Photographs of other's artwork

[Runmonty]

This is a very difficult area that I think does not have a definitive answer. I have thought about this with some of my window photos as they often have murals included.

I believe that I could make an acceptable, logical argument that pretty much anything could be ethically photographed, and equally make a counter argument that almost nothing should. In the end I think it becomes subjective based on you own value judgement.

Given that pretty much everything in an urban environment is created by a person or group of people, if we believe we should not be taking photos of someone else’s art (what is art anyway) we would not take photos of anything. When does a painting become a mural to becoming a colour scheme a building? Is a sculpture different than a building just because one is suitable for human occupation? Or any other functional object that has been created by a person (I tend to recall a recent situation where someone got into trouble taking a photo of a famous chair in France ??). Is graphic design different other forms of artwork?. If no, then street signs and traffic signs should be classed the same “art” and should not be photographed. By this argument, anything that someone has used a creative process to make should be off limits. That pretty much leaves us only being able to photograph the untouched natural world (provided it is not part of a garden that has been landscaped or laid out as a park), and people (provided that everyone dresses the same and does not express their own creativity through tattoos, makeup, haircuts, plastic surgery or shaving their face).

Having said all that, I think the final decision rests with the photographer provided that there is no attempt to claim originality or authorship to subject in question. Similarly I disagree with taking someones else's art and modifying it and claiming it as original work. My personal feeling is that if it is in the open to be shared in the public domain it is fair game. If it is something you can see without having to use subterfuge, or is in a protected environment I am happy to photograph it, although just taking a photo of someone else’s “art” in isolation normally demonstrates lack of creativity by the photographer as should be avoided for that reason.

Another question (but I think a different one) as raised by Marko in the Hope Obama example, is when does replicating a style become plagiarism? How many truly original ideas are there left without one image somehow resembling another that has been created in the history of recording? How do you define how close it has to be to be a copy? Is it OK to replicate a scene in a painting via photography? All difficult questions.

As an aside, it seems to me that in general this is pretty much only a contentious issue in photography when talking about copying 2D art, and less so when trying to create a 2D representation (photo) of a 3D scene art (the French chair excepted). However I see this becoming a huge issue over the next 20 years when 3D printing becomes more prevalent and pretty much any 3D object can be easily replicated

Sorry about the long response, but is a very interesting question

[Matt K.]

.... Similarly I disagree with taking someones else's art and modifying it and claiming it as original work.

Well we had an instance of this in our photoclub. One member took several pictures (off the net, from National Geographic amongst other sources) and cropped a bit here, a bit there, mirrored it and then submitted to the internal competitions. He walked away a decorated (trophies and ribbons) man, being uuuhhhhed and ahhhhed by all for his superb photography. One competition I helped judge he photographed a mural and we all hummed and haaaa'd on how the dickens he made this in Photoshop ... then I saw the ledge of the wall; so I pointed out he did no such thing, but handed in a photograph of a mural; too late, he won the competition (it was a "creativity" competition. Well next year someone else did the same thing, so then the image was thrown out. However, the former character submitted another "painting" as his own .. did not even bother to change the title of the painting. That is when we found out about it. Yours truly did a search on the net, and voila: the wallpaper came up. This is something that was FOR SALE for people who liked it. Like as in a print for example. Needless to say the club executives asked some rather pertinent questions, and this character is no longer a member of our club.

I used Google chrome to find duplicates. If ever you wonder if someone else is using your stuff, do a search with Google chrome (there is a utility that does a web search based on the image alone, not even the title - i think it is called tineye).

Anyone using someone else's art to stuff his pockets is guilty of stealing. That is all there is to it from my point of view.

[Runmonty]

That is really low (and somewhat amazing) Matt

I used Google chrome to find duplicates. If ever you wonder if someone else is using your stuff, do a search with Google chrome (there is a utility that does a web search based on the image alone, not even the title - i think it is called tineye).
.

Google images does the same thing - just drag and drop. I am amazed at how many times, where and by whom some of my images are used (sometimes with - sometimes without credit). One of them was on a US politician's site without credit.

[Marko]

Imo cropping and mirroring someone else's image and having the stones to watermark it as your own is not cool and grounds for flogging.
I also don't think it's cool for someone to run a photoshop filter over someone else's artwork and call it their own.
I think for me it comes down to personal ethics and honour and maybe how much of the work is used (or modified) and maybe the intent of the photographer. I'd say for sure every circumstance is different.
And maybe I'm going to start thinking about this a whole lot more.

If one of my pics is on a wall in a house somewhere and someone poses with that pic for any reason, let's say he mirrors the pose of the person in my wall pic. Another photographer makes that photograph.
End result is my image takes up 29% of the photographer's final photograph. Is that cool?
I also occasionally use another artist's sculpture in my ICM work. Is that cool?

[Iguanasan]

An interesting page for reference to this topic: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/C...rivative_works

Here's also another interesting example of using someone else's artwork. In this case my photograph was turned into a drawing. He did this with permission and attribution. Has he created art? If he hadn't have asked would he have been ripping me off? In this case, the image is different enough that I'm not sure. What do you guys think?


Eastern American Toad by Iguanasan, on Flickr



Eastern American Toad by Roger D Hall, on Flickr

[Matt K.]

For me, personally, if someone else is taking one of my pics off Flickr, prints it out to hang it on his/her wall, I feel honoured. If they use it commercially, I feel violated without the proverbial butter.

[casil403]

For me, personally, if someone else is taking one of my pics off Flickr, prints it out to hang it on his/her wall, I feel honoured. If they use it commercially, I feel violated without the proverbial butter.

IMO, I would hope that they would at the very least ask you first if it is ok to take your pic. I had a friend who told me recently that she made a collage of my images to hang on her wall. I was a bit ticked off that I was never asked if this was ok...friend or no friend; the right and polite thing to do is ask first.

Going back to the topic at hand, here's another scenario: You can get apps that mimic famous artists styles...ie Andy Wharhol. You can turn any photograph into and "Andy Wharhol-esque image. I have to wonder if this falls into the same category as some of the above. https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/the-...442963936?mt=8