Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: cocasana on April 16, 2012, 01:10:30 am
-
Hi everyone
during my university I've been studying a lot of History of Art. One aspect that comes back to my mind quite often since I shoot photographs is related to the formation of artists between the 14th and the 20th century. In those times before even thinking having a personal style you had to be able to paint the way all the great Masters of your age and before did. That made me think that, for my very personal enjoyment, I would love to bee able to photograph as the great Masters did.
But I was considering that in those time they didn't, but in these times I can possibly have a copyright problem. What about if I try to get closer as possible to a portrait of Nadar, Karsh, Man Ray, Wharol...? Specifying that is after XXX? Would that be copyright infringement?
Thanks,
Carlo
-
As I understand it, if the original is still in copyright and you're trying to make money with an image that looks like a copy to a judge, you're in trouble.
But how similar do the shafts of light have to be in a picture of Antelope Canyon to be construed as a forgery of somebody's previous picture? It's all very ambiguous and a can of worms.
OTOH photographs of people where there is no model release are a place where photographers actually do get into a lot trouble, so that may be a bigger concern.
And look you guys...I don't wanna see any attempts at personalized styles until you show me a perfect copy of "Moonrise Over Hernandez." ;D You're just gonna have to wait for those clouds and that full Moon. I wonder if Ansel copyrighted that image, which was required at the time.
-
Hi Bill,
actually I should have been more clear: I was thinking at portraits (this time at least).
Same lights, same position, different model (obviously).
And if you don't make money with the photos can you still expose them?
-
Well I'd be in over my legal head to venture much further. I think if you don't try to commercially exploit the piece you're OK. But what if you give a copy to your friend and he sells it to somebody else, possibly representing it as a genuine original? The mind boggles. Obviously Nadar would be completely out of copyright. But the famous Karsh Winston Churchill portrait may still be in copyright, so there's a sticky wicket.
Seems more sensible to me to try to improve on the classics, rather than copy them literally. I'm trying to think how to redo the Karsh Churchill portrait substituting some recognizable contemporary person or thing for Winston. Perfect and true to the original in every way, except for subject. This is not without precedent. Any nominations? I think there is some fun to had there that would also serve as a true technical challenge no less difficult than a slavish copy, and a great deal more creative.
-
I would, for sure, be happy being able to achieve a shot that has the punch of Karsh's Churchills's portrait.
I'm also confident I wouldn't be satisfied with a lavish copy. But at the same time I would find immodest being sure being able to get even better.
But that's where the fun is!!!
-
Strange thing, but I never felt enthusiatic about Mr K; have you seen his women shots? I don't think he understood anything about them or us. Trouble is, many people in the portrait business should have been in the still life one instead, and that holds very true today, as well.
Rob C
-
Can't but disagree!!!
-
Can't but disagree!!!
Nonsense; you can do anything you want to do! Even look up Mr K's ladies. On the Internet, I mean.
;-)
Rob C
-
Did somebody say Karsh couldn't photograph women? 10 Pirelli girls in a row couldn't hold up a candle to this shot of Audrey Hepburn.
(https://images.nonexiste.net/popular/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Audrey-Hepburn-by-Yousuf-Karsh-Wow.jpeg)
And while this portrait of Marilyn did not earn him a calendar gig, it's one fabulous image.
(http://andreablanchblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Monroe.jpg)
-
Bill, they are terrible, IMO. In fact, are you certain about the Marilyn? I seem to remember Avedon shot something very similar at a down moment (hers), but he was notoriously cruel too, unless that's another figment of a heated brain. I particularly dislike the Bardot you can reference here:
http://www.photoicon.com/modern_masters/48/
which looks like he had been shooting a bust in a waxworks museum. Just look at the many shadows!
Rob C
-
That Marilyn shot must be the sole reason she killed herself!
-
Each to his own. Karsh had the ability to look deeply into his subjects' personalities, can't deny that. And what you saw was sometimes not pretty but it was usually remarkable. And he did not much alter his style or presentation for gender. Women got pretty much the same treatment as men. And nobody was asked to say "cheese" although they were free to do so.
Was the Marilyn photo cruel? I don't know. It sure was prescient. Maybe she liked it, by that point in her career Karsh must have had to sign off on right of approval. I think I recall hearing it was not released in her lifetime.
Nice Irving Penn quote... "Sensitive people faced with the prospect of a camera portrait put on a face they think is one they would like to show the world. ...Very often what lies behind the facade is rare and more wonderful than the subject knows or dares to believe." In googling "karsh photo" I noticed the largest portion of smiling people in Karsh photos are comedians, cartoonists, and other photographers. Ansel is only kind of smirking.
And seriously, Audrey Hepburn looks absolutely fab in that shot! Dignified, intelligent, beautiful, elegant. Not even trying to hide her nose. Or maybe there are just too many naked women streaking around the web these days, and clothing is the new eroticism.
*********************************
Anyway, my apologies to the OP. The idea of "copying the masters" is one that should get some airing here. It's a grand tradition now largely held in disdain, but is there some value to it?
-
Copy not just to copy. Copy to get familiar with, and appropriating of the different techniques.
Looks to me like a way of "stretching" your eyes and your photographic skills...
At the end I don't even think one can copy without adding what he thinks are his own two cent...
-
Each to his own. Karsh had the ability to look deeply into his subjects' personalities, can't deny that. And what you saw was sometimes not pretty but it was usually remarkable. And he did not much alter his style or presentation for gender. Women got pretty much the same treatment as men. And nobody was asked to say "cheese" although they were free to do so.
If you've seen the Annie L. docu Life Through a Lens you will see the 'personality' matter referred to with a lot of scepticism and added photographer disagreement. The reality they see is that 'subjects' project what they wish you to see, especially true for people in the public eye and with lots of practice in the noble art of PR (Mr K's subjects). You can imagine the Karsh subjects were naïve?
As for treating the genders in the same manner - demonstrates how limited and still life-based his psychological skills were. Which is where I came in, and will leave.
Rob C
-
Maybe this will bring some cheer.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lldzfn2bNB1qd9z0fo1_1280.jpg)
-
Thank goodness for the emancipation of the 60s/70s; never again (I hope) will boobs be subjected to such disagreeable confinement!
Was that an André de Dienes shot of our Norma J?
Rob C
-
Thank goodness for the emancipation of the 60s/70s; never again (I hope) will boobs be subjected to such disagreeable confinement!...
Ah, it must be your Euro-centrismn speaking... Here, they still are :(
-
Ah, it must be your Euro-centrismn speaking... Here, they still are :(
Okay, don't feel too bad with the hand you've been dealt: the generic garment is worn here, sometimes, but not of such mechanical construction as portrayed unless for really problematic case histories. That Outlaw movie certainly did spawn a lot of trouble even if, as I'm sure I saw her claim, Jane never did actually wear Mr Hughes' design.
But such mysteries are of the essence; they keep us curious, and where there is curiosity there is also, sometimes, life. I hope.
Rob C
-
Bill, they are terrible, IMO.
Glad you said it, Rob - they are poor.
If they weren't:
- Of stars;
- By a "star"; and
- old
they wouldn't even get a scond glance. Indeed, by today's standards, the MM image is a Recycle Bin candidate on every level - soft, OOF, unflattering, badly-timed...
-
Each to his own. Karsh had the ability to look deeply into his subjects' personalities, can't deny that.
I can, and easily - you're imbuing his work with a quality it simply doesn't have, and giving far more credit to "snapshots" than they merit.
As you say, to each his own, but I sincerely feel that what we're discussing here is literally nothing "special" - nothing that could not have been done to an identical standard by anyone with a camera, the ability to use it, and access to the same subject matter.
-
I'm perfectly happy to accept Annie L's affidavit on Life Through a Lens that nobody can catch character.
That's just a wish, hype, and nonsense for the great unwashed to wallow in to their hearts desire, to allow them to think they really, really have insights into the hearts and minds of George, Angelina etc. etc.; it sells magazines, high-gloss as well as the yellows, as they called them in Italy... For family members, they see the person they already know so well, so of course they know the character; but as far as knowing anything at all about an actor or any other stranger from a photography, yep, pull the other one too, please!
Rob C
-
Back to the original subject: if you don't make money from a copy (declared) of a copyrighted photo you don't get into troubles. Is that correct?
-
Is "Photography for Curmudgeons" still in print?
And going back to the OT, best practice is to stay as far away from copyrighted material as possible. Best advice is, for between about $100 and $250 you can have a chat with an attorney specializing in Intellectual Property law. It could be money very well spent.
-
Back to the original subject: if you don't make money from a copy (declared) of a copyrighted photo you don't get into troubles. Is that correct?
Not at all. If no one makes money from your imitation of a copyrighted photo, it would take a seriously baroque scenario for you to see any liability, but it would be possible. If no one makes money from an actual copy of a copyrighted photo, you could still see liability. However, most copyright holders don't pursue such things even if they're aware of them, most of those who are left will be satisfied if you desist to a polite letter or a C&D, and you can generally sniff out the few hardcore litigious types with a little research. (For instance, the photos posted in this thread are copyright violations, and the posters could be held liable, but nobody really cares enough to do it. One of the reasons everybody hated SOPA is that it would have allowed a copyright holder to hold LULA and its advertisers responsible for the posting of those photos.)
In short, you would have some legal exposure, but your real-world risk is limited unless there's significant money involved. It's up to you how much risk you want to take on. If it really worries you, you always have the option of asking the copyright holder for permission. I would expect that if you're going to do an imitation you'll usually get it.
-
... For instance, the photos posted in this thread are copyright violations, and the posters could be held liable...
No... that is a textbook example of the fair use doctrine.
-
You can be savaged for liability even if nobody made any money from your copy, what on EARTH are you talking about?
Liability has nothing to do with whether you made money, and everything to do with whether the copyright holder lost money. If I had printed up, at my own expense, and given away 1,000,000 copies of the hottest Harry Potter book 1 day after its release, my world would have ended in a blizzard of liability. If someone is making money off the genuine article, a credible copy is pretty much guaranteed to reduce, or potentially reduce, the money being made, and the person making the credible copy is liable.
-
Indeed, by today's standards, the MM image is a Recycle Bin candidate on every level - soft, OOF, unflattering, badly-timed...
Sorry, that´s off topic again - but I couldn´t (respectfully, of course) disagree more. This is the best portrait of MM I´ve ever seen.
Why?
Because it doesn´t show her professional false front which you do see on every other published photo of her (and which we know so well from virtually every authorized portrait of any public figure as well). What this portrait unveils is the endless confusion and perplexity of a young lady which has become the object of projection for a whole nation´s (or even the Western world´s) unfulfilled desires - a role slightly too big for a twenty-something. A role too big for anybody. I don´t think that portrait photography can get better than this: respectfully unveiling a personality, without unduely exposing the person. Great art, in my opinion.
-
I'm perfectly happy to accept Annie L's affidavit on Life Through a Lens that nobody can catch character.
More importantly, for me, Dick Avedon said the same thing. "All you have to work with is the surface".
-
Back to the original subject: if you don't make money from a copy (declared) of a copyrighted photo you don't get into troubles. Is that correct?
You don't tell us in your personal summary where you are, so we don't know whether you're talking about U.S. copyright law or the laws of some other country. The most recent major change to U.S. copyright law was in 1976, when the U.S. made changes to bring its copyright laws into conformance with the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC.) Before the 1976 changes you could, with registration and an extension, copyright your material for 56 years. 1976 changed that to life plus 50 years. The change also added 19 years to the copyright term for works copyrighted under the old law that hadn't yet fallen into the public domain. A later change in 1988 eliminated the requirement for a copyright notice (©) on the work, though it's still a good idea, just to keep somebody else from inadvertently getting into trouble.
In order to know whether or not you're violating someone's copyright by copying his work, you're going to need to know when and where the work was copyrighted. That's why we have attorneys who specialize in intellectual property law. If you're not willing to do the appropriate research and/or consult an attorney who knows what he's doing, it would be best to stay miles away from copying someone else's work. I guarantee that if you were to copy my work I'd sue your butt in a heartbeat. Lots of other folks feel the same way.
By the way, it's not a question of whether or not somebody "copyrighted" his work. He "copyrighted" it simply by producing it. If he also registered his copyright he can get the government to help when he sues you.
-
Hi everyone
during my university I've been studying a lot of History of Art. One aspect that comes back to my mind quite often since I shoot photographs is related to the formation of artists between the 14th and the 20th century. In those times before even thinking having a personal style you had to be able to paint the way all the great Masters of your age and before did. That made me think that, for my very personal enjoyment, I would love to bee able to photograph as the great Masters did.
But I was considering that in those time they didn't, but in these times I can possibly have a copyright problem. What about if I try to get closer as possible to a portrait of Nadar, Karsh, Man Ray, Wharol...? Specifying that is after XXX? Would that be copyright infringement?
Thanks,
Carlo
If you are talking about approximating the same lighting and poses as a past master used, but using different subjects/models, there is no legal issue. No one can hold copyright(s) to specific lighting angles and poses.
If you are talking about exactly duplicating a previous work then there may be copyright issues. But even here, as it is expressly done for educational purposes it probably will be considered Fair Use, which typically expressly permits duplicating works for educational purposes.
When I was studying photography at the U, we were encouraged to take examples of what we thought to be great portraits and/or commercial product works, as examples, and do our best to duplicate the techniques. That was part of the curricula. Part of this kind of project was to critique the works done by students as direct comparison to the original works. Much was learned through these sessions.
See this for a statement from the US Copyright office for a definition of fair use http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html