Copy Cat

[Godmother]

What if i like and image and i find a similar model, use same make up, styling, pose, lighting, etc etc.
Then post it in my website as my own.

Is that Legal?

xx

[mistermonday]

Godmother, since you are using your own lighting and different model, in my opinion you are emulating another photographer's work but not copying the original work. I would think that you are not violating a copyright. However, I am not a legal expert so some other member may wish to comment.
Regards, Murray

[MBChamberlain]

It's not a copyright violation, but it is being a copy cat, as you said. Why settle for being a mimic?

Attempting to copy an image is a really great thing for learning purposes. It teaches you to think more critically and exposes weaknesses in your technique and provides you with a broader base of experience to draw from. But I think to mimic another photographer's shot for the purposes of promoting yourself is a bit dishonest. You aren't showcasing your own talents, merely your ability to imitate the talent of others.

So go and copy the photograph, learn what you can from it, then go shoot something better to put on your website.

Cheers,
Michael

[Godmother]

So to get this right... It's not ilegal? If I have on my website a pic that looks EXACTLY the same as another photographer's published picture... I'm not braking the law? I can't get sued? Something like ... "likeness"??

[PixFixGuy]

Hello Godmother;
If it's exact like in indistinguishable you could have a problem if the originator is litigious and sees it. Why do that anyway? Listen to MB Chamberlain. Your site is about YOU! It should reflect your work. You can use the other guys style but execute it in your unique way. That has been going on forever. Do your thing not someone else's.

[Photodivauk]

Hi Godmother. Hope its OK to post. In the UK you might get into hot water if you took a published image, pastiched it and then tried to use your image commercially. There have been a couple of cases where the original photographer won - so stuff like intellectual property and originality comes into the equation. If your 'copy' is sufficiently like the original, it could breach copyright. Not sure what the situation is in the US.

On this forum there's a lot of interest in Dave Hill's techniques, no doubt people wanting to emulate his style. In the same vein, I'd venture that you could do what you suggest, use it in your portfolio/website to promote your skills, but might be dodgy to sell or use said image commercially.

There was a recent tv prog on Rankin who 're-created' some iconic photos. I noticed that most were significantly 'his' style, and not a blatant copy of the original.

As has been said above, why do you really want to do that?

[Sweetlight]

God, You will be alright, if you shoot it later than the original, make it better.

It's funny 'cause I always get t'd at people stealing mine or another's images and crack down on it. I always say, just ask, I'm a pretty generous guy, I'll trade you for a piece of your work. It's that easy. There is a pretty famous artist in California who is a paper-toy artist which is awesome but also a brilliant illustrator, world class. She contacted me once about using my images as a starting point for her illustrations. I was actually honored because her work is unreal. I asked for a piece of her work in exchange and sent her and still do to this day, high-res copies of whatever she wants. When it starts in trust like that I feel artists should help each other that way.
Was this even on topic??? Hmmm?
c

[PixFixGuy]

Close enough and a great idea!!!

[EugeneB]

Hi All, YES, the original photographer can sue you for copying their work, and they could win in court. If you use someone else’s work without saying it is a RECREATION of their work, it infringes their intellectual property rights. The copyright owner can choose statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each work infringed.

I am not a lawyer so check this out with a copyright attorney.

[Sweetlight]

I am sorry but Eugene is a bit misspoken. Statutes vary from state to state but ultimately it is a federal crime. True that blatant use ie; theft of image for ones personal use or for use by an entity of more than one is indeed a theft of "intellectual property", someone using the property such as a painter using a photo to create an exact copy only in paint becomes touchy but if the image is changed in such a way as to not blatantly emulate the original the infrigement becomes very hard to prosecute. Among others I shoot for AP and there is a big issue now that will most likely go to the high courts because of a painter stealing an photographers image of Obama and making an exact representation of it with not even a mention or credit to the shooter. He then used the image to make t-shirts, buttons and such and sold them at the inauguration. That is a big no, no and it's ridiculous that it even needs to be heard by a judge.

[Godmother]

btw... I don't want to do that - I'd never do that butI got in argument with someone who does and he said is legal because everything has been done before. I said EVEN if it is legal (because i didn't think it was) why would u do it???? do something better!

Anyway, thank u guys - U've made me right again

[EugeneB]

Sweetlight,
How have I misspoken? I did not not say it was a State Statutes, the Statutory damages is in federal court. The original post was about a blatant copy of a copyrighted image, could not be fair use. Any one can sue anyone about anything, they do not even have to be right. U.S. law states that you are entitled to actual or statutory damages for infringement as provided by 17 U.S.C. Chapter 5, specifically section 504. Please don't make a statement that someone has misspoken unless you know what you are talking about. Read 17 U.S.C. Chapter 5, specifically section 504. I have sued an infringer, and won, so I know what I am saying here.

[Sweetlight]

Wow, you are are absolutely right, I have misspoken??? I have no idea what I am speaking off.

[timwbrown]

If you copy you must make it BETTER.
That is the rule.
Otherwise, you're looking at possibly 10 years in San Quentin.

[anchorbuildings]

I don't think anyone's going to come chasing after you and bother suing you unless you're using the image for a campaign or something. Who'd bother going to the hassle unless you're seriously infringing upon their trademark. In fashion photography everyone constantly references everyone else. In clothing manufacture everyone's endlessly ripping everyone else. I think the important thing, like cover music, is to make it your own... e.g. 'come as you are' by caetano veloso vs. nirvana. it's like two completely different songs yet on paper it's the same thing. kisses... h

[PixFixGuy]

What is going on here? Get this, you can't infringe on another creators work. That means no reproducing, making your own version that is so close that it looks like the original, or in any other way using the original. There are exceptions and they are specific. Go on line to the US copyright site and get that info. If it was your work that someone used without credit or permission you would be ticked off and you do have legal recourse. The whole idea that somehow if you turn your head a certain way or rub your tummy while using some magical incantation it is OK to violate someone else's work is both immoral and illegal.

[anchorbuildings]

i know what the law says about copyright but if you take this thread in context you'll see she's talking about using a fashion image and replicating it. It's never going to be an exact copy, is it? A different model, a different makeup artist etc...

nobody is saying you're going to pass somebody elses work off as your own...

if you take it very literally then yes everybody is infringing on everybody... yes go ahead and sue Sherrie Levine, Richard Prince, Jeff Koons, Steven Meisel, those naughty burglars!!! (some people have tried)

'talent borrows, genius steals' Pablo Picasso...

now what i think Picasso meant is that you take the idea and make it yours... do you think?

[PixFixGuy]

Your right and the first note I made, as badly phrased as it was, indicated that. Borrowing other peoples ideas and doing it your unique way has been going on since day one. Buuut, if you can clearly see anothers work in what your doing that could be (I'm not a lawyer) another story. It's just that this conversation drifted to something else and to that my last comment was made.

[anchorbuildings]

cool i didn't want you to get the idea that I'm shamelessly ripping people off either.

wow these forums can get pretty heated, can't they?

[PixFixGuy]

Heated..........hay, that's the fun part. Gets the blood going (in the good way) and more ideas grow from that. I'm a Brooklyn boy and heat is when it gets good.

[anchorbuildings]

i've seen people SLATING each other hardcore in other forums here... I thought this would be a restrained bunch but it seems not. I just watched a Helmut Newton documentary the other day and he said he used to have massive arguments and falling outs with his printer (his retoucher of the day). He couldn't understand why the guy was so sensitive. He reckoned it was cause the guy never saw daylight. I guess retouchers prob don't see the sun much either. The doc is called 'Frames from the Edge'. Check it out if you get the chance...

[PixFixGuy]

Though this is not part of the "copy" discussion I can give you an answer to your note from my perspective. Coming from Brooklyn NY, I feel this discussion has been not only civil but filled with interesting insights and that is a good thing. Debate is good as long as it comes from a good place. It's OK for some heat as long as it is respectful. As for the sensitivity of retouchers it's like any other time honed skill, people like to take pride in a job well done but what must never be forgotten is we do what we do to the request of the client and their taste buds. The job of any pro is to offer advice to help the client get what they want and do it well. The client wants what they want and so you do it as the service we provide. We smile, say "Thank you." and cash the check. I do not get all that bent when the client insists on what I would call ugly. That is an unwinable contest to have with a client so I and most pros don't have it. So, I say thank you and cash the check and they come back for more.