Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/11/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Peter Klein wrote: >In George's "devil's advocate" post, "A Photo Editor" proposed in his blog >that if Richard Prince can't get away with copying Sam Abell's photo--in >its entirety, and claiming it as a new work--then none of us can photograph >anything containing any other image or logo. In other words, unless we >allow blunt-force plagiarism, no derivations are possible. > >Sorry, that's absurd. Again, it comes down to that "new matter" phrase I >mentioned in a previous post. It's the difference between a simple copy, >and using something as an element in a larger work. Consider this photo of >mine: >http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/Spyglass.htm > >Clearly, I've used another photograph as an element of the piece. The >advertisement on the left is part of a big poster for a new condos that >were being built on the street. It's on a high ridge that has good views >both east and west. To the left, out of view of the crop, is a mirror >image of what you see. Here's the original scene before cropping: >http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/temp/L1003004OrigView.jpg > >The ad says: "You have mountain view in two directions from this building, >wouldn't you just love to live here?." My picture, which uses only half >the ad, says something entirely different--"Big Sister is watching you." I >believe I created a whimsical juxtaposition that was also a wry comment on >life post-9/11. So there is substantial "new matter" in my photo. > >I wouldn't dream of simply copying the original advertisement and passing >it off as my own. But of course, Richard Prince is a Great Artist, and I'm >not. I suppose Richard Prince can get away with is because he's boldly defining a new kind of art: Plagiarism Art. If this is what it takes to be an Artist I'm very happy to be something else. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com