti. Is that plagiarism?
This site at least credits the originals, so I guess that is not plagiarism...
I decided that it was time to get a definition of this plagiarism concept...
It is also interesting to note that this definition and the concept behind it are under dispute.
From my understanding, almost all the issues of plagiarism deal with the written word. Taking a quote out of context, publishing another authors work, etc.
But back to my opening argument. Since the first photographer mentioned above did a series of images relating science to unrelated physical objects, no one else can do this ever again? How sad. And further to that, if you had never seen these photos and you created something similar, how can you be held responsible for plagiarism?
I argue that as human beings living in a society where communication is only getting wider and more open, we almost always use ideas of others to build up our own, either consciously or not.
Back to photography, when you are shooting an image (here the term shooting includes pre-visualization, image design/creation, or any other term used by other photographers through the ages, and for that matter artists back even farther...) do you not try to remember how other photographers/artists have approached similar problems? Use other peoples ideas and concepts to enhance your own approach? I don't think there is an artist of any medium who has not studied his peers and the masters of his craft. That is how we learn.
I guess my problem is that I don't see a clean separation between learning from past masters, homage to past masters, and stealing from past masters. Maybe I see plagiarism as a whining,"you took my idea and did it better, how dare you" or "my interpretation is better than yours, nyah nyah"
If someone were to take one of my photos and improve on what I was trying to say, I would be honored (I am tempted to bold, highlight, and set neon lights around "improve") All I ask is that they show me the work afterwords so I, in turn, can learn from them.
Ooohhh, THAT is what plagiarism is:
If you did not know the first series of fingerprints, for example, were all taken by the same artist, you would call it plagiarism. But what if you see this idea and come up with a concept of your own, say using spaghetti. Is that plagiarism?
This site at least credits the originals, so I guess that is not plagiarism...
I decided that it was time to get a definition of this plagiarism concept...
Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object, itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution.(from wikipedia)
It is also interesting to note that this definition and the concept behind it are under dispute.
From my understanding, almost all the issues of plagiarism deal with the written word. Taking a quote out of context, publishing another authors work, etc.
But back to my opening argument. Since the first photographer mentioned above did a series of images relating science to unrelated physical objects, no one else can do this ever again? How sad. And further to that, if you had never seen these photos and you created something similar, how can you be held responsible for plagiarism?
I argue that as human beings living in a society where communication is only getting wider and more open, we almost always use ideas of others to build up our own, either consciously or not.
Back to photography, when you are shooting an image (here the term shooting includes pre-visualization, image design/creation, or any other term used by other photographers through the ages, and for that matter artists back even farther...) do you not try to remember how other photographers/artists have approached similar problems? Use other peoples ideas and concepts to enhance your own approach? I don't think there is an artist of any medium who has not studied his peers and the masters of his craft. That is how we learn.
I guess my problem is that I don't see a clean separation between learning from past masters, homage to past masters, and stealing from past masters. Maybe I see plagiarism as a whining,"you took my idea and did it better, how dare you" or "my interpretation is better than yours, nyah nyah"
If someone were to take one of my photos and improve on what I was trying to say, I would be honored (I am tempted to bold, highlight, and set neon lights around "improve") All I ask is that they show me the work afterwords so I, in turn, can learn from them.
Ooohhh, THAT is what plagiarism is:
Plagiarism is the using of ideas without respect or honor for the people who helped you get past certain problemsOk, I guess now I should start my list of people who have influenced my photography... on second thought, it would sound too much like an Oscar acceptance speech... I know who you are... Thanks
Friday, February 9, 2007
Plagiarism in Photography
There has been a bit of talk on The Online Photographer about photographic plagiarism. I don't think this is possible. I remember in photo school, one of the studio assignments was to find a photo and recreate it. It was a lesson in lighting, composition, and large format technique (ok, it covered a lot of bases...)
I learned a lot from this... It is surprisingly hard to copy a scene. First you need to analyze the camera angle, depth of field, lens etc. Then you need to analyze the quality and direction of light. It is not a trivial matter to recreate the scene.
I also found out that "copying" someone else is a good starting point for your own creativity. For the above assignment, I made a completely different photo that reflected a lot more of my own personality.
This brings us to the root of my argument. Photography as an art form reflects the personality of the artist/photographer. No two people have the same personality (ok, some people have the same lack of personality, but that is a different problem...).
Now, outside of the studio, in the "real" world two photographers can be standing in the same spot and see different scenes, I am sure we all have experiences here. I remember shooting with a friend. We both stopped at the same scene but we only had one sheet of film between us (we were sharing a 4x5 camera). We both agreed on placement of the camera, but I saw a vertical, while my friend saw a horizontal. We shot wide and later in the darkroom printed our individual crops. They were both strong interpretations of the scene.
but lets assume, for the sake of argument that two photographers see the same scene, or it is a well photographed scene. Why are these two photographers shooting the scene? At the risk of sounding like a bad art critic, what is their motivation? If the motivation is just to record the scene, what exactly is being plagiarized? the scene itself? If the motivation is to emulate another photographer, where can you draw the line between plagiarism and learning from a master?
The cliche about imitation and flattery comes to mind.
There is also the adage about nothing new under the sun...
But now we get to the legal aspect. I am not a lawyer, and I have not discussed this with anyone with legal knowledge, but my opinion of the situation is this: If you have a great photographic idea, and I copy it and I make a ton of money from it, where do you stand? Should you get a payment from me? Why? If the original idea is so great and worthy of recognition (by cash or fame) why did you not profit? Art is not like other commodities. You cannot undercut price, each creation is an original. (I am not talking about re photographing other prints, which would violate copyright) If I am a better marketer than you, should I not get paid better? If I refine your idea closer to my ideas, should I not benefit?
Now, if the images are so close, such as some of those in question, then I argue that the photograph is just a recording of the original scene and doesn't have any intrinsic value. Anyone could come by and capture the image.
Photography, in my mind is about extracting the essential elements from the world around us. These essential elements vary according to the message we want to say. If your message is, "I really respect Edward Weston, and I would be honored to try and emulate his approach to photographing peppers", great. If your message is "I think that photo is very banal and simple to copy", is your opinion less valuable? Your opinion may not be popular, your opinion may be naive, but one of the huge values of art is the possibility to have your own opinion.
So is plagiarism possible in photography? Is plagiarism possible in opinions? Can you really copy a true piece of art?
I learned a lot from this... It is surprisingly hard to copy a scene. First you need to analyze the camera angle, depth of field, lens etc. Then you need to analyze the quality and direction of light. It is not a trivial matter to recreate the scene.
I also found out that "copying" someone else is a good starting point for your own creativity. For the above assignment, I made a completely different photo that reflected a lot more of my own personality.
This brings us to the root of my argument. Photography as an art form reflects the personality of the artist/photographer. No two people have the same personality (ok, some people have the same lack of personality, but that is a different problem...).
Now, outside of the studio, in the "real" world two photographers can be standing in the same spot and see different scenes, I am sure we all have experiences here. I remember shooting with a friend. We both stopped at the same scene but we only had one sheet of film between us (we were sharing a 4x5 camera). We both agreed on placement of the camera, but I saw a vertical, while my friend saw a horizontal. We shot wide and later in the darkroom printed our individual crops. They were both strong interpretations of the scene.
but lets assume, for the sake of argument that two photographers see the same scene, or it is a well photographed scene. Why are these two photographers shooting the scene? At the risk of sounding like a bad art critic, what is their motivation? If the motivation is just to record the scene, what exactly is being plagiarized? the scene itself? If the motivation is to emulate another photographer, where can you draw the line between plagiarism and learning from a master?
The cliche about imitation and flattery comes to mind.
There is also the adage about nothing new under the sun...
But now we get to the legal aspect. I am not a lawyer, and I have not discussed this with anyone with legal knowledge, but my opinion of the situation is this: If you have a great photographic idea, and I copy it and I make a ton of money from it, where do you stand? Should you get a payment from me? Why? If the original idea is so great and worthy of recognition (by cash or fame) why did you not profit? Art is not like other commodities. You cannot undercut price, each creation is an original. (I am not talking about re photographing other prints, which would violate copyright) If I am a better marketer than you, should I not get paid better? If I refine your idea closer to my ideas, should I not benefit?
Now, if the images are so close, such as some of those in question, then I argue that the photograph is just a recording of the original scene and doesn't have any intrinsic value. Anyone could come by and capture the image.
Photography, in my mind is about extracting the essential elements from the world around us. These essential elements vary according to the message we want to say. If your message is, "I really respect Edward Weston, and I would be honored to try and emulate his approach to photographing peppers", great. If your message is "I think that photo is very banal and simple to copy", is your opinion less valuable? Your opinion may not be popular, your opinion may be naive, but one of the huge values of art is the possibility to have your own opinion.
So is plagiarism possible in photography? Is plagiarism possible in opinions? Can you really copy a true piece of art?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
