Woman stripped of prizes for using public domain photo to win contests

Theo Sulphate · Sep 8, 2017

Some people have no shame. They'll do anything for a bit of money or undeserved recognition.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/92697...eone-esle-s-public-domain-photo-to-win-awards

https://petapixel.com/2017/09/01/woman-stripped-prizes-using-public-domain-photos-win-contests/

I first saw this story in dpreview, but Petapixel shows her stupidly edited photo and the original. According to the comments in dpreview, these scenes are staged for groups of photographers and the bird is tossed in the air multiple times.

The image is so fake-looking, how could it have won any contest?

The boys, the bird, the elephant, the color - all that's missing is Elvis.

rrusso · Sep 8, 2017

Feel kinda bad for that bird.

nmp · Sep 9, 2017

That is nothing. Try this one -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pher-but-his-photos-and-identity-were-stolen/

Cholentpot · Sep 9, 2017

How this different than the guy who remade the Marlboro man picture and is Mr Wonderful?

Pardon me for being blurry on the details. I'm a youngn'

foc · Sep 10, 2017

Cholentpot said:
How this different than the guy who remade the Marlboro man picture and is Mr Wonderful?

Pardon me for being blurry on the details. I'm a youngn'

You will have to pardon me as I don't understand the comment above.

AFAIK the lady photoshopped a free to use photo from a photo library and claimed it as her own creation. It is plagiarism. And changing the image with photoshop, adding to it or taking away from it still doesn't change the fact it is plagiarism.

plagiarism noun : the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

Cholentpot · Sep 10, 2017

foc said:
You will have to pardon me as I don't understand the comment above.

AFAIK the lady photoshopped a free to use photo from a photo library and claimed it as her own creation. It is plagiarism. And changing the image with photoshop, adding to it or taking away from it still doesn't change the fact it is plagiarism.

plagiarism noun : the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

Richard Prince, Untitled (Cowboy)

Sirius Glass · Sep 10, 2017

Some people have no honor nor self worth.

tballphoto · Apr 8, 2021

But this is the entire concept behind photocrowd. Where the image you see on the site, only shares a FILE NAME with the original that was shoved into photo shop.

removedacct1 · Apr 8, 2021

Cholentpot said:
How this different than the guy who remade the Marlboro man picture and is Mr Wonderful?

You're speaking about Richard Prince, yes?

You have a good point. I personally think its a very fuzzy line between what Prince does, and what Ms. Fierz did. However, I think the defining difference between the two is that Prince freely admits that his work is derivative of published works by other photographers, (in which derivative is the operative word) and Ms. Fierz, who claimed the photo as her own, of her authorship (clearly it was not). A lot of what makes one plagiarism where the other is not, is intent and transparency, and to some degree, the source material. (Prince rephotographs printed pieces, adding a layer of abstraction)
One of these people is plainly a thief, and one is a borrower who is just barely protected by sufficient layers of abstraction to get away without being labeled as a thief. To a degree, the difference between the two is in how each individual viewer perceives the process and context.

Cholentpot · Apr 8, 2021

paulbarden said:
You're speaking about Richard Prince, yes?

You have a good point. I personally think its a very fuzzy line between what Prince does, and what Ms. Fierz did. However, I think the defining difference between the two is that Prince freely admits that his work is derivative of published works by other photographers, (in which derivative is the operative word) and Ms. Fierz, who claimed the photo as her own, of her authorship (clearly it was not). A lot of what makes one plagiarism where the other is not, is intent and transparency, and to some degree, the source material. (Prince rephotographs printed pieces, adding a layer of abstraction)
One of these people is plainly a thief, and one is a borrower who is just barely protected by sufficient layers of abstraction to get away without being labeled as a thief. To a degree, the difference between the two is in how each individual viewer perceives the process and context.

Good points.

I still think Prince is a hack.

removedacct1 · Apr 8, 2021

Cholentpot said:
Good points.

I still think Prince is a hack.

Oh, I do too. Worse still, I think he’s an art parasite. My comments were not intended as a defense, but to offer my understanding of the situation.

gone · Apr 8, 2021

You could make an exact duplicate of a photograph/painting/sculpture etc, and as long as you signed your name to it, no worries. You could even sign Pablo Picasso's name on it, or no name at all. But the minute you try and market it, stuff happens. Copying something is fine, presenting it as something else is fraud.

Pieter12 · Apr 8, 2021

Richard Prince's schtick is to appropriate others' images, whether the well-publicized case of the Marlboro Man ads (Marlboro declined to sue) or more recently his use of Instagram images (https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/30/8691257/richard-prince-instagram-photos-copyright-law-fair-use), just ripped off, enlarged and presented as art by him. He's a thief and the collectors who by his crap are idiots.

Huss · Apr 8, 2021

Wonder why those competitions that those stolen pics won prizes at, just didn't give the prize to the actual photographer once they knew who it was?

Pieter12 · Apr 8, 2021

Then you have situations (workshops, photo expeditions and safaris) where photographers are side by side, shooting the same scene. A photographer was outraged when he saw what he thought was his photo of a glacier attributed to someone else and winning a contest. It turned out they were on the same expedition and made pretty much the same shot! At least that's one instance where digital has an advantage of having metadata attached and can sort out duplicates shot by different photographers. Unless, of course it has been wiped or otherwise manipulated.

warden · Apr 9, 2021

momus said:
You could make an exact duplicate of a photograph/painting/sculpture etc, and as long as you signed your name to it, no worries. You could even sign Pablo Picasso's name on it, or no name at all. But the minute you try and market it, stuff happens. Copying something is fine, presenting it as something else is fraud.

There was an interesting story in the NYT about this issue today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/...ght-appeals-court.html?searchResultPosition=1

Woman stripped of prizes for using public domain photo to win contests

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency