Originally Posted by Bill Mitchell
There's no need to be so hostile. I think your comment is in "poor taste". If you want to bash other people's work, at least offer an opinion as to why you don't like it.
It actually went like this:
Originally Posted by mrcallow
Bessie Braddock: Winston, you're drunk.
Winston Churchill: Bessie, you're ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober!
Originally Posted by Cheryl Jacobs
If someone really did duplicate your shot down to the last detail you could most likely pursue copyright infringement against them.
Remember George Harrison and "My Sweet Lord"? He wasn't even aware he stole "He's So Fine."
"I am an anarchist." - HCB
"I wanna be anarchist." - JR
Will, thanks for the comment. Yes, in theory, I could possibly have pursued infringement in cases where every detail of my shot was duplicated. In reality, though, it is so expensive to take legal action and so unlikely that the court would find in my favor that the law becomes somewhat meaningless. In the case of copied text, where several lines and paragraphs were copied word for word, I always take legal action.
Incidentally, a few months ago I did an exchange with the editor of a local magazine. I did a session and provided prints of her kids in exchange for a print ad. Since I don't do any print advertising and really hate busy, obnoxious ads, I brainstormed some ideas for very simple taglines to go with the image I chose to use. I ended up using "Life, exposed." Not terribly cheesy, fairly functional.
Last week I got an e-mail (friendly wording, but with a bite to it) from a photographer in Boulder informing me that I can't use her trademarked tagline, and that I need to come up with my own original phrase rather than copying hers. Quite a shock to me! I don't know any photographers in my area, and don't have any idea what any of them uses for marketing or whatnot.
In my note back to her, I assured her that the overlap was completely coincidental. I'm the sort of person who makes a point out of being unique and distinct. Although she thought her tagline was very unique, in reality it's just two words that are used A LOT in portrait photography, put together. When it's two words in question, coincidences are absolutely possible, even likely. When we're talking complete paragraphs (and I mean, one girl used my bio word for word, including my date of birth!) it's an entirely different story.
Anyway, sorry for the hijacking....
I would chime in in agreement with most folks here - I don't think you could get a single attorney to take this to court if you wanted to claim infringement. There are enough details about the image that are different (model A is nude, hidden in soap bubbles, in a tub, in black-and-white. Model B is more svelte, wearing a corset, in a shower stall, using a fake gun, shot at a different angle, in color, with different lighting). While it may show a lack of original thinking on the other photographers' part, it doesn't rise (or descend, as your thought may incline) to the level of copyright infringement. As has been noted here also, you can't copyright a concept, like "naked woman with gun".
There was a case a few years ago where a photographer shot a sunset through the open legs of a bikini-clad model. Some ad agency saw the image, then hired another photographer to basically duplicate the shot for a client when the original photographer declined to license the image at a price the client was willing to pay. About the only thing that was different between the two was the tint of the sunset - the one was more orange/red, the other more brown. The pose was identical, the lighting, identical. You could even recognize certain elements of the lanscape in the shot that showed they were photographed in essentially the same geographic location.
THAT is the level of proof you'd have to demonstrate to claim copyright violation.
Since the other photographers' image has been posted here without his consent, if he were to discover it, he could sue for usage, but not for copyright violation. Nowhere is the ownership of the image being claimed to be that of anyone but the original photographer. He'd also have a hard time getting any kind of punitive damage, since there is clearly no demonstrable profit being made from the use. Worst case scenario, the image link would have to be removed.
To offer a properly grounded critique of the image(s), I find both of them disturbing and distasteful because of the association of sex and violence. In both cases, the models appear to be responding violently to an intrusion into their private space. These feel like watching some kind of S/M rape fantasy.
There's an interesting Freudian duel going on between the phallus of the gun and the phallus of the camera. In both cases, it appears that the phallus of the camera, the power of the voyeur, trumps the power of the gun. The voyeur's violation of private space succeeds, in spite of, or perhaps because of, the threat of violence from the gun. That is, the women can only have unfulfilled potential, whereas the viewer has unlimited opportunity to satiate the desire to violently intrude upon the women.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Yep there is that too. Do a google search on WC and you'll find a undergrad's research paper that has both and quite a bit more. He used the one I quoted not in a movie or on stage, but to a person in public (I believe it was a movie head during the shooting of a film).
Originally Posted by Lachlan Young
Originally Posted by Lachlan Young
I tried to find the real version of this once and found a number of variations. I couldn't really figure out the correct version.
The one I posted came from the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations.