No Kirk, (if you are referring to the so called 'Chinese Prints' as I suspect??) I certainly didn't discover that process. I heard of it via China Hamilton and also Liam Lawless - both of whom I credited for the process when I wrote it up in the Toning Book.
Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes
I have 'discovered' a number of processes over the years though, through my own experimentations. Some of these I have subsequently found are not in fact unknown, although they weren't known to me. Others are as far as I know still 'original' to me - but I take the view now that almost nothing is really new as people like me and many others are constantly re-inventing the wheel and making their own discoveries. So I never any longer claim that any of my stuff is new - because who knows? I share it where I can and much of it will be new to many people and occasionally someone will direct me to a reference where a process was written up decades ago! That's OK. What really matters is the sharing of knowledge so that it never gets lost from one generation to another. Nobody can read everything!
Originally Posted by tim rudman
Here! Here! Well said Tim!
Plagiarism is not only "copiying" of final result and not give a credit to "original", "copiying" work process and not give credit to original inventor of process is also plagiarism.
Example: there is one photographer who was famous during 1970ies and 1980ies, David Hamilton. I will not go into his subject choice, but he developed specific technique to get final result. There were many competitions in which photographers tried to "copy" his results. In all competitions were clearly stated that goal of competition is to get photograph as simillar as possibile to Hamilton's. Then there were and are zillions of discussions about his technique. What is in matter, he keeps his technique as secret. And everyone in the world knows that he is inventor of that technique. So, when one see photograph that have that look, one say "It is Hamilton's photo, or it is copy of Hamilton's photograph".
So, having exhibition on photograph which looks like his (regrding subject, posing and final result) and not give credit to him is clear plagiarism.
Then, having exhibitions of photographs which are completely different from Hamilton's regarding subject, posing, etc... but if photographs are made using Hamilton's technique and not giving credit to him, is also plagiarism.
We all know that, for example, in computer industry, digital imaging industry to make discussion closer to us, there are some standardised processes. Let say intepolation of resolution to make image bigger retaining same quality of image. So, one day one man or one team of people, developed mathematical algorithm for resolution interpolation. Every image manipulation software maker must pay author rights to that man or team of people if they want to use that algorithm. If they include same algorithm into their software and not pay and give credit to inventor of algoritm it would be plagiarism and breaking of law regarding protecting of author rights.
So, working processes can be subject of plagiarism and if someone tells to other person about some work process, and that other person use that process and claim it is his/hers invention, and especially if make profit using that process, and not have explicite permit to do that of original inventor of process, it is plagiarism and criminal act.
Next, film photography is more or less "clear" of that legal stuff because French government after buying rights for processes included in photography, gave processes to the world, that is, everyone has right to use them without paying or giving credit to inventor.
In digital imaging, when one buys imaging manipulation software he or she pays right for using of all processes (mathematical algoritms) included. That is why user of software don't have to pay or give credit to inventors of included algorithms or maker(s) of software in whole when make his/hers image using that software.
But, if one develop new process using combination of different processes or parts of processes, and especially if result of that development is specific result, in this case "look" of photograph, then that person is inventor of that process.
Of course, problem is that different persons or teams of people can develop simillar or even same process independently of each other. Then, like in science, that man or team of people who first "publish" process is to be considered as inventor of process.
Quite interesting perspective on plagiarism. Re: Hamilton, check out his book "Homage a la Peinture"... if I'm not mistaken he doesn't credit the painter/painting from which he drew his inspiration.
Originally Posted by haris
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'm locking this thread. I think it's done enough damage.
If you really wish to carry on the "discussion", please take it offline.
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist