Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/11/28

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Plagiarism vs. Derivation (re. Prince/Abell)
From: stasys1 at cox.net (Stasys Petravicius)
Date: Fri Nov 28 16:44:33 2008
References: <4898720.1227918544298.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Doug- I fully agree. Stasys
On Nov 28, 2008, at 4:29 PM, wildlightphoto@earthlink.net wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


In reply to: Message from wildlightphoto at earthlink.net (wildlightphoto@earthlink.net) ([Leica] Plagiarism vs. Derivation (re. Prince/Abell))