BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Photography Question 
Jodi Zimmer
BetterPhoto Member Since: 9/18/2006
 

paintings


I am just curious..how can people take a picture of someone else's painting, play with it in PS and call it their own work?


To love this question, log in above
2/23/2008 10:56:00 AM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  I believe that is called Van Camping


To love this comment, log in above
2/23/2008 11:16:50 AM

 
Jodi Zimmer
BetterPhoto Member Since: 9/18/2006
  Sorry...don't know what that means Greg.


To love this comment, log in above
2/23/2008 11:26:09 AM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  Not me, that was the baby.
She was talking about somebody who took somebody else's picture and entered it into the contest with her name on it.
People do things like that.
Collage work may fall under a different circumstance than direct derivatives. But people will rationalize things how they want to sometimes.


To love this comment, log in above
2/23/2008 11:32:07 AM

 
Jodi Zimmer
BetterPhoto Member Since: 9/18/2006
  OOOOOOKKKKKK Glad you cleared that up


To love this comment, log in above
2/23/2008 11:40:21 AM

 
Ken Smith
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/11/2005
Contact Ken
Ken's Gallery
  Jodi, I don't think they do it with the intent to deceive...it's proabably out of ignorance. But with PS skills, anyone could take a great composition from a painting, do a few effects, and pass it off as their own... because in their mind, it IS their work. But that doesn't make it right.


To love this comment, log in above
2/23/2008 11:41:21 AM

 
Jodi Zimmer
BetterPhoto Member Since: 9/18/2006
  It just doesn't seem right. I can take a shot of my Van Gogh, posterize, saturate and put my name on it.How easy is that? But your so right. Must be ignorance.Thanks Ken


To love this comment, log in above
2/23/2008 11:51:08 AM

 
Dennis Flanagan
BetterPhoto Member Since: 12/31/2005
  I agree with you Jodi. I have the same feeling when folks take photos of statues...someone else's art. I suppose the same argument could be made for just about any man-made object (buildings, bridges, etc.) I suppose each of us has to ask ourselves what is right.


To love this comment, log in above
2/23/2008 12:56:24 PM

 
Diane Dupuis
BetterPhoto Member Since: 12/27/2003
  I had this conversation with a friend recently over graffiti that we were shooting. I was taking pics just for myself really - and so was she - but when I said I'd never post it or enter it in a contest because I felt like I was taking pics of other people's art she looked at me funny.


To love this comment, log in above
2/23/2008 2:08:35 PM

 
Christopher Budny
BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/3/2005
chrisbudny.com
  Dennis, I think you hit on it---any man-made object is "someone else's" creation... In the end, all you can perhaps "pass off as your own" really is the look of the digital image that results (particularly once you take it into the realm of manipulation and digital artistry.) But it is a different matter entirely, to take the credit for the underlying painting (or whatever subject, not created by you, is being shot) when the original subject matter remains identifiable. Outside of pure nature-based photography, the act of picking up a camera almost ensures you will be capturing someone else's creation. (And there are those who will chime in saying even nature photography is Someone Else's Creation.)

But the art world (not just photography) is certainly full of such borrowing... look at Andy Warhol's soup cans, or Monet's gorgeous series of Rouen Cathedral, or any paintings of any building for that matter, or the potter who fashions a Big Ben cookie jar, or the fabric artist who creates a quilt of Van Gogh's Starry Night, or Ansel Adams' shots of pueblo churches, or, or, or...


To love this comment, log in above
2/24/2008 8:44:44 AM

 
Jodi Zimmer
BetterPhoto Member Since: 9/18/2006
  I understand all the "someone else's creation" stuff. But it seems to me that taking a shot of someone else's painting or picture , adjusting it a wee bit and put their name on it as their own work is borderline plagiarism.


To love this comment, log in above
2/24/2008 9:10:06 AM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  It's going overboard to say any man made object. Because if you think that way, all landscapes and all these flower pictures follow in step because you're not choosing the color, or anything about a flower or landscape. Is anybody willing to admit that it's just a snapshot because it's all because of the flower being the way it is.
Plenty of good still lifes are more than just somebody else's work. It can be showing something outside of a straight forward way as if your looking at it on a store shelf.


To love this comment, log in above
2/24/2008 12:09:00 PM

 
Dennis Flanagan
BetterPhoto Member Since: 12/31/2005
  I was purely playing Devil's advocate when I included all man-made objects. I don't have a problem with statues when they are part of a bigger picture.


To love this comment, log in above
2/24/2008 12:13:40 PM

 
Log in to respond or ask your own question.