|
I was gonna write something about Rosie and Aaron's nauseating flickr love affair at some point, but this is something else.
For what it's worth, that stream is in breach of the flickr guidelines ("Do post your own photos") and will no doubt get deleted very soon. (And this thread may get closed for being "fingerpointy").The obvious inspirations shown by the posting of images that Rosie has obviously "copied" (to a certain extent) should at least settle the debate about her (lack of) originality.
www.flickr.com/photos/33045548@N03/
I don't think there's anything morally wrong with borrowing ideas, though. We all do it, in a bid to become better at the craft.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
P.S. There's no "law" that says you have to credit an artist that inspires you. Talent borrows, genius steals. :)
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I don't think there's anything morally wrong with borrowing ideas, though. We all do it, in a bid to become better at the craft. My point exactly.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
When you "borrow" something surely that means you are going to give it back?
I think we all know what it is called when you take something without someones permission and have no intention of giving it back.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What happened to not fingerpointing?
Agreed. That photostream linked in the OP breaches the CG in so many ways. Given that you've highlighted it here in one of the biggest, high profile groups about I'd guess that people will hit the report abuse button and it'll be gone soon.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If Rosie learns that she should start linking to the images that inspired her, that will be good, but I should think an awful lot her fans don't really care. I always found her work to be overly contrived anyway. Using other people's ideas for your own ends is poor form, but this is only flickr, not International Creative of the Year or summink.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Who has taken the first shot of a sunset?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think we all know what it is called when you take something without someones permission and have no intention of giving it back.
And how exactly can one return a borrowed idea?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Adam took one of an apple, but Eve photoshopped it and got to number one on the first ever Explore page.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
ParcelForce are quite reliable these days. I'd send it registered mind.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
And how exactly can one return a borrowed idea?
Easy...one returns it by aknowledging where is came from and having the respect to highlight this.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
Mr Wolfy edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
Easy...one returns it by aknowledging where is came from and having the respect to highlight this.
And not acknowledging amounts to stealing? oops! I said it.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"Who has taken the first shot of a sunset?"
More to the point, who took the first photo of a cat? Explore owes a lot to them.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
Flet©h edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
If every work of art came with a list of credits, imagine the mess. Would The Simpsons have to list every film they've spoofed? Would Guernica have to have a wee note saying "inspired by the work of A Hitler"?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"More to the point, who to the first photo of a cat? Explore owes a lot to them".
Perhaps they will all be removed for plagiarism. We can only hope.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Who was that woman from years ago who convinced everyone she had died of cancer?
Rhona? Rhonda?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Wow... their website is ugly
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
BARF
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Oh my god! This guy copies ideas from historical photographs and then does it in Lego! He is exposed!
Oh right.
What I mean to say is: who cares? Ideas cannot be owned. And attribution is not a right. She found an idea and implemented it. Maybe as an exercise in creativity, who knows? Delve deeper into DeviantArt, it is filled with art that is a copy, a remix, or a tribute to other works.
I am expecting an expose on 365 days self-portraits and how everyone on Flickr is copying each other.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Who is Rosie Hardy? Seriously, I've never heard of her before and should I care?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Sorry but this is not about taking inspiration or even spoofing. This is about direct plagiarism, and about an artist on Flickr who may be in danger if she does not address her avoidance of referencing sources. The images in question are astoundingly similar, not just 'inspired by' - but compositionally almost exact. On most of them, there is no credit given. This is not just a one-off, there are multiple examples.
How would you feel if you were one of those artists whose works had been reproduced? If you do this at school, you get expelled. Do this as a professional photographer, you get sued.
I imagine this thread will get deleted, but it's worth having it up for some time to address this issue.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Cowgirl: I think she is a photographer on Flickr (from her MySpace linked from her profile) who is underaged (17?) and from the UK who is in love with an older gentleman from the US. Or the older gentleman is in love with her. And nothing inappropriate is happening, just love, or maybe they are just collaborators?
I wonder how old is he, though.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The only people that will be bothered by this are the people who follow their work and seem to think she is a eternal fountain of original ideas and inspiration.
So she nicked a few ideas, does this take away from the rest of her original work? Even Andy Warhol got famous by copying stuff. Maybe these are just Hardy's Campbell Soup Cans?
Oh, and I changed the title of the thread as few are familiar with Rosie Hardy.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
Jayel Aheram edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
Rosie is 18. I'm one of her fans. Neither of those details is important though. Yes, I'm disappointed, as other fans of hers are. Yes, she has other work that appears to be more original. But she still has alot of work that is identical to a selection of works in her own favourites in Deviant Art. It is copyright infringement, made even more poignant by the fact that Rosie sells her work.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Andy Warhol didn't copy other artists' ideas. Using everyday objects as the subject matter of paintings is not the same as plagiarizing.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
_barb_ edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
'Flickr Photographer Derives Inspiration from Fellow Artists'
not really funny, this is a serious matter, seems its being taken much more seriously on other threads.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Like cowgirl_dk, I'm also blissfully ignorant of this pair on Flickr.
However, for the sake of adding my 2p worth... when it comes to blatant plagiarism (which, IMHO, having taken a look, this is) then I think it's fine if you're playing about with it for personal use and nothing more, but these two appear to be in serious danger of some kind of commercial crossover happening soon. When it happens, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" is a lousy defence in court.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Okay. There is a difference between copyright infringement and Hardy's implementation.
Copyright is ownership of a particular expression of an idea. Not every expression of it! Hardy owns the copyright to her own expression of ideas. You are telling me I cannot create an art of a sad, pouting clown, kneeling on the ground because someone else did it? How about standing in front of the Eiffel Tower and smiling? I am sure a lot of people have done that particular bit of expression of an idea (the idea being standing in front of it and smiling at the camera).
Infringement is a serious charge and should not be thrown about so lightly. You are accusing her of criminal behavior. Are you ready to be accused of defamation and libel?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Some of them are pretty similar - but some of them are pretty generic anyway. The jumping-off-a-building shot has been used in lots of films, for example.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Painting a picture of a sunflower is one thing. Painting a picture of Van Gogh's picture of a sunflower and passing it off as your original idea is something completely different.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Some of them are pretty similar - but some of them are pretty generic anyway. The jumping-off-a-building shot has been used in lots of films, for example.
Pretty similar eh!...Mmmm I guess you could say that...or you could say that they have been blatantly copied.
..what work of hers is classed as original now?..going on examples I have seen of her exact replication, not much....who knows any more.
If she was a singer or in a band then all her songs would be cover versions as they would have been written by someone else.
The main difference is she is making the money, not the original artist.
People will be taking pictures of the Mona Lisa next...adding a tweak in PShop and claiming it is theirs.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
Mr Wolfy edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
I saw that stream a while back. It did kind of bother me. When you're directly copying or imitating someone else's photo, as closely as she seems to have done, I think the polite thing to do is link to it, or credit it as the inspiration. Instead of not linking, and accepting 300+ comments about your original ideas. But, whatever. It's not the end of the world to me, but, it makes it even more silly to read all the fans' comments about originality. I stay away from her stream now. One, I'm not into all the dark textures and over-done gimping, but, two, even dare to provide any real feedback and her fans' go nutso on you. But copyright infringement? nah, not sure you could go that far. Just bad manners.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
~carie~ edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
I'm not denying that she has copied the ideas of some of her contacts. What I meant was that some of those ideas aren't all that original. Off the top of my head, all these have been done multiple times:
- An upside-down photograph of someone doing a handstand
- A shot from below of someone leaping off a building (Heroes?)
- Standing in the snow at night with streetlights
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The term idea is wrong here.
It's creative expression which has been copied.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hmm, when I saw those two snow pics side by side I gaped in disbelief!
Some images are almost exactly the same, some have been adapted slightly. Whether you think it's infringement or not, it makes me think differently about Rosie as an 'artist', at least regarding those pics in question. And if I were one of the artists who'd been copied, I'd be angry.
I certainly don't think it's a soft issue, that it's "only flickr, not International Creative of the Year". We can't think like that today. Flickr, and other sites on the net, are being used by amateurs to forge whole creative careers, myself included. The lines between the virtual and the physical are becoming blurred - the internet is a huge part of the working photography world, and more than ever.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
Miss Aniela edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
I'd say the original images were a bit more than inspiration for her work. More like she has actually copied some of them. If the originals were mine I would have no problem if this was just to practice/show off her skills or as ideas for her 365 (but a link back would be nice as she gets a lot of traffic).
However she has sold these images and made money of them so for that reason I would definately be consulting my lawyers. Might come to nothing but its worth a shot.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ ArchedRoof -
yes, it's crucially the deliverance of the 'idea' that has been reproduced, not just the decision to use a certain subject, prop etc.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Miss Aniela says:
Hmm, when I saw those two snow pics side by side I gaped in disbelief!
Can we get a picture of that?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
lol.. I'll turn on my webcam next time...
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sure, people have jumped off buildings before. Sure people have laid on a floor with their cat...but, c'mon. They are direct copies. The styles, the treatments, poses, props...in those, they're identical. If I was the original artist, I wouldn't be too thrilled to see those sold off as these highly original ideas. (though, she did credit the chair one) There's being *inspired*, then there's directly copying and accepting all the kudos for the creative originality. Most of the time, I like the originals better...but I wonder how many of those artists, the deviant art ones, get accused of copying her? lol. That would definitely steam me.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
~carie~ edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
When one is learning to paint or draw, it is not unusual to attempt to reproduce other works in an effort to understand the process. This has been done for ages.
Similar with photography. Attempting to reproduce a shot helps to understand the technical aspects of it. And this can be extended to post processing techniques, too.
The fact that Rosie has copied work that she finds inspirational isn't so much the issue. Even starting with an idea and "making it her own" isn't so much the issue (every portrait photographer I know, for example, has seen a unique pose/angle and added it to their own bag of tricks).
When it becomes a gray issue is when one is routinely reproducing other works and only occasionally offering proper credit.
When it becomes a black and white issue is when one is selling their "inspired by" work.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Agreed.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My lord, nobody owns an idea, therefore it cannot be stolen. As Arched alluded to, it's the creative expression of an idea that's important. Every photographer, every musician, every writer derives inspiration and collects ideas from the thousands that have gone before him or her. This is as old as history. Rebekka is one sense the most copied artist on Flickr, but in a more accurate sense she is the most inspirational.
It would be good form for Rosie to acknowledge her inspiration, but it's not required in any real legal or moral sense. I've had my own shots used as templates for others, and sometimes the use is acknowledged or requested, and sometimes not. Heck, my most famous series was a parody of another famous Flickr image.
Observe, adapt, create. Acknowledge when it makes sense. Taking a similar photo as another photographer is not stealing, borrowing or anything of the sort. It's inspiring, and helps to expand and grow art.
Check out this interview & the follow-up comments from merkley??? to see what another great Flickrite thinks about others being inspired by his art. www.flickr.com/groups/spotlight_seven/discuss/72157607789... [Note: Not quite safe for work, due to the topless chicks].
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"Just bad manner."
*taps finger on nose repeatedly*
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Flickr Photographer Derives Inspiration from Fellow Artists [Originally: Rosie Hardygate]
[Moderator edit: Changed the title a bit as not everyone is familiar with Hardy.]
Well at least they have not deleted it!
Apparently there are other threads elsewhere, would someone be kind enough to email me so I can look.
Anyone who does not think this is an issue, just imagine someone copies a pic of yours, pixel for pixel and then passes it off as their own, then like Carie-ellen says, excepts x amounts of comments praising its originality and then they have the cheek to go on and sell it!....and at NO point is reference/credit to the artist given….how would you feel?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ jakerome - You are honest about where your inspirations come from, and you say you have even directly parodied other people's images. But what about when someone not only avoids crediting the originals, but then lies and says they never saw the images they have been accused of copying? (when the images are in their own Favourites). That is what's complicating this case.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
Miss Aniela edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
 |
~ fernando [deleted] says:
Well, from a relative "infringement" point of view, this is lesser than the Marlboro Man photographers that just generated a huge sale... for the photographer that took the photo of the poster, not the original photographer. (by Richard Prince, who is again in a heap of trouble)
More derivative is the fracas over the iconic Obama campaign poster, which is derivative. So legally, there can be some grounds for copying ideas to some degree.
A parallel case was how in England there has been some awarding of damages for sampling, or even using riffs from songs (Elastica vs. Wire). In the latter, some "expert" determined a percentage of the song belonged to Wire, and the remuneration on royalties had to be split accordingly.
So, I am not sure that it can be dismissed as "it happens all the time" in the case of Ms. Hardy. However, as long as there is no financial gain by her, then it is all about shame, if she cares about that kind of thing.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
~ fernando edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
There is a difference between a parody and a copy.
Hot Shots is a parody of Top Gun
Days of Thunder is a copy of Top Gun
Rosie Hardy is the Days of Thunder of flickr!
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
Flet©h edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
I think the other complication would be that those deviant art artists are also selling their work. Their creative, highly stylized work. So directly copying it, not disputing all the "originality" praise, then selling it as a Rosie Hardy work....I can see where those original artists, trying to sell their art, would not be happy that someone is duplicating it and selling it as their own. Kinda messes up their own business, ya know? I mean, a lot of those copies...it's not world famous people she's copying whom everyone is being inspired by, and there's no doubt who the original artist is...I think that's part of what also leaves the bad taste in one's mouth over this. Again, I just think a linkback would solve matters, be good form. (oh, and I don't know which ones are actually in the books, being sold, I'm just thinking of some other ways this might be bad). ;)
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
Anyone who does not think this is an issue, just imagine someone copies
a pic of yours, pixel for pixel and then passes it off as their own
It is an issue, but there is no pixel-to-pixel copying here. There is a copying that is very subjective to the degree that it is "shameful." As Ben Cooper puts it, I also would not care for her work as it is rather flickr generic once you get a degree in Photoshop.
I, generally, take photos of "things," and even put a location on the map where it was taken. Anyone can go and pretty much go and retake it... and perhaps even improve on it! I think that is great... I do not feel I have to be credited in any way.
These days, many bands sound like earlier bands (Franz Ferdinand vs. Gang of Four, Interpol vs. Chameleons, etc.), but there is legal chasing going on.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
I think the other complication would be that those deviant art artists
are also selling their work. Their creative, highly stylized work.
Yes, that is an issue. Has it been established that the other people are not Hardy-like?
I agree to the unfairness... it is a bit like Eric Clapton making all the money off a couple of songs ("I shot the sheriff" and "cocaine") because he is more famous, as Ms. Hardy may well be.
(Dang, what is it with this music comparison I woke up today?)
However, that is the nature of the business. It is a business based on promotion, and so artistic originality is not a demand of the buyers, because they are not very discriminant to research.
Apropos another thread, Ms. Hardy may have a superb camera they cannot own and that is all that the buyer needs to discern.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
shhexycorin,
It was Ramona Dixon.
www.flickr.com/photos/alan-jordan/152275136/
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In UK law it counts as copyright infringement if you copying a substantial part of a copyright work - what is meant by substantial depends on the context...if there is an original element of the work and you recreate it without permission of the copyright owner(s) of that work then you could be infringing copyright (even if you are not making a direct copy) - especially if you do so for commercial gain. (There is a special case if you do it only for private study).
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Taking a similar photo as another photographer is not stealing, borrowing or anything of the sort.
West's Encyclopaedia of American Law suggests otherwise. You can read its take on plagiarism by following this link and scrolling a little way down the page.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This story reminds me : Bob Clarke vs Pepsi.
www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Copyright_row_Bob_Carl...
Two similar pictures, two different artists. Is it copyright infrigement or not ?
Plagiarism yes ... if the artist is aware of the work of the other one. At the end of the day, you need to find ideas from somewhere. One way to learn is to try to copy other people, try to undestand how they made it then with experience you can move away and develop your own style.
my 2p idea.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Its complicated...that's why it takes courts to decide.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
to those who don't see this as a big deal, are you saying you wouldn't be pissed off if somebody were profiting off an exact replica of one of your works? i sure as hell would be.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
*MaryElise* - thank you!
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I wonder if she has a legitimate copy of Photoshop!
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
She uses GIMP :)
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
They aren't exact replicas sami.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, that appears to be a legal definition of plagiarism, which in the definition itself is noted for not being a legal term. And really, if a definition anything like that were put into place by copyright maximalists, art would suffer immeasurably, for there really is nothing new under the sun-- everything is inspired by and similar to something that has gone before.
Classless? Maybe. Impolite? Definitely. Illegal? Not even close.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
No art is original. Yep... and yawn. The case at hand is beyond that.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@jakerome -- you wrote:
It would be good form for Rosie to acknowledge her inspiration, but it's not required in any real legal or moral sense.
Sort of. If she is claiming that she never saw these original works, yet she has them saved in a favorites archive, then yes, it is morally dishonest, but up to her own conscious to deal with.
However, if she is selling her own works that are based upon these images, or it can be shown that her versions are in some way harming the profit potential of the originals, that crosses the line to being legally dishonest.
Ultimately, it would be up to a court to decide the level (if any) of infringement. Looking at the side-by-side gallery, personally I can see some that I might only classify as "inspired by" (and therefore not necessarily infringement). However, others are so blatantly similar that I can see a real case of the original artist being able to claim that Rosie's version would potentially harm their own profitability.
This really isn't about "ideas," but about the expression. For example, taking a photo of someone laying under a chair while a cat sits on said chair isn't an idea that can be protected. However, the execution of shooting from the side so that it looks like the chair is on the wall, with specific windows behind, and a woman wearing a certain style of clothing, etc., starts crossing the line into the expression of the idea.
Infringement doesn't have to be an "exact" copy.
The three big things a court would look at are 1. originality of the concept/execution (i.e., is the accuser's version even original enough for there to be a case, or is there room for "coincidence"), 2. whether the infringer had access to the original, and 3. whether the copy is similar enough that it would cause confusion regarding the original source.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, when she claims she never saw them, yeah, she's clearly lying since she has marked many as faves. That's wrong. But if she just shut up about and didn't say anything? Who cares.
Check out merkley???'s interview linked above. It really is interesting what his thoughts are. And listen to Rebekka's bit on TWIP this week, she has some insight as well.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I will add that I'm not here to defend Rosie, I'm just putting forth my point-of-view that all art is inspired by something, and being similar doesn't mean it's a rip-off. Out of the shots on the account, I'd say 1-2 may be close enough to support a weak copyright claim in our legal system, and those are close calls. The whole pattern of the account as presented is a bit much, but that doesn't mean the individual actions (shooting a similar photo) are wrong.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
In general, I agree with you. Being inspired by someone else's work isn't, in itself, a bad thing. I know that people have used some of my ideas, and I know that I have seen ideas and tried to put my own spin on them.
That's how we all grow as artists.
Even flat out denying where the inspiration came from (when the similarity is obvious enough to justify it) is just knock against the person's own character.
For me, where it starts to ruffle my feathers is the question of whether or not she's selling prints and making profits from these questionable images.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yes, she sells a wide range of her images, including some of those in question.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
Miss Aniela edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
That is the brunt of it - if she had credited those artists and recognised that it's inappropriate to sell them, there wouldn't be much of an issue here.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
So it's OK to borrow someone's idea without permission but not OK to make money out of that it? I am a bit confused here...
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Yeah, what Rosie is doing is ethically suspect, but, I don't think there's anything in the law that says that copying ideas in a visual medium is okay when done for free, but not when done for pay. Passing off the *actual photo* that someone else created as one's own is a violation of copyright whether money is involved or not.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There's quite a thriving market in paintings of Van Gogh's paintings as sunflowers. Not much attempt to pass them off as the artists' original ideas though. ;-)
www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/business/worldbusiness/15paint...
I was shocked to find the Louvre full of blatant fakers:
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Exactly. Whether she profits from it isn't important. She was inspired by someone, created a new artwork, and sold it. Good for her.
Bad for denying the influence, bad for not crediting the inspiration.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think many old masterpieces may currently be considered public domain, so not really relevant to the current discussion, at least not to the legal questions.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ Lazybug -- you wrote:
So it's OK to borrow someone's idea without permission but not OK to make money out of that it? I am a bit confused here...
Kind of. However, one doesn't *only* need to make money from copied work in order to be found guilty.
Copyright law is also about harming the potential for the original artist to profit from their own work.
For example, say I made a blatant copy of an image that you were selling. I then put my image on display. I become so hugely popular because of *my* version of the image, that you actually have reason to suspect that my freely available image is making it so that people don't want/need to buy yours. You could potentially have a case against me -- even though I'm not making a dime.
The burden of proof regarding lost profit potential in that case would be on you, but depending on the circumstances, might make for a very valid infringement case.
Merely copying another work isn't inherently bad. Criticism, instruction, or parody are three specific cases where copying is allowed as "fair use."
(Standard disclaimer: I'm basing my comments upon my own understanding of copyright from years of branding hassles in the graphic design field. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on Flickr. Your mileage may vary.)
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
copying another work isn't inherently bad
Ditto!
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I was shocked to find the Louvre full of blatant fakers:
I know! I've seen the same thing in galleries all over the world! And it needs to be stopped!
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I did not say that it's bad only to profit monetarily from plagiarism. I was pointing out that it can make the situation even more questionable, if you ('you' as in - other people in this thread) didn't think it was questionable enough to start with. I am not a legal expert so I'm glad there are some informative people contributing to this thread in that sense.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Actually I'm much more worried that there seems to be someone who has set up an account with the sole purpose of harassing a Flickr member.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i'm not sure that her "re-creations" of other photographers' works is a violation of copyright, she does re-stage the shots herself and there are many differences between her photographs and the ones she's trying to copy.
her photos appear to be simple re-creations of the works that she's imitating. if she has been "inspired" by the previous works, she has merely been inspired to copy them.
i'm not sure if what she's doing is illegal or not, but it is obviously unoriginal.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
... but it is obviously unoriginal.
Nor should that keep her from making money, as it has not stopped anyone before.
I think from comments above, the point of legality comes from her commercial venture impeding the originating artist (provided they are not copying equally) from sales. That she knows the original works would work against her. How much this can be demonstrated in a court of law... I think that is another matter.
One cannot patent an idea either, but the execution can have a valid court case. There maybe some parallels to this situation.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The case of Rogers v. Koons comes to mind. In that instance, a man had a sculpture made that copied a photograph then sold that sculpture for thousands. He was sued for copyright infringement by the photographer and lost.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Isn't this a fuss over nothing? All artists lift motifs and techniques. I'm not just talking about inspiration - I mean the blatant use of, for example, exactly the same compositions as other artists - and rarely credited explicitly. Manet lifted from Rubens, Gainsborough lifted from some Dutch bloke beginning with R.
That some choose to copy work for reasons of fashion rather than good art is probably enough in itself to consign their work to the dustbin of history.
But if the main point at issue here is plagiarism of living artists, maybe that's a different matter, I dunno.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Exactly. Whether she profits from it isn't important. She was inspired by someone, created a new artwork, and sold it. Good for her.
Bad for denying the influence, bad for not crediting the inspiration.
I almost agree with that Jakerome, however I think she shouldn't sell it without crediting the original. I would find it ok to sell it, if she referenced the 'original' on deviantART.
I looked at the photos and I think they are more or less 'copied'. Some are cleary taking the idea and warm it up and some are so different that it is at least partially a new artwork.
I really like it when people add 'Copycat' to their description or titles, so it's clearly stated that the shot of someone else is re-done. I think I may have seen that in your stream, carie~ellen ?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Has anyone actually asked wether she had permission? Did she ask? Is she here to defend her actions?
Shall we find out?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think the original artists have the right to pursue legal action and have a very good shot at winning their lawsuits.
If one looks at the four factors of fair use that are looked at in legal cases, Rosie Hardygate fails the factors of:
1) Purpose and Character
2) Effect on Work's Value
I believe the original artists can successfully argue that the photos are clearly derivative works and don't display enough originality on their own. They also clearly are not parodies of the derived works so Rosie and Aaron cannot defend their case with that point, although they could try.
In my opinion, the real clincher is their impact on the derived work's value and market. Since Rosie's photos are almost exact duplications of the original artist work's without being a clear parody of the work or having substantial originality, it can be claimed that their works are like a direct market substitute for the original artist's work. I think other arguments can also be made to say that Rosie has clearly harmed the original artist's market. And I think this can be supported even further by the amount of money Rosie and Aaron seem to have made from the sales of these works.
*Edit*
Whoa, after reading what people have been saying.... I'm pretty shocked by how much people don't know about copyright and what fair use really is.
The question of whether or not profit was made is HUGELY IMPORTANT!!!! Just as important is the the question of whether or not those photos can be considered "new" or "original."
See this link for a better understanding of what Fair Use is:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_Stat...
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
DK727 edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
Well, I like her versions of the photos. Some are better than the originals and some aren't.
I think she might lose if a copyright infringement lawsuit was brought against her. We'll see what happens in the TV court room when the writers on one of the popular TV law shows copies this story and has a TV trial.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Imagine the scene: Rosie Hardy applies to go to a top university to do a degree in fine art photography. She presents her portfolio of images heavily inspired by other people's work (which she passes off as wholly her own). She gets a place on the university course because of her "creative vision" and "original concepts". Other people who are truly creative are rejected.
When it comes to her degree show, does she just copy someone else again, or does it transpire that she hasn't got an original idea in her head?
Although some of you haven't heard of her, Rosie is one of the most popular people on Flickr (with a never-ending stream of Explore #1s), has been featured in several magazines and newspapers, and her fame may lead to wider exposure (and professional jobs) like it has for the likes of Rebekka and Miss Aniela. I think it would be a travesty for Flickr if the site became known for raising a copyist to its highest ranks. I think we should be supporting artists, not artisans.
I fear that Rosie and Aaron have started believing their own hype. This should be a wake-up call.
The Google cache will show potential employers of "internet creatives" that Rosie Hardy got caught red-handed, exposed as a one-idea fraudster. A victim of her own success. It's pretty sad, really.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Good point. Her moral authority ended as soon as she started claiming that she never saw the images that inspired her creations.
That said, I maintain that it's utterly insane if the concept of a photo can never be copied. I'm going to ping Merkley???. I'd like to see what he thinks (as another fellow frequently copied).
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Jakerome half an hour with a copyright lawyer should be enough to show you that copyright law has nothing at all to do with sanity.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Methinks the main thing this may have an effect on is academic qualifications, if these copied pics are being submitted in a class as original work. But we don't know that, maybe only the original ones are being submitted and the copies are just being done as Photoshop/Gimp practice ? Still, they shouldn't be being posted as originals . . . . . . .
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
I think we should be supporting artists, not artisans.
Nice. I like this.
However, flickr's overnight fame comes from Explore, in great measure, so I am not sure it facilitates such a noble notion.
Also sad is the fickleness of it all. People are not very demanding as to the craft involved -- much happens "behind fancy cameras and photoshop." There is some community of fantastic talent getting their just praise, but they hardly come to the front of flickrati like those you mentioned, and many others in the same style. Perhaps, equivalently, flickr is more like the Billboard charts, with Ms. Hardy being more like Britney Spears.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think we should be supporting artists, not artisans.
What's wrong with craftsmanship?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm going to link to Merkley's interview again, but this time point to the specific comment about one of the people imitating his style. Can't help but dig Merkley??? Endless entertainment and insight.
www.flickr.com/groups/spotlight_seven/discuss/72157607789...
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The distinction between inspiration and copying can be relatively clear. Allen Ginsberg was inspired by Jack Kerouac. Someone who puts out a poem that looks exactly like "Howl" with every fourth word changed is copying Ginsberg.
These pictures look a lot more like the latter than the former.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
Merkley's opinion is nice... but it is not copyright law nor enlightening on Fair Use cases, and he probably does not claim it to be so.
We all have our opinions here as well, and they are equally valid to Merkley or photographic-deity of choice.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
~ fernando edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
...the concept of a photo can never be copied...
That's not completely true. I might be wrong, but I think you're confusing the ideas of concept/inspiration with the originality and creative elements that clearly define an image.
Under certain circumstances, replication of the original and creative concepts are ok. e.g. Superimposing your face onto the Mona Lisa, Parodying Annie Leibovitz's Photo of Demi Moore. However, if one created an image of Vincent van Gogh's Starry Night except with a lighter shade of blue and maybe with a few less swirlies thingies, that's much more suspect. Especially if one passes it off as their own original work.
There is absolutely no way that an image of your face superimposed on the Mona Lisa will be confused with the real Mona Lisa. There's also no possible way the Demi Moore photo and the parody could be mistaken for each other. Those are clear parodies and very unlikely to harm the market for either images. Unfortunately, it does not appear that Rosie can make that sort of distinguishment especially since it appears that she has cashed in on some of these images as being her original art.
You're wrong. It's not about craftsmanship. It's about fraud and exploitation.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You're wrong. It's not about craftsmanship. It's about fraud and exploitation.
I believe jamalrob was referring to the misuse of the word "artisan".
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You're wrong. It's not about craftsmanship. It's about fraud and exploitation.
Lots of priggishness on display here.
The crucial thing for me is that she made those images herself. From there, I'm free to judge them...
FlyButtafly, actually I wasn't, I was just using craftsmanship in the place of artisanship, which is more obscure and distracting. :)
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
The crucial thing for me is that she made those images herself. From there, I'm free to judge them...
Absolutely.
The courts may differ from your opinion, but that generally happens all the time. I remember the case of Bush v. Gore... oh wait, that was not about copyright.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Adam took one of an apple, but Eve photoshopped it and got to number one on the first ever Explore page.
ParcelForce are quite reliable these days. I'd send it registered mind.
Painting a picture of a sunflower is one thing. Painting a picture of Van Gogh's picture of a sunflower and passing it off as your original idea is something completely different.
"Just bad manner." 
Taking a similar photo as another photographer is not stealing, borrowing or anything of the sort.
They aren't exact replicas sami.
Well, that appears to be a legal definition of plagiarism, which in the definition itself is noted for not being a legal term. And really, if a definition anything like that were put into place by copyright maximalists, art would suffer immeasurably, for there really is nothing new under the sun-- everything is inspired by and similar to something that has gone before.
Good point. Her moral authority ended as soon as she started claiming that she never saw the images that inspired her creations. 
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads