Toronto Photography Meetup Group

TPMG.CA
It is currently Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:37 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2010 12:30 pm 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:52 am
Posts: 4022
Location: Newmarket
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://goo.gl/RJbMu
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/912 ... ation?bn=1

Saw this in the Toronto Star this morning. Would like to hear from the TPMG people as to whether the original photographer has a point.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2010 12:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:57 pm
Posts: 393
Location: Mississauga
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/theambientimage/
http://www.blogto.com/arts/2010/12/a_ch ... nto_star_/

Here's another story on it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2010 12:56 pm 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
that looks like what kids paint in daycare...

is that the best they could find for a cover? :shock:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2010 1:33 pm 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:07 pm
Posts: 1378
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/vkhamphi/
I love how the artist said she used Labelle's painting along with a dozen others for reference but it looks 100% like Labelle's photo.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2010 2:12 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:17 am
Posts: 1528
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
No, the photographer doesn't have a point. Not where it comes to copyright infringement, at least. The painting was done in another medium, rather than being derived directly from his image.

There is a point to be made though, and that point is that the artist, in question, doesn't deserve the accolades received. All that Kelley Turgeon did was re-interpret the artistic view of someone else. While I think that the presentation is interesting, the actual artistic skill that went into the image is someone else's.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2010 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:26 am
Posts: 190
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Photographer has the point in a way that his picture should have been acknowledged as the (or one of) inspirations for the drawing.

As Rob mentioned above, medium is different and frankly, it is an interpretation of the other art
(which is not uncommon and not particularly forbidding, although some find it questionable, I know I do).

Important point, and this is my own strong opinion, that we see this mess because yet again due to the celebration of the mediocrity.
I am not going to question limit of artist's self-censorship or judgment of the Star's jury, but I am certain that both parties could have done better.


I come across almost on a daily basis an immense wealth of talented artworks (mostly in photography, but not limited to it), which see no or very small light in "outside" world.
Yet, there is an equally immense wealth of various media pollutants, which are almost heralded as "visionary". It is certainly a matter of one's personal taste, so again,
it is only an opinion, but I see a clear trait.
Good example for broadening conversation on the matter will be a "corporate art" (walk in in few random office buildings in downtown and see what is on public display).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2010 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:14 am
Posts: 926
Location: Milton
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zalllon/sets/
The artist is full of sh*t, it is a direct copy of the photographer's image. The dead give away is the out of focus care in between the 2 street cars. There is almost nothing different about subject and composition between the 2 images.

I would be pissed. The Toronto Star should retract the awarding.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2010 7:39 pm 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:49 am
Posts: 2012
Location: Leaside
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Itsaphoto wrote:
I would be ******. The Toronto Star should retract the awarding.


...and give it to the photographer since it was their original work.

I know as a photographic judge it's always an issue, especially in creative competitions where photographers can combine multiple images to create the final image, that all the source images should be the photographer's original work.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 3:30 am 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 6:33 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Toronto, ON
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Rob MacLennan wrote:
No, the photographer doesn't have a point. Not where it comes to copyright infringement, at least. The painting was done in another medium, rather than being derived directly from his image.

Copyright and trademark protection does extend across different mediums. The copyright owner not only has the sole and exclusive right to control how their work is distributed and reproduced, but also how it is adapted, converted, translated, etc. You'll find use of that language in the Copyright Act.

The point here is that the painting did in fact appear to be a direct copy of the photograph in question, including the out-of-focus aspects, the composition of the image elements, the positioning and colour of the car headlights between the streetcars, etc. Just because it is a painting and not a photograph does not exclude this from being a possible copyright infringement case.

It would be like taking the copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to a song (written medium) and then performing it for a recording (audio medium). The medium has changed, but you would still be in violation of copyright infringement. Or maybe you've taken a photo of the Eiffel Tower's night-time light show, thus converting it from a physical performance to a still photo. You would still be violating SNTE's copyright on the light show.

But IANAL, and the only true outcome must be made by a judge, if this is ever brought to court (which I doubt it will be).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 4:21 am 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:49 am
Posts: 2012
Location: Leaside
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
taob wrote:
It would be like taking the copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to a song (written medium) and then performing it for a recording (audio medium). The medium has changed, but you would still be in violation of copyright infringement.


Or even change the words without changing the music, like the the George Harrison song "My Sweet Lord" which sounds a lot like The Chiffons' hit "He's So Fine" and the royalties Harrison had to pay after a lengthy legal battle.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 9:43 am 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 6:33 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Toronto, ON
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
mikefellh wrote:
Or even change the words without changing the music, like the the George Harrison song "My Sweet Lord" which sounds a lot like The Chiffons' hit "He's So Fine" and the royalties Harrison had to pay after a lengthy legal battle.

Right, the judge didn't think Harrison's work was "substantially different" enough from the Chiffons song, and thus infringed on the copyright. Or I suppose the ruling was just on the musical score, and does not claim that the lyrics infringed on anything.

The same problem plagues typeface designers, dealing with all the free knockoffs out there. Somebody takes a typeface and edits a few curves, drops a few characters, etc. and claims it is a new work and thus does not infringe on the copyright of the original typeface. Those are probably the same people who create a mirror image of a copyrighted video before uploading it to Youtube, claiming that the transformation protects them from copyright lawsuits. Silly bunts. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:35 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:17 am
Posts: 1528
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
taob wrote:
Rob MacLennan wrote:
No, the photographer doesn't have a point. Not where it comes to copyright infringement, at least. The painting was done in another medium, rather than being derived directly from his image.

Copyright and trademark protection does extend across different mediums. The copyright owner not only has the sole and exclusive right to control how their work is distributed and reproduced, but also how it is adapted, converted, translated, etc. You'll find use of that language in the Copyright Act.

The point here is that the painting did in fact appear to be a direct copy of the photograph in question, including the out-of-focus aspects, the composition of the image elements, the positioning and colour of the car headlights between the streetcars, etc. Just because it is a painting and not a photograph does not exclude this from being a possible copyright infringement case.

It would be like taking the copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to a song (written medium) and then performing it for a recording (audio medium). The medium has changed, but you would still be in violation of copyright infringement. Or maybe you've taken a photo of the Eiffel Tower's night-time light show, thus converting it from a physical performance to a still photo. You would still be violating SNTE's copyright on the light show.

But IANAL, and the only true outcome must be made by a judge, if this is ever brought to court (which I doubt it will be).


All true, but difficult when the scene could be recreated in the back of a streetcar, on a snowy day.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 369
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.ktoth.ca
hotwire wrote:
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/912094--streetcar-photo-raises-questions-about-inspiration?bn=1

Saw this in the Toronto Star this morning. Would like to hear from the TPMG people as to whether the original photographer has a point.


I am both a photographer and visual artist and I think the photographer's argument has merit. It's a creation just the same, and they could have either let the photographer know they wanted to use the image, or gone out shot their own reference image to avoid this whole mess.

I'm glad the paper featured it. Most professional artists use their own reference images for this very reason.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:14 am
Posts: 926
Location: Milton
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zalllon/sets/
I'm not saying the photographer should get the award instead, I'm just saying the artist should not win with this submission. Sure, anyone can grab a shot like that and/or paint a picture with that type of scene in mind. However, I do not see any difference in both composition or colour between the two images. It absolutely does not appear to be an original work of art. Again, the out of focus parking lights (or head lights) of the car in-between the 2 street cars is exactly the same colouring as in the photo. I doubt that you could recreate the image sitting in your car down to that level of detail: composition of all 3 vehicles; colour of car lights; and being on a snowy day. C'mon ... let's call a spade a spade here.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 5:33 pm 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 11:39 am
Posts: 1007
Location: Downtown, Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 3 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/qualdoth/
This reminds me of the "artistic" Barack Obama t-shirts that were being sold a while back, which turned out were based on a photograph. The situation was very similar to this in that regard, an artistic interpretation of a photograph. Anyhow, as I recall, the artist (who was selling the t-shirts) ended up being sued by the photographer, I think the photographer won the suit.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 369
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.ktoth.ca
qualdoth wrote:
This reminds me of the "artistic" Barack Obama t-shirts that were being sold a while back, which turned out were based on a photograph. The situation was very similar to this in that regard, an artistic interpretation of a photograph. Anyhow, as I recall, the artist (who was selling the t-shirts) ended up being sued by the photographer, I think the photographer won the suit.


You are talking about Shepard Fairley of OBEY GIANT fame. Nobody won, the artist (who was under contact with AP) apparently stepped in and said he was ok with it, which I think put an end to that case.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 11:15 pm 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 11:39 am
Posts: 1007
Location: Downtown, Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 3 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/qualdoth/
kht wrote:
qualdoth wrote:
This reminds me of the "artistic" Barack Obama t-shirts that were being sold a while back, which turned out were based on a photograph. The situation was very similar to this in that regard, an artistic interpretation of a photograph. Anyhow, as I recall, the artist (who was selling the t-shirts) ended up being sued by the photographer, I think the photographer won the suit.


You are talking about Shepard Fairley of OBEY GIANT fame. Nobody won, the artist (who was under contact with AP) apparently stepped in and said he was ok with it, which I think put an end to that case.


Ah ok, thanks for that. I wasn't 100% sure on the result but clearly didn't remember the details quite right!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 12:46 am 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 6:33 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Toronto, ON
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Rob MacLennan wrote:
All true, but difficult when the scene could be recreated in the back of a streetcar, on a snowy day.

Perhaps, but it wasn't in this case. This wasn't just any scene visible from behind a window on a rainy/snowy day, or just any photograph with TTC streetcars in traffic... it was the exact same scene. Even if the painter did not incriminate herself by confirming she saw the original photo, the striking similarities between the two would be so coincidental that I would have had a hard time believing it. Even if the painter happened to be sitting right next to the photographer at the time the photo was taken three years ago, it is highly improbable that she would have painted the scene from memory in a way that matches the photo to such a degree.

Now if she was sitting there and also took a photo at the same time from the same vantage point with the same composition (maybe this was a TPMG outing ;)), and claims to have produced her painting from her own photo, I would accept that. But that's not how it happened.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:34 am 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 8:55 am
Posts: 1200
Location: Mississauga
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
I'm not a lawyer (paging Ken...)

In Canada, "derivative work" is much more narrowly defined.

(via wiki)
In Th


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:58 am
Posts: 825
Location: Guelph
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
I highly recommend the "documentary" Exit Through The Gift Shop for an interesting take on art, and specifically derivative art.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 5:25 pm 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 6:33 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Toronto, ON
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
smlg.ca wrote:
By this court ruling, there doesn't appear to be any copyright violation by the painter (assuming this Quebec ruling applies to Canada).

I remember this case. It doesn't actually apply to what we are discussing here (that Wiki excerpt is missing a lot of salient detail), but it is still an interesting ruling. IIRC, the gallery had purchased poster reproductions of the painting. Those posters were sanctioned by the painter, and everything was above board. But then the gallery used a process to transfer the ink from the poster to a blank canvas (same idea as a Polaroid emulsion lift), then sold those canvases. The painter sued the gallery, claiming copyright infringement.

This was a split decision, so by no means a unanimous opinion on the part of the justices. The interesting bit is that the ruling stated no reproduction actually took place. The original (the poster) was destroyed in the process of the canvas transfer, and thus the gallery had the same number of copies of the print as before, just on a different medium (paper vs canvas). So if you equate "reproduction" to "copying", then no copying technically took place, and therefore no copyright violation was possible.

If you can find reviews or opinions on this case, they make for interesting reading. The ruling touched off discussions on "reproduction" vs "adaptation" (derivative works), whether copying a work necessarily implies multiplication of that work, whether the gallery's actions could have been covered under implied consent, and a bunch of other things.

It did highlight the often conflicting interests of a copyright holder and the purchaser of a copyrighted work. In this case, the SCC ruled slightly more in favour of the purchaser.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:42 am
Posts: 133
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
although it is based on the photo, the painting seems different enough to be considered original. I like the original photo, but it isn't ground breaking original in itself.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 12:01 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Scarborough
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 1 time
I would assume most cases never see court as the plaintiff and defendant likely come to some agreement. In this case, it would make sense if the painter subtracted her costs for materials and split the rest of the award to the photographer in some way (not necessarily 50/50), after all, who is to say the person wouldn't have won the prize had she made some slight modifications to the composition, such as reversing the image, changing the color of the cars, added or subtracted cars, etc. The photo shows snow coming down, the painting does not.

Either way you look at it, the photographer didn't seem to looking for compensation, but rather the common courtesy of obtaining permission, which I find lacking even with photographers and some of their subjects some times.

The painter admitted she saw his work. So there is no guessing whether there was any coincidence. The photographer got his recognition made pubic, so anything between the two of them after, should remain between them both unless they involve the media some more and bring the case to trial.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:36 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:41 pm
Posts: 1753
Has thanked: 2 times
Have thanks: 1 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/delsorbo/c ... 448542755/
there is a big difference between inspiration and plagiarism.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:14 am
Posts: 926
Location: Milton
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zalllon/sets/
I agree, and I would not consider this an inspired image ... but a lifted one. There is nothing legally that the original photographer can do ... and I'm sure it would be a waste of his time to try.

If you Google "streetcar Toronto snow" and choose images, it is easy to see how this person lifted the image.

Delsorbo wrote:
there is a big difference between inspiration and plagiarism.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:28 am
Posts: 728
Location: Mississauga
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
u can tell its copied...the headlights of one of the cars is white and yellow...perfectly copied in the painting...she shouldnt be lying...she should just admit it, give the guy credit and maybe give him some money...

ps. that painting seriously won first place?...makes me wonder what the other submissions were like lol


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:26 am 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:18 pm
Posts: 4691
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 19 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/
If she copied she is in violation of contest rules so should be striped of her prize.

The End!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:44 am
Posts: 547
Location: Here
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
All the usual disclaimers apply (IANAL, IMHO, etc)

While the case is interesting I don't think there's any legal issue here.
A moral one, yes, definitely, but legal?
Nahhhhh..


Dave


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:02 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:17 am
Posts: 1528
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Metrix wrote:
If she copied she is in violation of contest rules so should be striped of her prize.

The End!


If the rules were regarding "an original artwork", then it strikes me that would be reasonable.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group