Copycat or Not

Interesting post on a photographer that has claimed another photographer copied their work. We do this in landscapes all the time. Just think Ansel Adams could say everyone that shot all the Icons in Yosemite copied him. What do you think?
Copycat Or Not

Interesting fodder for debate. This particular case seems rather unique to me. Both photographers have work that is nearly identical in many respects, and both appear to present their work as a "series" that is very similar in both concept, subject, and execution. It's the same as if you took a series of butterfly shots, presented them in an exhibit, and I then went out and took roughly the same shots of butterflies (i.e., similar composition, species, etc.) and attempted to present my work as a unique series. In short, it seems more like a case of intentional mimicry than a simple accident.

An extreme example of such mimicry--for instance, if I tried to duplicate your hypothetical butterfly series, or if I spent my time trying to duplicate every Ansel Adams shot--is legitimately a target for copycat claims and derision. At least in my opinion. There is nonetheless plenty of room for photographers to shoot the same locations or other subjects in a way that may result in similarities that do not rise to the level of intentional mimicry. And even an occasional effort to produce something that closely resembles a famous shot is not problematic from my point of view . . . heck, everybody who visits Valley View (or was it Tunnel View?) in Yosemite hopes to have conditions like those in Ansel Adams' famous shot. For me, it's only a problem when a photographer has clearly set out on a regular basis to imitate another. Particularly if the work of just one (or even two or three) other photographers is consistently mimicked.

That said, I still can't tell if the article is providing an example of such a thing. Neither it nor the companion piece linked in the article make entirely clear whether the relatively few examples shown are the only instances of such similarity between the works of each photographer. I don't know if there are more like these examples, or whether they are the only similar shots out of much larger bodies of work. I feel like I need more evidence to make a judgment. So in that way, I think the article fails to help resolve this particular debate.

I think the test of reasonable doubt can apply here. It is reasonable to assume that two photographers made the same image of a popular location from a popular spot without being aware of each other's version.

If a complete portfolio shares these similarities, however, one has to weigh in the preponderance of evidence.

Guy

I would go further and say we even ARE aware of each others versions and still do not copy in a bad sense. when shooting certain (mostly iconic) spots there just aren't too many options available, but thousands of photographers who shoot these spots. similarities are rather the rule then the exeption. we all study photography books, look at websites etc. if you want to avoid that, you have to find your own private spot and disclose the fact where it is.

"I copied a lot!" confessed the poet, realizing, that not even that sentence was his own.

georg

I recall reading in one of Galen Rowell's writings that he got annoyed at his wife once when she set up her tripod in nearly the same spot after he had taken a photo. He felt that by having taken a photo there first that it was "his view". I recall another photographer (though not the name) relating how he deliberately avoided a particular view of a well known subject because that view belonged to (another name I don't recall).

There is a photographer in the Adirondacks, Mark Bowie, who has a book out in which he deliberately rephotographed scenes that are featured in the 19th century images of Seneca Ray Stoddard. Mark Klett and others have collaborated in at least three book projects of rephotographing scene from the past and combining the modern images with the old ones.

The notion of a photographer "owning" a particular subject and/or view is an interesting notion. Admittedly a particular view can become cliche. The time exposure of a dock or pier running out toward a horizon over blurred water and a blank sky is an image an example. I don't get much opportunity to shoot "icons" of landscape photography and perhaps that is an advantage because I am generally unaware of what other photographers had done with the subject matter I'm looking at.

If you dont want someone copying you--drive to the shore the day before a Cat 5 hurricane is expected to hit, and take lots of photos.

I think the crux of it is that photography doesnt have the same distinction between "composer" and "performer" that, say, music does:

Things Photographers Can Learn From Musicians

Multitudes of musicians play Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and Vivaldi every single day. They are still considered great performers, and their performance does not take away from the genius of the composer.

Guy

I have been lucky that where I shoot is a bit lacking in icons, but I really don't like having the same image as someone else. I do feel a pride and ownership over the "views" I have seen and really don't care to take an image of an icon unless it is in a new way. I see on flickr a lot of newer photogs hunting down other photog's shots, and if they come away with excellent skies, getting praised...yeah its pretty but do yourself a favor and shoot a scene I haven't seen 20 times and never been to.

From a business standpoint, it may be beneficial to have a portfolio loaded with icons, but where's the pride if you shot those solely for income. If that's the intention, there are easier ways to make money.

I'm not following that analogy, Guy. The musicians comp was created out of thin air, so the original 'genius' belongs to the composer soley. A photographic comp pre-exists before anyone comes along to take a photo of the subject, so one can't really credit the genius to the original phtographer (if one can even determine who the original photographer was!) Maybe im not getting your point here--are you saying that the distinction is valid, and that photographic 'copycats' shouldn't be given any credit??

Stan, one could argue that the notes are always there and that the musical composer just put them into a composition. "Moonrise, Hernandez" never looked the way it appears in Ansel Adams' print. Not even to Ansel Adams until he conceived the print as we know it today (which is again different from earlier versions). In other words, an original composition is *always* created "out of thin air", whether the raw materials are in plain sight or not.

I should qualify that I'm strictly referring to Fine Art Photography (which I realize I have not defined here but I will in an upcoming post). Anyone standing at Inspiration Point and aiming their camera down Yosemite Valley today may capture immense beauty and experience something truly profound, but they are NOT creating art, in my opinion. Just like someone standing in front of the Mona Lisa and making their own copy of it is not creating art, no matter how good the copy.

Certainly there are often logistical complications in determining who originally conceived a given composition or rendering but that doesn't invalidate their genius (if indeed there was one to begin with). The sooner we start paying attention and giving proper credit, though, the better off future generations of photographers will be.

Guy

Photographers are going to miss the point of what creating art is all about if they become obsessed with this "stolen" location or subject thing. Visual artists all have the same 3 elements to work with in creating their art: Content (or idea), composition, and technique. It's how you put them together and how that resonates with other people that makes good art. How come there is no outcry when someone uses the same composition or technique? A lot of art is derivitive of other art. Look at Andy Warhol's entire oeurve. It's how you put it all together people.

Richard, if I copy Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass" and put my name on it, or if I present the score to Beethoven's 5th as a product of my own making then I *have* stolen something, and I'm pretty sure the courts would agree.

Even if I appropriate a well-known work whose origin is not known and claim it for myself, I am still guilty of stealing.

Creativity (as in creating something which did not exist prior) is a requirement for something to be considered art. Beauty, composition, content etc. all stand on their own, but where they are (knowingly!) not uniquely mine, I am not entitled to claim them as *my* art.

Guy

I think we all agree about plagarism. You can't copy something lock, stock, and barrel or, content, composition, and technique and call it your own. However, I don't see anything wrong with drawing inspiration from isolated elements of others' work and putting them together in your own unique mix. Otherwise, why would art students study the history of art? Borrowing elements and ideas from others can be creativity if its handled in your own way having never been done quite that way before. Besides, beauty, composition, content etc. do not all stand on their own. How can you have composition without content and vice-versa? These elements don't exist in a vacuum. If I see a photographic treatment that uses a specific filter, is it copying if I use that same filter treatment in my work? In that same regard, the location or angle of a scenic which is the content of a photograph is just one element in the total picture. The "art" of photography is based on how the photographer personally puts all the elements together and communicates his vision. The only ownership claim a photographer or artist can exclusively have to an individual element of a picture such as subject or composition or technique is the fact that he did it first or he did it better. I think many photographers obsess with locations and subjects because they think that thats only where the originality is. I marvel at certain subjects that I see in photographs too. But I seldom say that the photographer is creative because of the subject alone. In fact, the most creative pictures to me are often ones of simple subjects.

Thanks for clarifying, Richard. Yes, I agree. I don't think many of us can claim to not be standing on the shoulders of giants, at least in some respects.

Guy

Another take on the issue, with links to both PDN articles, from The Online Photographer.

Back to the beginning, yes everyone is copying Ansel and they won't stop.

We're supposed to pretend it doesn't bother us if we are copied but I find it annoying. Yes it's complimentary but still annoying. If you want to be unique you have to work hard at it. I might copy someone once, but I'll call it a tribute and move on. I sure wouldn't want to be known as a tribute artist. If you have center pieces in your gallery that match old black and white replicas it doesn't make you look original does it?