Well, a rip off, to me, no matter what excuses you use. I might clone some one else's work just to figure out what they were doing and why, but I would have to put my own spin on things if I was going to sell it. This continues to happen far too often because many artists do not have the resources to get lawyers to prosecute stuff like this. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should....

robo hippy

This is a very complex subject and would be a great subject for debate over a pitcher or three of beer.

As the editor of a technical journal, I had to deal with the issue of plagiarism quite a bit, and in the case of written words, its much easier to detect when material is copied.  There are even software tools can scan a new document and compare it with earlier material, reporting an exact percentage of duplication (based on word count) and highlighting copied passages. 

But images are far more complicated, and copying older work is a long-recognized means of training new artists.  Ultimately, the threshold of 'plagiarism' is set by what is done with the copy.  If the copy is presented as a copy, and possibly even sold as a copy, then it is merely a copy.  But if the artist presents the copy as a truly original work, then it probably is plagiarism.  But then, a painting that is a copy of the subject of a photograph is an original work because the painter had to work to create it - - -

So what really defines an original work?  If I photograph a person, does that mean that a painter can't create an original portrait painting of that person?

Photographers talk about 'pictures of pictures' - which is another way of saying that most new images are recreations of images previously created by someone else.  Actually, photographers may have an easier way to deal with this issue since they are photographing real things.  Different photographers can photograph the same thing, but their images are unique in that each is what the maker saw at the time the photograph was made. 

In the specific case discussed in the article, I think the painter was at fault when he presented his painting as his original work.  On the other hand, I think that the competition organizers were even more at fault for recognizing a painting copied from a photograph with an award.  Of course, here's where it gets complicated - apart from Google Images, one could argue that there is no way that the organizers of the competition could test every submission for originality.

One could argue that the intent of the maker is what ultimately differentiates copying from plagiarism.  Did the painter intend for his portrait to stand alone as an original work?  But how can we peer into the mind of the maker to perceive what he intended?

Anyone care for another beer?

In my mind this is a rip off, due in particular because there is no interpretation of the original photo - the artist seems to have striven for an almost photorealistic copy. I do not consider the mirroring to be an interpretive step.
I do know that photos are often used as painter's subjects, and have done so myself. However they are usually much more of an interpretive model than duplicative.

I had a set of instructions taken from me then someone publish it as their own work.

It's really upsetting when this happens, sadly it costs more in time and effort to get it right then you get in return.

I happen to be in the audience at a symposium and this well-known pen turner was displaying my photo of my work as his own. After all the oohs and aahhs settled down I asked him to tell us how he made it. His reply was there are some secrets he's not ready to divulge. I said no problem, you'll see how to do it in the next issue of Woodturners Design.

Really, what are the chances that I would be there 

Yes, I've copied things, but there were for my own benefit to learn how to do something. When I was finished it couldn't be mistaken for the original. If it did look close to the original, it would never leave my shop.

Glenn Jacobs wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 2:36pm:


Are you going to claim it as your own work?
A Glenn J. original design?

I doubt it, since you already told us the source. It would be kind of difficult to say with a straight face I designed it after you copied portions from the internet and told us.
This guy is IMO betting on the fact that it's difficult, if not impossible to prove a case like this, no matter how obvious it may seem to reasonable folks.

Many years ago, I was drawn into a situation involving export control laws, and in reviewing the matter with a lawyer, he pointed out that there was a difference between technology that is unique and incorporated into proprietary products, and technology that is generic and available to anyone.

The same principle applies to the matter of copyright.  The maker of a thing can claim copyright on the unique aspect of a design, but cannot claim copyright on generic things.  For example, in the simplest terms, a table is a level platform with legs.  Anyone can make and sell tables, and no one can claim copyright on tables in general.  But a furniture maker could come up with a specific table design, perhaps some feature about how the aprons attach to the table legs that is both decorative and functional.  That maker could claim copyright on that feature, and then go after any other maker who chose to duplicate that feature in their work.

The other point is that there's no 'copyright police' to enforce copyright.  Instead, copyright gives the original maker a legal basis for challenging anyone who copies whatever he claims to be his unique thing, and biases the legal dispute in favor of the original maker.  I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that copyright isn't a black or white situation, but rather a framework for resolving disputes about the originality of work.

RE: My table.  The table will be for my own use and other than general design of being a trestle style, most the the specifics will be my own design. No copyright violations!

Now for the photo/painting: since they are two different mediums, is there a copyright infringement?  Due to the painter saying the setting is his idea, I would say it is an infringement. Hang him high!!


Glenn J.