Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,832   Posts: 1,582,357   Online: 923
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1
    Ross Chambers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Blue Mountains NSW Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    703

    Getty + Photoshop = get rich

    This guy has sold prints for AU$ 2,400.

    A fool and their money...

    http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/...902-258m4.html

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    551
    I don't know, I'm actually ambivalent about this one. If the "artist" were claiming that he's a photographer and that his works were "photographs" then obviously there's an issue. But if he's claiming he's a "photo artist" *and* if the licensing of the stock image from Getty was one that would allow secondary use with alteration, then I might tend to side with the artist.

    For example Andy Warhol took photos of Cambell Soup cans and lined them up and called it art. And many people agree with him. I don't see there being a material difference between that and what this Australian dude did.

    Now, of course, if the Getty licensing specifically forbade the kind of secondary use, then there's a violation there.

  3. #3
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,381
    Images
    4
    Another odious appropriator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherrie_Levine

    So why not join the party ...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	afterlindan.jpg 
Views:	54 
Size:	83.3 KB 
ID:	56554
    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

  4. #4
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vic., Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,682
    Images
    15
    The gallery did the right thing. Misappropriation of works as "original" or "one's own" is irritatingly commonplace. The National Association for the Visual Arts (in Australia) carried a piece about this last February I think.
    Interesting how this debacle involved both analogue (obtaining negatives) and digital (recombo) works.
    I do wonder though about the licensing that Getty implies or grants and whether such provisions were effectively breached as part of the reconstruction of the images. Possibly the same licensing it provisions for images signed up via Flickr.
    “The photographer must determine how he wants the finished print to look before he exposes the negative.
    Before releasing the shutter, he must seek 'the flame of recognition,' a sense that the picture would reveal
    the greater mystery of things...more clearly than the eyes see."
    ~Edward Weston, 1922.

  5. #5
    Jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    89
    Yeah, I would hate to buy a print thinking it was an original only to learn it was a stock image. The artist needed to better inform the gallery of his methods and his art. I agree with the gallery.

  6. #6
    Ross Chambers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Blue Mountains NSW Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    703
    The split photographs on the Herald website as above are the Getty originals/the "artistic appropriation"

    I reckon even my cack-handed Photoshop skills could pull these off.

  7. #7
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vic., Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,682
    Images
    15
    How they qualify as "art" at all beats me.
    “The photographer must determine how he wants the finished print to look before he exposes the negative.
    Before releasing the shutter, he must seek 'the flame of recognition,' a sense that the picture would reveal
    the greater mystery of things...more clearly than the eyes see."
    ~Edward Weston, 1922.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    76
    I think Nicholas's term "odious appropriator" fits well, most of us have ethics............. and originality.

  9. #9
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,043
    Quote Originally Posted by rawhead View Post

    For example Andy Warhol took photos of Cambell Soup cans and lined them up and called it art.
    But Warhol didn't abscond with someone else's PICTURES of soup cans.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    724
    Personally speaking I think that it not the 'done' thing. It is a form of fraud which in itself = dishonesty. Yes he may be a dab hand with Photoshop so why not get out there and take pictures of his own and then use photoshop?

    Photoshop images are one of the reasons I am drifting further and further away from digital imagery. I don't think it is as honest or as skilful as traditional photography and nor will it ever be. There is a whole world of difference in making a picture sitting at a desk with an image and fiddling about here and there and elsewhere using adobe which is someone else's technology. And then looking at a scene and visualising what you can do with it in the darkroom using the skills you have in your head and hands and to a degree your heart. My ex wife thought that digital imagery was a subject that 'had no soul'. It was one of the things we actually agreed upon.

    I also look upon digital images and comparing them with an item of furniture made by a master craftsman and a piece of furniture that is mass produced in some factory somewhere. The latter will never have the feel of quality of the former

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin