Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/11/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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. --Peter