Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/11/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Another form of "DERIVATIVE" white collar crime ;~) Fond regards, George george@imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:16 PM, Jayanand Govindaraj wrote: > He gets away with it because people buy it.... > Cheers > Jayanand > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:59 AM, <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<http:// >>> users.2alpha.com/%7Epklein/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<http:// >>> users.2alpha.com/%7Epklein/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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information