Landscape, Nature And Travel Photography

This whole idea of "photographic plagiarism" is something I've been thinking about and researching for sometime. I enjoy photography (and am an active member of Flickr), but I'm primarily a writer, and I honestly find the idea of "visual plagiarism" (if you prefer) as bordering on laughable.

In the first place, even if the idea of plagiarism can be extended to the visual, then there is absolutely no legal redress for it, as plagiarism is not a crime. This is true even in literary circles. One might take someone to court in a CIVIL case and possibly obtain financial renumeration, but that would hardly label the "convicted" party as a "criminal."

In the second place, whenever I see the idea of plagiarism brought up in the context of photography, it almost always confuses plagiarism with copyright. Copyright has to do with the actual ownership of a specific image and with the expression of the subject found within that image, and no two images are, or ever will be, exactly alike, as there will always be innumerable differences between them, from the date on which they were created, the vantage point from which the photo was taken, the time of day the photograph was taken, the lighting, aperture, shutter speed, lens used (which could even then be broken down to brand of lens, focal length, and more), etc, plus, the most important factor of all when it comes to copyright: WHO created the image? Because, after all, even if I have copied your subject to a 'T', the fact remains that MY image is still MY image, and YOUR image is still YOUR image. Furthermore, copyright law makes it very clear that "ideas" are NOT copyrightable.

In the third place, the concept that "ideas" are not copyrightable is an extremely important one and one that should NEVER be abandoned. If you take a photo of the Golden Gate bridge (as cited earlier) from a given vantage point and then no one else is allowed to photograph it from the same vantage point, how the hell does anyone propose to enforce that crap? Put up a sign? "John Doe Photographer took a photo of this bridge from this vantage point and no one else is allowed to do so." Fine, then I'll move my camera eighteen inches to left of that spot, mark it as mine, and good luck in trying to prove me guilty of copying your image. After all, my image was taken from a slightly different vantage point, and even if I have copied every technical aspect of your image, the view of the subject will be different. If this is the path that is taken to protect some photographer's precious vantage point of a subject, then (again, as cited earlier) because some subjects may only be accessible from certain vantage points, you can kiss creativity goodbye. I also find it highly objectionable that some people take this to the extreme, believing that just because they've taken a photo of a certain building that no one else can photograph it. That attitude carries with it an inconceivable amount of arrogance.

In the fourth place, avoidance of plagiarism in the literary realm requires that one give credit, in a footnote, to the original author of the words cited. How does one do that with a photograph? Since when are photographs footnoted? Or is this what is being proposed with the idea of "photographic/visual plagiarism"?

In the fifth place, editors of magazines and book publishers tell every neophyte writer, "Ideas are a dime a dozen. Show me how you've put a unique twist on this idea, and then I'll consider it." So, what's important is not the idea, but how it was executed, how it was expressed, etc, and when you get down to that level, then plagiarism is hardly a concern.

In the sixth place, given how U.S. Copyright Law works, once a photograph is taken, it is automatically copyrighted. It may not be registered with the Library of Congress, but it is copyrighted, nonetheless. Consequently, even if I try to copy what someone else has done, my image, like theirs, is protected by copyright law.

In conclusion, I think photographers (and authors, too) ought to give their photography (writing) their primary focus, and not worry so much about copycats. They should concern themselves only with the Internet denizens who are hellbent on committing copyright infringement.

I think your last paragraph is key Gary. On the other hand I do think artists need to be educated in this area. A healthy balance of knowledge and focus is needed in this day and age. Thanks for the great comment.

I find it strange- this discussion of the pictures of things as if you then owned that view of the thing itself- and no one else in all of humanity was forever allowed to view that object in the same way you had -- ever again. The perfect concete.
Even imitation is no longer the sincerest form of flattery-- but just more fodder for the litigation mills.

@Mark I think in the end it is the image with the most public recognition that ends up being seen as the original. It's seldom correct, but that seems to be how it is.

Ultimately how much of a to do this is depends on the photographer and the niche community that photographer is in. Certainly for landscape photography most photographers know that Mesa Arch for example has so many photographic options. In addition most landscape photographers seldom are out for the unique shot, but merely to collect a classic view for their portfolio. In contrast commercial and art photographers strive to create something unique and in that sense when someone treads ground on their intellectual property they're more prone to air objections.

It's an interesting component of photographic philosophy. There are a lot of dimensions to this topic.

@Niels great points. I think for subjects like the Golden Gate bridge and Yosemite for example lighting and weather conditions vary enough that you can still get something unique. It does take more effort and creativity to find a new perspective. That being said the perspectives are finite. Getting something unique then becomes dependent on what you can bring to the scene with other subjects.

Subjects and techniques are always a source of inspiration. The art of photography is expanding on what has been done. Mere replication of photos can range from an homage to plagiarism. How the shades of grey are interpreted depends on how you handle yourself as a photographer and what you do with your work.

In the case of Bialobrzeski, I would say that the photos inspired someone to mimic the image because the other photographer had an unusual curiosity with his work. if it were one of my portfolio piece type of images then I would be very upset if I perceived someone as copying my work, and that is probably why Bialobrzeski felt that way. But then again, if the shot was so easily copied then it probably wasn't very special to begin with. What about capturing mood, or emotion? Compositions can be duplicated, but capturing the same essence of a subject should be impossible to replicate.

Some very interesting examples in that article Jim - thanks for pointing it out. It got me thinking about the 'celebrity' status of either the creator of the original or the copy. It makes you wonder if the originator of the copy is 'more' famous than the one for the original - is one perceived to be more genuine?

Sometimes I see articles published in magazines of certain techniques - and if any similar shots are seen (whether originated before or after the article) - the published ones seem to take the throne as the original ideas.

In other cases, particularly with landscape photography - I can see where certain vistas have limited points of view. So of course you are going to get a lot of duplication. I know this is a bit different than the very specific compositions pointed out in the article, but it still makes you think about what exactly is original? Is it expected that every piece of work is created from a mind that holds a database of everything that has been done before?

I agree that we will see many photographers using other compositional ideas and maybe even the local to create similar if not almost identical images.

This is one subject that is just fraught with many sharp corners for debate.

At what point does real inspiration migrate to infringement. There sure aren’t any definitive rules we can use to guide us.

The golden gate bridge is a very popular photo image and there form photographers I hear a certain location that many photographers want to use. Therefore we see many similar images and many of these photographers may not have seen others work.

I remember seeing images of a light bulb that was purposely broken and when electric current was applies the tungsten filament would burn and produce smoke trails and with back light lovely images were produced.

If we see these images and think that could be fun at what point does it becomes plagiarism of an idea. Each activation of the current will produce different smoke trails and even the broken top of bulbs will never look the same. We may even use different colour lights to get different effect, but these are all copies of the original idea.

Niels Henriksen