It seems to me you've got a far more insidious kind of copying going on in the photographic community - people doing AA ripoffs or whatever - and then claiming that as their own... that seems to me to be a far LESS honest practice that is FAR more widespread. At least these guys are making no bones about it... ya know?
I mean - doesn't the very FACT that they've made these de facto COPIES of WELL KNOWN originals TELL YOU that they're not trying to 'get away' with something...? It seems to me you've got a far more insidious kind of copying going on in the photographic community - people doing AA ripoffs or whatever - and then claiming that as their own... that seems to me to be a far LESS honest practice that is FAR more widespread. At least these guys are making no bones about it... ya know?
Early Riser -
I've offered you an explanation of (very approximately) what they were trying to do and how they've taken pains to distinguish these from the originals - and yet you choose to ignore these points and continue with the 'copying' rhetoric... so I guess this isn't technically a dialogue.
Again - it's NOT the work they were trying to copy - but USING the work as an artifact from a larger context - I'm sorry you're so unwilling to consider that point.
It's okay not to like something. But it's not okay not to like something without making an attempt to understand it first. That's just bullying. I don't see that as any different from wrongly accusing someone of having spat on you , say... as a pretext for punching them in the nose. Or attacking a country because you provided falsified evidence for them having WMDs (LOL).
Please try to understand intent before you judge. Nothing good can ever come from that.
The only way they CAN get away with ripping off someone else's work without getting sued is by saying that it's someone else's work. I don't see Prince giving Abell a share of the millions he's made off of Abell's images just by copying it and bullshitting everyone into buying that as being "original". As for people ripping off AA, there's a huge difference between shooting a landscape in the tradition of AA or even the same location as AA versus scanning an AA print, crediting AA but still claiming it as your work and pocketing the check.
Sparky, I went to art school, taught at art schools and have made my living in the arts for over 30 years. I have heard the word intent before. However what they claim as intent can just as easily be bullshit to justify plagiarism. I put more weight on their actions rather than their claims and their actions are to not to come up with fresh original images but to take someone else's work make little or no change to it, state that it's someone else's work yet sign it as their own, and then sell it. All the rest is just talk.
He's not a businessman. He's an artist whose work has become highly collectible. You may not like it but that's no reason to misrepresent him.Prince is not photographer, he is good businessman.
He's not a businessman. He's an artist whose work has become highly collectible. You may not like it but that's no reason to misrepresent him.
He's not a businessman. He's an artist whose work has become highly collectible. You may not like it but that's no reason to misrepresent him.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?