bmattock
Veteran
Photographer Fired for Copying Photograph
A cautionary tale - worth a read.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
A cautionary tale - worth a read.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Photographer Fired by Newspaper
- Thread starter bmattock
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 13
- Views 1K
JOE1951
Established
Very interesting read
I believe the photographer claimed to see the photo on the wall of the business, but this sounds like the photographer could be a fall guy for inept editors and art direction.
The person who wrote the article was an intern who apparently also used similar phrases from the original article.
This is interesting to me indirectly as I work at a university. The impact of the internet and other techology has created concern about the upcoming "cut and paste" generation.
Some professors have some interesting stories of how they found plagerized work due to plain carelessness of the students.
I believe the photographer claimed to see the photo on the wall of the business, but this sounds like the photographer could be a fall guy for inept editors and art direction.
The person who wrote the article was an intern who apparently also used similar phrases from the original article.
This is interesting to me indirectly as I work at a university. The impact of the internet and other techology has created concern about the upcoming "cut and paste" generation.
Some professors have some interesting stories of how they found plagerized work due to plain carelessness of the students.
Apostata
Significant Other
JOE1951 said:
It is an interesting dilemma, however - ironically - in order to totally cover their tracks, the copier soon realises that he/she will work twice as hard to prevent a Googling of the previous work than to actually create something original from scratch.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Going by the PDN story, the photographer obviously was made a scapegoat. The text also was plagiarized from another publication (blamed on an intern who was "no longer at the paper") and the layout of the page was so similar that an editor also had to be involved. If the subject newspaper is anything like the one where I worked, it would have been an editor who developed the cover idea and then assigned the photographer to shoot the photo to go with it.
The fact that the paper even was embarassed, though, shows that things there are different from where I worked, a really cheesy little daily where stealing ideas from larger publications was dignified with the name of "localization."
For example, one day a cute photo came across the wire showing a 10-year-old girl cuddling a rabbit. The accompanying caption explained that this girl was concerned that younger kids don't know how to care for their pets properly -- so she had developed a little program that she'd take around to grade schools, using her own pet rabbit to demonstrate how to take care of small animals.
"That would be a good feature pic," the goofy old managing editor said to me. "Go out and localize it."
"How?" I said. "I don't know of any kids in our school system who do that kind of program."
"I don't care about the program," said the doofus M.E. "Just get a pic of a little girl holding a rabbit."
The fact that the paper even was embarassed, though, shows that things there are different from where I worked, a really cheesy little daily where stealing ideas from larger publications was dignified with the name of "localization."
For example, one day a cute photo came across the wire showing a 10-year-old girl cuddling a rabbit. The accompanying caption explained that this girl was concerned that younger kids don't know how to care for their pets properly -- so she had developed a little program that she'd take around to grade schools, using her own pet rabbit to demonstrate how to take care of small animals.
"That would be a good feature pic," the goofy old managing editor said to me. "Go out and localize it."
"How?" I said. "I don't know of any kids in our school system who do that kind of program."
"I don't care about the program," said the doofus M.E. "Just get a pic of a little girl holding a rabbit."
kiev4a
Well-known
Actually, I think the photo that was a copy was better than the original.
There's no argument over text content that was obviously copied or the headline. But where do you draw the line on the photo? Because one photographer stacked up three pieces of candy, does that mean a competing photography can't? It's not the same type of candy--or at least it's not stacked in the same order. Would it have been OK if the second photographer had used four or five pieces instead of three?
I think the newspaper overreacted in firing the photographer. Should the paper have apologized? Yes (their alternative competition is probably still gloating over their little victory) But did the photographer really do anything that horrible? Photographers from competing media often cover the same events and shoot their pictures from essentially the same angle at the same time. If two competiting newspapers run nearly identical news photos shot by different photographers, who is plagarizing whom?
Obviously, in the candy incident one photographer had a chance to see the other photographer's work in print. But I wonder, is this the first time three pieces of candy have ever been stacked up to illustrate a story on candy? I doubt it. Where did the photographer from the alternative paper get his or her idea?
There's no argument over text content that was obviously copied or the headline. But where do you draw the line on the photo? Because one photographer stacked up three pieces of candy, does that mean a competing photography can't? It's not the same type of candy--or at least it's not stacked in the same order. Would it have been OK if the second photographer had used four or five pieces instead of three?
I think the newspaper overreacted in firing the photographer. Should the paper have apologized? Yes (their alternative competition is probably still gloating over their little victory) But did the photographer really do anything that horrible? Photographers from competing media often cover the same events and shoot their pictures from essentially the same angle at the same time. If two competiting newspapers run nearly identical news photos shot by different photographers, who is plagarizing whom?
Obviously, in the candy incident one photographer had a chance to see the other photographer's work in print. But I wonder, is this the first time three pieces of candy have ever been stacked up to illustrate a story on candy? I doubt it. Where did the photographer from the alternative paper get his or her idea?
XAos
Well-known
Indeed, the photographer is quite possibly the least culpable in this one. Am I going to be sued for plagerism if I take a picture of the grand canyon from the same spot as Ansel Adams? The photograph may have been arranged similarly (it's quite obviously different, the striped candy is on top in the second photo ;-) but it was all new work, which is more than can be said for the textual content.
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
I've personally seen look-alike photos on several occasions in similar magazines, and have known a few art directors who would flip through stock-photo books (back when they were mailed out as catalogs) and tell a photographer to copy a particular photo.. it was considered a way to lower production costs.. you pay a photographer for a one-shot setup and own the photo rather than pay royalties.. of course, it was done on a local/regional level so the photo wouldn't get the publicity that would likely be seen by the original photographer
but the question is, can you own the rights to a particular look? the two images in this example aren't identical.. clearly there is a strong similarity and most likely one was copied from the other.. but I don't think the copycat photo was illegal.. perhaps it shouldn't have been done, but that's the decision of the A.D.
but the question is, can you own the rights to a particular look? the two images in this example aren't identical.. clearly there is a strong similarity and most likely one was copied from the other.. but I don't think the copycat photo was illegal.. perhaps it shouldn't have been done, but that's the decision of the A.D.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, XAos and Joe1951, it is obvious that the photograph in all its content and context was plagiarized. You can claim that they're not exact copies, but they're both covers for competing magazines covering the same market, same context, same area, the stacked-, three-sweets, one-of-them-sandwiched motif, that is plagiarism.
I believe had this been in a slightly different situation it would not be plagiarism, but just an "improvement on a theme".
If somebody comes up with a motto "To infinity and beyond!", and then somebody that you pay to come up with a motto charges you for having come up with "To the infinite and beyond..." is glaring, lousy plagiarism.
I believe had this been in a slightly different situation it would not be plagiarism, but just an "improvement on a theme".
If somebody comes up with a motto "To infinity and beyond!", and then somebody that you pay to come up with a motto charges you for having come up with "To the infinite and beyond..." is glaring, lousy plagiarism.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Good point, JoeFriday/Brett, but I think it's rather obvious that he was not asked to go ahead and copy this. Perhaps the photographer was used to that sort of thing, and made a bad judgement call. Perhaps the photographer is indeed taking the heat for the editor, but I guess we won't know because we didn't work for the editor(s), did we?
I guess the basic point, which Bill is trying to make, is that when in doubt, don't plagiarize.
I guess the basic point, which Bill is trying to make, is that when in doubt, don't plagiarize.
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
I re-read the article after my previous comment, along with gabrielma's.. and I agree that the photographer has a degree of responsibility if it's true that he submitted the photo as 'original work'.. the water gets murky here since the plagiarism extends way beyond just the photo
keep in mind that I'm not defending the photographer, but the creative director was the one who put this together.. if the photo is wrong because of the context, you have to look at how it got put there
either way, I'll try really hard to not end up in that position
keep in mind that I'm not defending the photographer, but the creative director was the one who put this together.. if the photo is wrong because of the context, you have to look at how it got put there
either way, I'll try really hard to not end up in that position
kiev4a
Well-known
gabrielma said:
Your point on competitors in the same market is well taken. But if I was the editor of the alternative weekly I would have simple run a promotion ad pointing out that the "big boys" were following my paper's lead.
There are certainly cases where writers and photographers should be fired for stealing someone's ideas or copy. But I think the Richmond newspaper overreacted by firing the photographer. A public reprimand would have been appropriate. Of course there may be more to the story than meets the eye. Could be somebody was looking for an excuse to bring down the hammer on the photog. I know from experience that having a "prize winning" photographer on a newspaper staff doesn't necessarily mean that individual plays well with the rest of the kids.
There aren't many things said or seen today that haven't been said or seen before. The key is to simply give appropriate attribution. IMHO the Richmond photo case is really shakey in terms of needing to give credit, however. I can almost guarantee that a similar shot can be found in a book of generic illustrations.
XAos
Well-known
gabrielma said:
What if the company logo is three stacked sweets? What about bertram's avatar - an original shot (though is a shot of another work of art original by these standards?) which was almost exactly duplicated by another photographer later, probably without knowledge, and with wider circulation. (Btw, the avatar always makes me think Bertram is mooning us.) I'm not saying the photographer didn't copy it. I'm trying to get you to articulate a definition of plagarism that indicts the photographer in this story (irrespective of the article content - that's much easier to prove), but does not make plagerizers out of Bertram (for his photograph of someone else's work of art, and the photographer who made the same basic shot more famous afterward) or myself (for standing at the same spot to photograph the grand canyon, which might for the sake of argument be the only place you can stand in the general area, and shooting a B&W of the same view as a classic AA shot).
Sounds supsiciously like the old joke about hiding your sources.
Last edited:
TPPhotog
Well-known
There's something in the back of my memory where there was a court case in the States where a magazine asked a photographer to submit ideas and a quote for the work. They turned him down as they thought him too expensive. They then used his ideas with their own photographer to keep costs down.
Again of I remember correctly you cannot copyright an idea but the courts found in favour of the original photographer because they had rejected his ideas but copied them 🙁
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or to elaborate if anyone can remember the case.
Again of I remember correctly you cannot copyright an idea but the courts found in favour of the original photographer because they had rejected his ideas but copied them 🙁
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or to elaborate if anyone can remember the case.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
C'mon , I don't think any one of the RFF members would want to copy anyone's ideas. To put out a competing piece with highly similar photos, subject matter, and phrasing all within a few days.
That's the issue here. Journalism has had a lot of plagiarism over the last seven years. Editors are very serious about this. I think that some of the parties may have been instigators, others accomplices. Who ever was let go probably had at least another question mark attached to their work record before being let go. Employment practice today requires employers to have more ammunition than a single shot for an employees termination.
Students are also given ethics courses. So interns without ethics equals action for the editor and publisher.
jan
That's the issue here. Journalism has had a lot of plagiarism over the last seven years. Editors are very serious about this. I think that some of the parties may have been instigators, others accomplices. Who ever was let go probably had at least another question mark attached to their work record before being let go. Employment practice today requires employers to have more ammunition than a single shot for an employees termination.
Students are also given ethics courses. So interns without ethics equals action for the editor and publisher.
jan
Similar threads
- Article
