Flattery or theft?

[arigram]

Does this photograph:
http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs144.snc3/17145_335013540864_579145864_5066031_1711586_n.jpg

look anywhere close to this one:

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs103.snc1/5016_130721720864_579145864_3266973_666073_n.jpg

[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]

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=male%20angel&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=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! :o



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.