Somebody stole my photo

[ClaremontPhoto]

I have a great photo and it's often used in tourism publicity and the like.

Now somebody has gone to almost the same location and replicated it for a calender.

Not a coincidence. The composition is exactly the same and he even has a hunched up old guy walking out of the frame too.

I walked into a bar and there was 'my' photo on a 2006 calender!

 

[Kragmeister]

How about having your body of work similarly swiped and used as the basis for a Masters thesis? A former "friend" appropriated my ideas, locations and techniques and duplicated numerous photos of mine. I was clueless until he returned to the area after attending the Pratt Institute and got an MFA in photography. He had a show in the area and I was floored when I saw what he did. I attended his opening (uninvited) and he all but acknowledged this because I was in the audience for the artists' talk and question and answer session. After that I basically shut myself off and stopped shooting. It took about 11 years before I could pick up a camera again. The guy's name is Edward A. Leskin. in Allentown, PA USA.

Regards,
Greg

 

[daveozzz]

I read a discussion on another forum about this sort of thing. I was more than a bit disappointed to read about how many photographers had been approached by clients who showed them a picture and were asked to try to "match" it.
I guess sometimes it is cheaper to comission a shoot than to licence an existing image for the usage required. Unfortunately I get the impression this is more common that you would think.

And that is a great shot btw.

 

[bmattock]

EDIT: I did a search at Alamy for 'old man' wall, window and found this: A4CBCA

If you go to www.alamy.com and search for this photo, you'll see it. Seems very similar to me.

/EDIT

I'm curious about this. I love the shot, by the way. Feels a bit claustrophobic to me, but I still like it. I feel like I've seen a lot of shots like it. Not exactly the same, mind you, but similar.

And that's the gist of my curiosity. I was asked to take a 'night' shot of a local fairgrounds when the carnival was in town. Aerial. Well, there's only one vantage point - the top of the Ferris wheel. So that's what I did. Turned out looking a lot like previous photos of the fairgrounds at night from the air.

So does this mean that once someone has made that shot - no one can take / sell a shot like that again? Would I have to find a diferent vantage point? Presuming that the customer wants 'night' and 'aerial' as preconditions, the vantage point is about all I could change, and that would mean a huge expense to the customer (like hiring a helicopter or something).

Getting back to your shot, Jon. A wall, a window, and an old man walking away. Is this a concept that has not been done before and won't be done again? I mean no disrespect, you've been a terrific help to me, so please don't take it the wrong way.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Yep see it. Thank you.

But the calender people *replicated* mine. Bot just similar but the same, except that this blue building always has cars in front so they had to use a green building further up the street.

Yes, Bill I'll see similar. I'm not the first to have this idea - although the old guy was a delicious accident. He just walked into shot and I waited until he was on the edge of the frame.

I'm not passionate about this just shocked at the time to see 'my' picture on public display. And because the calender is two months at a time I have to see it for two months next November and December.

 

[bmattock]

Yep see it. Thank you.

But the calender people *replicated* mine. Bot just similar but the same, except that this blue building always has cars in front so they had to use a green building further up the street.

Yes, Bill I'll see similar. I'm not the first to have this idea - although the old guy was a delicious accident. He just walked into shot and I waited until he was on the edge of the frame.

I'm not passionate about this just shocked at the time to see 'my' picture on public display. And because the calender is two months at a time I have to see it for two months next November and December.

OK, I gotcha. Not just same objects and relationship to each other, but the same street even. I presume then, that the photographer had seen your shot and decided to replicate it? Yeah, that's gotta suck, I'm sorry to hear it.

I suppose you could see it as extremely flattering...ah, nah, never mind. I'd be mad too.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

These two always prompt people to ask the location.

I'm very vague and say "Somewhere in the old town, sorry I can't remember the exact street".

As this city is so photo-rich they can find their own locations.

 

[Peter]

Hi Jon,

Sorry to hear what happened. You have my empathy as I have something similar 2 years ago. I submitted a research proposal in my institution, only to be rejected by my supervisor. A year later at the annual scientific meeting, I was shocked to see my proposal being published under the name of the same supervisor who trashed it! I have since moved to another job and it is not difficult to understand why. Why the good guys always get the shit!

Regards,
Peter

 

[jlw]

Interestingly (or not, as the case may be) this sort of concept-snitching was a fairly big trend in the art-photography world a couple of years ago. The critics referred to it as "re-presentation," and it was supposed to be a searchingly deconstructivist revelation of the fundamentally transitory and subjective nature of photographic "truth." (As is the case with a lot of contemporary art concepts, these are powerful and stimulating intellectual constructs that just happen to yield a lot of extremely tedious photographs, but that's for another rant.)

However, usually the point is to re-present the work of an artist who's better-known and thus more familiar than you are; otherwise, it's like quoting a passage of literature that no one else in the conversation has ever heard of (people don't even realize you're demonstrating your erudition via a quote and wonder why you've suddenly started talking funny.)

So, you can take re-presentation as an homage to your own greater originality and relevance, which can be a warm thought to enjoy in the waiting room at the intellectual-property lawyer's office as you start planning your lawsuit against the SOB...

 

[CleverName]

We actually did something similar in a photo class recently. We were asked to replicate a photo we liked from it's technical aspects (lighting, perspective, composition, etc.). I tried the one from the First RFF book, can't remember the title, the deck with the reflection of the trees. I failed miserably.

Jon, if your image was copywrited, you should contact the calandar company. If nothing else you may get a free calendar out of it🙂.

 

[bmattock]

Jon, if your image was copywrited, you should contact the calandar company. If nothing else you may get a free calendar out of it🙂.

I don't know about Portugal, but in the US, the photograph is copyrighted the moment it is taken. Actually attaching a 'copyright' notice is not strictly necessary, and going to the extent of registering the photo with the copyright office adds the ability to sue for lawyer's fees and punitive damages, and not just for the use of the image (post-infringement licensing). Every country is different - international laws can be subject to treaties and such.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

This here in this city is like the wild west Bill.

 

[raid]

As long as there is a strong resemblence between the two pieces or work and as long as it can be proven who was first, there is a chance to get judgement in favor of the artist who first had the creative idea and work. There was a well-publicised case in PDN years ago about a photographer winning a law suit against someone who created a sculpture similar to the photo (of two people and several dogs ... I think). The judge focused on the idea and not the medium used. In your case, the medium is the same. This is even worse.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

In the USA you have lawyers and you sue. In Portugal even a parking fine takes two years to go through the courts. And if we have an election each candidate promises an amnesty on parking fines so in the six months before the election people park anywhere they please.

I'm not going to do anything of course. I was just shocked to pop out for a beer and see my photo on the wall by the bar.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I concur with Raid. I feel very strongly about this sort of thing, and I don't know how I would feel if people would plagiarize (which is what evidently has happened here) my photos. One thing is flagrant copyright violation and another is plagiarism.

Scenes and motifs can be cliché, but in your case it certainly looks like a strong case of plagiarism. If I may suggest something, you may want to put something on your webpage with your own picture and put a comment like "other photographers have liked my photo so much that they've taken their own" and put a link to it... I dunno, just a suggestion.

 

[raid]

In the USA such practice is better defended in a cour of law because of money involved. It is no coincidence that the USA is the world capital for capitalism. Similar strong laws are there for patent infringements and copy right laws in general. Money is King.

 

[reagan]

Interesting discussion. So let me play the devil's advocate here. Just thinkin' out loud here and not trying to flame up anything. I totally get where Jon C. is coming from. I probably would have fallen off my stool! So aside from Jon's case and thinking down the road...

..... How far do we take this? I mean this idea that one "re-presents/copys/plagiarizes" another. My thoughts are going toward the "privacy in public" debate that is oft discussed here and how does this relate?

"I've taken a shot from this [public] angle in this [public] light toward that [public] view and no one else has the right to do the same because that would be copying my work." .... ?

I'm just trying to work out in my own mind the right thing to do or the right thing to expect from others (photogs). :angel:

 

[bmattock]

"I've taken a shot from this [public] angle in this [public] light toward that [public] view and no one else has the right to do the same because that would be copying my work." .... ?

It is easy to mix up the difference between the right to photograph and the right to sell what one has photographed. No one could stop you from going and finding Jon's street, hiring an old guy to toddle down it, and taking a photo. It is what you *do* with the photo that could get you into trouble.

Anyone could sit down with the latest Harry Potter book and retype all the words into their computer. However, if they then try to sell that book as their own, ah, then they have stolen work that does not belong to them.

It's not all that black & white though (pardon the pun). If I take a photo of a door, can no one else take a photo of a door? There has to be more to it than that - but how much more must be done before it is a copyrightable item that cannot be copied without violating my copyright? I don't know, I'm just saying it is not cut-and-dried.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[x-ray]

Unless this is the ACTUAL image that you made there is no legal issue. If this is the same actual image that you made, not a replication at a different time, you would have to prove you made the photo. You would have to show negaatives etc. If you take this to court and the courts in your country says there is a legal copyright issue and the other photographer proves they made the photo first then what happens to you? Why do you think that the image is a copy and not a chance happening. These thing happen and thousands of images are made from the same spots every year in national parks and public places each year.

A few years ago I had client that was a retail clothing chane in the south east US. It was a fairly large company with many stores. Another retail chain deceided to rip off one of my images from my clients catalog and run the exact image in one of thir ads. I hweld the copyright and had the exact original transparency shot with my models in my studio. It was the exact image I had run in a previous tab. This was clearly a copyright violation. In the end The retail chaion I was shooting for wrote a letter to the other company telling exactly what would happen if this happened again and there was never another problem. Yes I could have been an a$$ and taken it to court but what would have been gained. I would have recovered the stock fee for theimage and a few bucks compensation plus a few thousand dollard in lawyers fees. I probably would have lost a couple thousand to provwe a point that a simple letter solved at no cost. If the problem had continued then legal action would have been appropriate. Get my point.


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

www.x-rayarts.com

 

[Nikon Bob]

I feel very badly for what happened to Jon C. However I have the same problem as mention in the two previous posts by x-ray and Bill in that thousands of photos are taken world wide at popular tourist spots that are likely t be very similar to what I would take. If I sold one of these photos and somebody has a very similar ( not identical ) photo that was taken earlier than mine would I be sued? I would hope not. A very tricky issue and hurtful too under certain circumstances.

Bob