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