Flattery or theft?

[arigram]

Does this photograph:
Dead Link Removed

look anywhere close to this one:

Dead Link Removed

 

[lxdude]

All I know is I don't want to be anywhere close to either of them!:rolleyes:

 

[arigram]

All I know is I don't want to be anywhere close to either of them!:rolleyes:

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Sorry, I don't read Greek, but is that magazine page an ad for a new way to polish floors?

 

[bdial]

Aside from the fact that both models are wearing wings, no.

 

[gr82bart]

Neither. Something else ...

They're both a take off of this IMO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rRseLDqNNI 'Cept I like the VS models, styling, art direction, etc... much better.

Artists like to think they are the originator of a first and true idea. Not. It's all been done before and t-shirts have been sold out long ago.

Sorry, here are some more: http://images.google.com/images?q=m...ent=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

Regards, Art.

 

[SuzanneR]

Here's an angel not to be messed with circa 1872 by Julia Margaret Cameron.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

These pictures are sufficiently different.

 

[keithwms]

I don't see any similarity beyond the obvious cliche of a mortal wearing faux angel wings.

 

[mopar_guy]

A few thousand years ago they used to do statues of Greek gods. Go figure.

 

[lxdude]

What's that supposed to mean?

I mean I don't want to be anywhere close to a naked guy with wings and chains and a skull in the background or a guy in leather with wings wearing women's gloves! They both look like ersatz angels of death to me!



In serious response to your question, I think they are different enough from each other that neither could be called an imitation of the other.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Here's an angel not to be messed with circa 1872 by Julia Margaret Cameron.

Cameron wrote in her diary of a very sweet child who could hold perfectly still for a count of 300.

 

[Vaughn]

Neither, and they both stink, so who cares?

Usually, it is not considered polite to tell other members here that one of their images "stink".

Ari -- I would say, possibly flattery, if the photographer of the top image actually saw your image. If he did see it, then he seems to have used it as a point of departure. And even if he did not travel very far, he made the voyage his own. Angel wings have been used for too long to make any sort of claim of originality of their use.

I have a favorite image I made in Yosemite, in fact it was the image I used to introduce myself with here when I joined the forum. I saw the possibility of the place and the light, returned to photograph the place and the light -- only to discover later, that the same place had been photographed by John Sexton and is in his book about trees. But my image is my image, and I even think mine is better, but then I am a bit biased. But I don't think I'll put it in a book soon.

Vaughn

PS...if you have a copy of Sexton's Trees you can check it out. A hell of a lot closer than the two Ari presented.

Edited to add -- whoops I used the image to into myself on a different site.

 

[arigram]

Thank you for the honesty and insight.

 

[Andy K]

Would the maker of the first have seen the second? To my 'uneducated' eye they are very similar.

 

[arigram]

Would the maker of the first have seen the second? To my 'uneducated' eye they are very similar.

Its quite possible, the photo is on my website and in facebook.
Anyway, I was just informed of it by another friend who is a photographer.
Considering how shitty the image is, we shouldn't waste any more time on it.

 

[Andy K]

Of the two I would hang yours on the wall.
The magazine version looks like what it is, an advertising image churned out by an unimaginative jobbing advertising snapper.

 

[keithwms]

I also would not say that either image 'stinks.' I just don't think there is enough proprietary material to warrant a lawsuit Ari, I have seen far better work from you, so... keep it up!

 

[SuzanneR]

Actually, I quite like Ari's picture, but as others have said, (including myself) I'm not sure it's such a clear cut case of plagiarism. The other picture is less well composed and lit... if it weren't for the wings, would it still strike you as a copy?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I suspect an intellectual property lawyer I know could make the case that the latter is a rip-off of the former, but it would be pushing it even for him (he's one of the very best IP lawyers in this country). I like yours much better than the one in the advert, but if I were to offer critique, I think you need to work on your lighting ratios. The shadows are awfully heavy on your image.

Oh, and another piece of unsolicited advice- ditch the faux angel wings. They're so far beyond cliche that they're a running joke on Model Mayhem.

 

[keithwms]

Wings notwithstanding, I see no similarity whatsoever. Ari's has chains (?) suggesting some kind of confinement; plus he is unclad, suggesting an actual cherub. The other one looks like some dude with prom gloves- I don't get it at all. One might say, "it's all Greek to me." :rolleyes: Perhaps if I knew who the fellow is (the one in prom gloves) then I might understand the humour of it. Is he a footballer who fell from grace or something?

The shadows are awfully heavy on your image.

That was my thought as I well; I was assuming it was to obscure his midsection

 

[arigram]

As I stated when I posted the film version of this photograph (this was a digital test posted on FB) in this forum's gallery, this was a quick play shot for me. I just wanted to see how I looked nakkid on a photograph. It was not meant to be a deep and creative piece, but it did hint to a series on angels, demons and witchcraft which I never actually started. I am fully aware of the cliche wings and the cheese factor, but those were props I had at the ready and wanted to dress up just to make the test shooting a bit more rich. Some people liked it so I posted it for general comments. I am glad some people had the audacity to tell me that it stinks. I very much hate quiet disapproval and rejection. I prefer someone to say it out right. Even if it made me feel to punch them in the face. I need to know, I need to hear all opinions, I need to develop a thick skin and I need to learn to trust my work and myself as not to be swayed and directed that easily by people's viewpoints and tastes.
The lighting was meant to be harsh.

What really pissed me off is that I am at a point where my whole photography is taking me nowhere. I am not making money out of it, I am not making a name as an artist, its not helping me with my relationships with other people, I think it holds me back creatively and in general is a mess. Then someone, who is supposed to be a long working professional fashion photographer who happens not to be bad (very uncreative and mediocre in general, but better than the common pro here) and is quite possible that he took directly the concept from me, made all the money and circulated the photo in a magazine right in my small home town.
I am pissed off because I am either really shit as a photographer or don't really deserve to be treated by the contempt and disrespect that I get around here, where others are making money out of shit.
I am pissed off because I have reached and exceeded my threshold and really, tired of this whole photography bullshit.

 

[Andy K]

Perhaps you need to forget the money and name. Why give a shit what other people think, just do what pleases you photographically.

 

[Joe Lipka]

Andy K is pointing you in the right direction. You need to think about why you want to do photography. You say, "I am not making money out of it, I am not making a name as an artist, its not helping me with my relationships with other people, I think it holds me back creatively and in general is a mess." This happens to all of us at one time or another. We do not always make good photographs or work that pleases others. The remedy for that is to continue making photographs. You make photographs because you have to make photographs, not for any other reason. So continue to make photographs. If you don't like what you are doing, do something else. Revisit a subject you felt successful about and start from there again. Do you have a photograph you like that is not like any of your other photographs? Figure out why it is you like it and try to do more of that thing.

We all have times when our photography sucks. Work through it.

 

[keithwms]

Yes, I totally agree with Andy, if it isn't pleasing you then it's just not worth beating yourself up over it. Take a break, refresh, reboot. It is part and parcel of the artistic/creative personality that when the ideas aren't coming, you become frustrated. I think that is the best time to dot the I and cross the T in technique, work on a couple no-brainer etudes, and just let the artsy stuff go for a while. Or leave photography altogether for a while. It's not going anywhere; it'll be there when you come back to it.

As for the behavior of this person you mention, it's not surprising, if it was indeed inspired by your work. I really question how much truly original work there is out there in the commercial realm, especially now when we are saturated with imagery 24/7. People see things and, whether consciously or subconsciously, they do duplicate them. The amount of copycatting that I see now in photography... I swear it is just about to turn me into Pollock. I mean emulsion slinging, negative ripping, stomp up and down on the print, let-it-all-out kinds of things. I thought I'd never understand him, but... bit by bit, I am beginning to get it. It's a kind of desperate but sincere attempt to do something different, anything different!

Anyway it is very nice of you to take the comments here on the chin and not recoil in anger.