The people on this forum make me sick

[bribrius]

Buckster, I agree with you.

i don't . i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

This.

Folks, we're not talking about a lighting set up, or a technique, we're talking about a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique. I think it would only make sense to and piss of the landscape/nature photographer that works a specific area, at least that is the perspective I am speaking from.

Every landscape shot is totally unique, like it or not.

You can't just go there at the same time of day, even if the guy who originally shot it told you what that time was or you read the EXIF info and knew he had his camera's clock set correctly. You'd have to shoot it at the same time of day on the same day of the year, and then what are the chances the weather will be the same? You can't just go a few minutes earlier so that the sun will be in the same place in the sky, because it's only there again a year later. It doesn't follow the same path in the sky day after day. And what of the vegetation and the state of the bridge a year later? No change at all? Really?

Ansel spent literally YEARS hiking in Yosemite watching and waiting for the right conditions to get the shots he wanted.

I've revisited the same locations many times, waiting, watching and looking for the right conditions to get a shot that I'd deem a "keeper". If someone else wants to do that, good on them. It's no skin off my nose, and takes NOTHING from what I did to get the shot, nor does it detract in any way from the pride I have when I look at my photo of it.

I really just don't get it. I've never before encountered photographers who are so proud of something they shot that they refuse to show it to any other photographers, for fear that the other photographers will like it so much that they'll want to emulate it.

They aren't putting the work in and coming up with their own ideas. what is their not to get? You would think at least a little originality and efforts could be expected. I am all for the sharing and learning thing but at some point it is closer to photographer welfare. Not like they are earning it. And no, they can't EXACTLY replicate your image. But they aren't even putting the work in to deserve to come even close to it.

 

[Fudd]

The people on this forum make me sick with jealousy as they are so good. Most photos are simply stunning compared to anything I can compose.

At the moment not sure if they inspire me to learn more and try to become better, or, to just give up and look at other peoples photos and skills.

They inspire me to learn more, and become better at this hobby.

 

[Buckster]

Buckster, I agree with you.

i don't . i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

This.

Folks, we're not talking about a lighting set up, or a technique, we're talking about a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique. I think it would only make sense to and piss of the landscape/nature photographer that works a specific area, at least that is the perspective I am speaking from.

Every landscape shot is totally unique, like it or not.

You can't just go there at the same time of day, even if the guy who originally shot it told you what that time was or you read the EXIF info and knew he had his camera's clock set correctly. You'd have to shoot it at the same time of day on the same day of the year, and then what are the chances the weather will be the same? You can't just go a few minutes earlier so that the sun will be in the same place in the sky, because it's only there again a year later. It doesn't follow the same path in the sky day after day. And what of the vegetation and the state of the bridge a year later? No change at all? Really?

Ansel spent literally YEARS hiking in Yosemite watching and waiting for the right conditions to get the shots he wanted.

I've revisited the same locations many times, waiting, watching and looking for the right conditions to get a shot that I'd deem a "keeper". If someone else wants to do that, good on them. It's no skin off my nose, and takes NOTHING from what I did to get the shot, nor does it detract in any way from the pride I have when I look at my photo of it.

I really just don't get it. I've never before encountered photographers who are so proud of something they shot that they refuse to show it to any other photographers, for fear that the other photographers will like it so much that they'll want to emulate it.

They aren't putting the work in and coming up with their own ideas. what is their not to get? You would think at least a little originality and efforts could be expected. I am all for the sharing and learning thing but at some point it is closer to photographer welfare. Not like they are earning it. And no, they can't EXACTLY replicate your image. But they aren't even putting the work in to deserve to come even close to it.

Because they didn't walk the same distance you did to get to it? Yeah, they did. So much for the work part.

Because they didn't think to go shoot that location? Yeah, they did. Oh, the reason YOU thought it up is different than the reason THEY thought it up, so only yours counts, eh?

So then, ANY shot you've EVER seen in your lifetime that might inspire you to go get a similar shot, like say, a landscape with a bridge out in the middle of nowhere, is off limits to you, because someone else thought it up first, right? Or does that only apply to SPECIFIC locations that YOU want to claim as "YOURS"?

So, tell us, what EXACTLY was it that made you want to go shoot whatever it was that is so unique to YOUR brain, and nobody else's? Seeing photos of landscapes with bridges out in the middle of nowhere didn't inspire you to go find and shoot a bridge out in the middle of nowhere, right? Because that would just be copying someone else's idea, right? So, what was it?

Tell us, oh unique one, what photographic ideas you've come up with that are totally unique to the world of photography, that you've never seen examples of before, that could never have been inspired in you by seeing examples of them previously by others.

Tell us what's so "original" about shooting landscapes with or without bridges out in the middle of nowhere.

 

[bribrius]

Buckster, I agree with you.

i don't . i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

This.

Folks, we're not talking about a lighting set up, or a technique, we're talking about a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique. I think it would only make sense to and piss of the landscape/nature photographer that works a specific area, at least that is the perspective I am speaking from.

Every landscape shot is totally unique, like it or not.

You can't just go there at the same time of day, even if the guy who originally shot it told you what that time was or you read the EXIF info and knew he had his camera's clock set correctly. You'd have to shoot it at the same time of day on the same day of the year, and then what are the chances the weather will be the same? You can't just go a few minutes earlier so that the sun will be in the same place in the sky, because it's only there again a year later. It doesn't follow the same path in the sky day after day. And what of the vegetation and the state of the bridge a year later? No change at all? Really?

Ansel spent literally YEARS hiking in Yosemite watching and waiting for the right conditions to get the shots he wanted.

I've revisited the same locations many times, waiting, watching and looking for the right conditions to get a shot that I'd deem a "keeper". If someone else wants to do that, good on them. It's no skin off my nose, and takes NOTHING from what I did to get the shot, nor does it detract in any way from the pride I have when I look at my photo of it.

I really just don't get it. I've never before encountered photographers who are so proud of something they shot that they refuse to show it to any other photographers, for fear that the other photographers will like it so much that they'll want to emulate it.

They aren't putting the work in and coming up with their own ideas. what is their not to get? You would think at least a little originality and efforts could be expected. I am all for the sharing and learning thing but at some point it is closer to photographer welfare. Not like they are earning it. And no, they can't EXACTLY replicate your image. But they aren't even putting the work in to deserve to come even close to it.

Because they didn't walk the same distance you did to get to it? Yeah, they did. So much for the work part.

Because they didn't think to go shoot that location? Yeah, they did. Oh, the reason YOU thought it up is different than the reason THEY thought it up, so only yours counts, eh?

So then, ANY shot you've EVER seen in your lifetime that might inspire you to go get a similar shot, like say, a landscape with a bridge out in the middle of nowhere, is off limits to you, because someone else thought it up first, right? Or does that only apply to SPECIFIC locations that YOU want to claim as "YOURS"?

So, tell us, what EXACTLY was it that made you want to go shoot whatever it was that is so unique to YOUR brain, and nobody else's? Seeing photos of landscapes with bridges out in the middle of nowhere didn't inspire you to go find and shoot a bridge out in the middle of nowhere, right? Because that would just be copying someone else's idea, right? So, what was it?

Tell us, oh unique one, what photographic ideas you've come up with that are totally unique to the world of photography, that you've never seen examples of before, that could never have been inspired in you by seeing examples of them previously by others.

Tell us what's so "original" about shooting landscapes with or without bridges out in the middle of nowhere.

i shot it because i was there. I was there because i follow some of the history around this area. i asked someone involved in local history about where the old train tracks ran in that area. i pulled out my 1800's map and looked at it. Talked to them again to get a better idea of where i might be heading. Then i went searching. The train hasn't run through there in a hundred years. Had nothing to do with me seeing others photos. Had everything to do with my curiosity and determination to track something down. Now if you think i would be a little upset if some weekend fair weather photo wannabee hobbyist with dslr decided ask me where it is because they want to copy my photo, then yeah.. They can go look for it too and come up with their own perspective. .

 

[Buckster]

Buckster, I agree with you.

i don't . i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

This.

Folks, we're not talking about a lighting set up, or a technique, we're talking about a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique. I think it would only make sense to and piss of the landscape/nature photographer that works a specific area, at least that is the perspective I am speaking from.

Every landscape shot is totally unique, like it or not.

You can't just go there at the same time of day, even if the guy who originally shot it told you what that time was or you read the EXIF info and knew he had his camera's clock set correctly. You'd have to shoot it at the same time of day on the same day of the year, and then what are the chances the weather will be the same? You can't just go a few minutes earlier so that the sun will be in the same place in the sky, because it's only there again a year later. It doesn't follow the same path in the sky day after day. And what of the vegetation and the state of the bridge a year later? No change at all? Really?

Ansel spent literally YEARS hiking in Yosemite watching and waiting for the right conditions to get the shots he wanted.

I've revisited the same locations many times, waiting, watching and looking for the right conditions to get a shot that I'd deem a "keeper". If someone else wants to do that, good on them. It's no skin off my nose, and takes NOTHING from what I did to get the shot, nor does it detract in any way from the pride I have when I look at my photo of it.

I really just don't get it. I've never before encountered photographers who are so proud of something they shot that they refuse to show it to any other photographers, for fear that the other photographers will like it so much that they'll want to emulate it.

They aren't putting the work in and coming up with their own ideas. what is their not to get? You would think at least a little originality and efforts could be expected. I am all for the sharing and learning thing but at some point it is closer to photographer welfare. Not like they are earning it. And no, they can't EXACTLY replicate your image. But they aren't even putting the work in to deserve to come even close to it.

Because they didn't walk the same distance you did to get to it? Yeah, they did. So much for the work part.

Because they didn't think to go shoot that location? Yeah, they did. Oh, the reason YOU thought it up is different than the reason THEY thought it up, so only yours counts, eh?

So then, ANY shot you've EVER seen in your lifetime that might inspire you to go get a similar shot, like say, a landscape with a bridge out in the middle of nowhere, is off limits to you, because someone else thought it up first, right? Or does that only apply to SPECIFIC locations that YOU want to claim as "YOURS"?

So, tell us, what EXACTLY was it that made you want to go shoot whatever it was that is so unique to YOUR brain, and nobody else's? Seeing photos of landscapes with bridges out in the middle of nowhere didn't inspire you to go find and shoot a bridge out in the middle of nowhere, right? Because that would just be copying someone else's idea, right? So, what was it?

Tell us, oh unique one, what photographic ideas you've come up with that are totally unique to the world of photography, that you've never seen examples of before, that could never have been inspired in you by seeing examples of them previously by others.

Tell us what's so "original" about shooting landscapes with or without bridges out in the middle of nowhere.

i shot it because i was there. I was there because i follow some of the history around this area. i asked someone involved in local history about where the old train tracks ran in that area. i pulled out my 1800's map and looked at it. Talked to them again to get a better idea of where i might be heading. Then i went searching. The train hasn't run through there in a hundred years. Had nothing to do with me seeing others photos. Had everything to do with my curiosity and determination to track something down.

And you want me to believe that you posted all that information along with the photograph? After all, anyone else who wanted to find that location would need it just as much as you did. Did you include a precise map and GPS coordinates, while you were at it?

If you posted that photo here in this thread, with none of the info needed to find it, what do you figure the chances are of me, a guy in Northern Michigan, finding it and taking a shot that looks just like yours? I don't even know where YOU are, let alone where IT is.

And why would I want to? Is the shot really THAT awesome that I would feel compelled to do whatever it takes, to travel hundreds of miles, talk to the locals and follow train tracks trying desperately to figure out where OH WHERE that location is, then hike thousands of yards, fight bears and rabid rabbits, all to get a photo like yours?

Whose leg are you trying to pull here?

 

[Designer]

i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

It is apparent to me that you haven't thought this through.

If you wish, you may keep any and all photographers off your private property who would like to take a picture of your house, for instance. But to exclude people from taking a picture from the exact same spot that you did, you would have to obtain exclusive rights to that spot so that you could then exclude anyone else from taking a photograph at that location.

You might have to pay the owner something, or buy the property outright in order to "own" that spot. Then what about "public property" which probably could not be "owned" by anyone. Even if you tried, I doubt if you can convince the governing entity to sell you exclusive photographing rights at that exact spot, even if you offered them money.

Sleep well, my friend, because someone is coming along right behind you to take a photo from the exact same spot that you did, and there isn't anything you can do about it.

 

[rexbobcat]

It is possible to plagiarize an image. Or at least to sue for it. It seems to happen quite frequently in fashion and commercial photography. It's a matter of "Why don't we make a VERY similar image to avoid paying the original owner out the ass."

That being said, it's hard to establish intent, so unless proven otherwise, the photos are often coincidentally exactly the same.

And this is only when an image is trying to make money. If you tried to sue because of a photo on Flickr that is exactly the same as a photo of your sunset, you'd be laughed out of your lawyer's office.

 

[rexbobcat]

There's also the fact that most people don't become unique and revolutionary in a vacuum. Most artists in all genres have emulated.

Actually, back when it was basically mandatory for artists to attend "The Academy," one of their final assignment was to apprentice under a master and then replicate one of the master's most popular works.

When apprenticeships were common, it was a rite of passage to copy others' work in order to get better yourself. Now, in our individualistic modern society, there's this egotistical indignation at even being assumed to have a photo that is similar to someone else's.

Which is ironic since postmodernism is the least original artistic age yet. It's all about rehashing and remixing the past, since everything has apparently already been done.

 

[JTPhotography]

Buckster, I agree with you.

i don't . i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

This.

Folks, we're not talking about a lighting set up, or a technique, we're talking about a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique. I think it would only make sense to and piss of the landscape/nature photographer that works a specific area, at least that is the perspective I am speaking from.

Every landscape shot is totally unique, like it or not.

You can't just go there at the same time of day, even if the guy who originally shot it told you what that time was or you read the EXIF info and knew he had his camera's clock set correctly. You'd have to shoot it at the same time of day on the same day of the year, and then what are the chances the weather will be the same? You can't just go a few minutes earlier so that the sun will be in the same place in the sky, because it's only there again a year later. It doesn't follow the same path in the sky day after day. And what of the vegetation and the state of the bridge a year later? No change at all? Really?

Ansel spent literally YEARS hiking in Yosemite watching and waiting for the right conditions to get the shots he wanted.

I've revisited the same locations many times, waiting, watching and looking for the right conditions to get a shot that I'd deem a "keeper". If someone else wants to do that, good on them. It's no skin off my nose, and takes NOTHING from what I did to get the shot, nor does it detract in any way from the pride I have when I look at my photo of it.

I really just don't get it. I've never before encountered photographers who are so proud of something they shot that they refuse to show it to any other photographers, for fear that the other photographers will like it so much that they'll want to emulate it.

I never said every landscape shot is not totally unique. I never said that I don't show my work for fear of other photographer's emulating it. If you're going to debate, quote, and respond to me directly, then address what I said, not what you think I said.

I'm addressing the conversation as a whole, and your part in it. You said that the original photographer shot it in a way that made that location totally unique. I agree, but not for the same reason that you and Brian apparently do.

I agree because, as I explained, EVERY photo of that location MUST BE unique. There is no choice in the matter.

THAT SAID, any other photograph taken of that location by any other photographer is not infringing on the original photographers "UNIQUE" photograph. It CAN'T. It is itself unique because it MUST BE.

I thought my response made that thought clear. Does this one?

No, I didn't say anything about the original photographer making it unique. I'm talking specifically about people who see me shooting somewhere then shoot from that exact location, something they would have never had they not seen me do it, or people who see a photo, figure out where it was taken and go try and replicate it. I also said there is a ton of gray area here, some cases are more obvious that others. I don't see your shooting half dome as wrong at all. If you were shooting half dome with a certain cool rock you found while you were exploring and someone saw you, stopped and waited for you to finish, then shot it, that would be wrong IMO.

 

[Buckster]

Buckster, I agree with you.

i don't . i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

This.

Folks, we're not talking about a lighting set up, or a technique, we're talking about a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique. I think it would only make sense to and piss of the landscape/nature photographer that works a specific area, at least that is the perspective I am speaking from.

Every landscape shot is totally unique, like it or not.

You can't just go there at the same time of day, even if the guy who originally shot it told you what that time was or you read the EXIF info and knew he had his camera's clock set correctly. You'd have to shoot it at the same time of day on the same day of the year, and then what are the chances the weather will be the same? You can't just go a few minutes earlier so that the sun will be in the same place in the sky, because it's only there again a year later. It doesn't follow the same path in the sky day after day. And what of the vegetation and the state of the bridge a year later? No change at all? Really?

Ansel spent literally YEARS hiking in Yosemite watching and waiting for the right conditions to get the shots he wanted.

I've revisited the same locations many times, waiting, watching and looking for the right conditions to get a shot that I'd deem a "keeper". If someone else wants to do that, good on them. It's no skin off my nose, and takes NOTHING from what I did to get the shot, nor does it detract in any way from the pride I have when I look at my photo of it.

I really just don't get it. I've never before encountered photographers who are so proud of something they shot that they refuse to show it to any other photographers, for fear that the other photographers will like it so much that they'll want to emulate it.

I never said every landscape shot is not totally unique. I never said that I don't show my work for fear of other photographer's emulating it. If you're going to debate, quote, and respond to me directly, then address what I said, not what you think I said.

I'm addressing the conversation as a whole, and your part in it. You said that the original photographer shot it in a way that made that location totally unique. I agree, but not for the same reason that you and Brian apparently do.

I agree because, as I explained, EVERY photo of that location MUST BE unique. There is no choice in the matter.

THAT SAID, any other photograph taken of that location by any other photographer is not infringing on the original photographers "UNIQUE" photograph. It CAN'T. It is itself unique because it MUST BE.

I thought my response made that thought clear. Does this one?

No, I didn't say anything about the original photographer making it unique.

You said:

we're talking about a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique

Who took that shot from, "a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique"? You now clarify that it's not the original photographer, so who?

I'm talking specifically about people who see me shooting somewhere then shoot from that exact location, something they would have never had they not seen me do it

You don't know that's true, and you certainly can't prove it. They might have had the idea before you, and you just happened to get there first. Maybe it's one of their favorite shooting spots, a spot they've visited and shot from many times. Are you a mind reader?

, or people who see a photo, figure out where it was taken and go try and replicate it.

We've been talking about that. Half Dome is a classic example of it. Why is it wrong for people to go shoot photos of Half Dome?

I also said there is a ton of gray area here, some cases are more obvious that others. I don't see your shooting half dome as wrong at all.

Why not? Someone else shot it first. Thousands, maybe millions, shot it before I did. And someone was FIRST - why doesn't that FIRST shooter "OWN" Half Dome? Why is that any different from any other location that YOU shot first? Or that Brian shot first? Or that I shot first? Or that anyone else shot first? Explain it to me please. What is it about you or Brian that I should respect, while we all flip the first photographer of Half Dome the bird?

If you were shooting half dome with a certain cool rock you found while you were exploring and someone saw you, stopped and waited for you to finish, then shot it, that would be wrong IMO.

Why? What's the difference between shooting it with that perspective, and just shooting it the way the original Half Dome shooter shot it? Why do you have to respect the way I shot it and not do the same, but you don't have to respect the way the first Half Dome shooter shot it and respect them and not do the same?

Explain it to me.

 

[Buckster]

Buckster, I agree with you.

i don't . i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

This.

Folks, we're not talking about a lighting set up, or a technique, we're talking about a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique. I think it would only make sense to and piss of the landscape/nature photographer that works a specific area, at least that is the perspective I am speaking from.

Every landscape shot is totally unique, like it or not.

You can't just go there at the same time of day, even if the guy who originally shot it told you what that time was or you read the EXIF info and knew he had his camera's clock set correctly. You'd have to shoot it at the same time of day on the same day of the year, and then what are the chances the weather will be the same? You can't just go a few minutes earlier so that the sun will be in the same place in the sky, because it's only there again a year later. It doesn't follow the same path in the sky day after day. And what of the vegetation and the state of the bridge a year later? No change at all? Really?

Ansel spent literally YEARS hiking in Yosemite watching and waiting for the right conditions to get the shots he wanted.

I've revisited the same locations many times, waiting, watching and looking for the right conditions to get a shot that I'd deem a "keeper". If someone else wants to do that, good on them. It's no skin off my nose, and takes NOTHING from what I did to get the shot, nor does it detract in any way from the pride I have when I look at my photo of it.

I really just don't get it. I've never before encountered photographers who are so proud of something they shot that they refuse to show it to any other photographers, for fear that the other photographers will like it so much that they'll want to emulate it.

They aren't putting the work in and coming up with their own ideas. what is their not to get? You would think at least a little originality and efforts could be expected. I am all for the sharing and learning thing but at some point it is closer to photographer welfare. Not like they are earning it. And no, they can't EXACTLY replicate your image. But they aren't even putting the work in to deserve to come even close to it.

Because they didn't walk the same distance you did to get to it? Yeah, they did. So much for the work part.

Because they didn't think to go shoot that location? Yeah, they did. Oh, the reason YOU thought it up is different than the reason THEY thought it up, so only yours counts, eh?

So then, ANY shot you've EVER seen in your lifetime that might inspire you to go get a similar shot, like say, a landscape with a bridge out in the middle of nowhere, is off limits to you, because someone else thought it up first, right? Or does that only apply to SPECIFIC locations that YOU want to claim as "YOURS"?

So, tell us, what EXACTLY was it that made you want to go shoot whatever it was that is so unique to YOUR brain, and nobody else's? Seeing photos of landscapes with bridges out in the middle of nowhere didn't inspire you to go find and shoot a bridge out in the middle of nowhere, right? Because that would just be copying someone else's idea, right? So, what was it?

Tell us, oh unique one, what photographic ideas you've come up with that are totally unique to the world of photography, that you've never seen examples of before, that could never have been inspired in you by seeing examples of them previously by others.

Tell us what's so "original" about shooting landscapes with or without bridges out in the middle of nowhere.

i shot it because i was there. I was there because i follow some of the history around this area. i asked someone involved in local history about where the old train tracks ran in that area. i pulled out my 1800's map and looked at it. Talked to them again to get a better idea of where i might be heading. Then i went searching. The train hasn't run through there in a hundred years. Had nothing to do with me seeing others photos. Had everything to do with my curiosity and determination to track something down. Now if you think i would be a little upset if some weekend fair weather photo wannabee hobbyist with dslr decided ask me where it is because they want to copy my photo, then yeah.. They can go look for it too and come up with their own perspective. .

By the way, what about all the other snapshots where you obviously DIDN'T put that much effort into getting the shots? Shots like where you're just walking around town, see some buildings that interest you for some reason, and shoot them?

Are they fair game for other shooters, or do you "own" them now too, and how do you let other photographers know what it is that you now "own" photographically speaking, and therefore what they are and are not allowed to shoot?

 

[photoguy99]

If I make a shot, and you replicate it, that's OK with me. It's still my shot, in the sense that it was my idea. Your image is just a copy of my idea. I'm OK with that.

If I make up a joke, it's "my joke" in the sense that I made it up. It is not "my joke" in the sense that I own it, and you can't tell it, and if you do you a) are evil or b) owe me money. It's my joke in the sense that I originated it.

If you make a copy of my image/joke/idea independently, well, I guess we had the same idea at about the same time. That's gonna happen from time to time. 7 billion people and whatnot, eh? Now it's "your" idea too, in exactly the same sense that it is "mine".

Occasionally these things can be parleyed into a legal ownership through the mechanisms of intellectual property. That is a separate, and quite complicated, issue. It is also largely dictated by powerful corporate interested, and as such, does not necessarily make much sense. Also, it's not a thing I care about much.

 

[bribrius]

i don't . i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

This.

Folks, we're not talking about a lighting set up, or a technique, we're talking about a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique. I think it would only make sense to and piss of the landscape/nature photographer that works a specific area, at least that is the perspective I am speaking from.

Every landscape shot is totally unique, like it or not.

You can't just go there at the same time of day, even if the guy who originally shot it told you what that time was or you read the EXIF info and knew he had his camera's clock set correctly. You'd have to shoot it at the same time of day on the same day of the year, and then what are the chances the weather will be the same? You can't just go a few minutes earlier so that the sun will be in the same place in the sky, because it's only there again a year later. It doesn't follow the same path in the sky day after day. And what of the vegetation and the state of the bridge a year later? No change at all? Really?

Ansel spent literally YEARS hiking in Yosemite watching and waiting for the right conditions to get the shots he wanted.

I've revisited the same locations many times, waiting, watching and looking for the right conditions to get a shot that I'd deem a "keeper". If someone else wants to do that, good on them. It's no skin off my nose, and takes NOTHING from what I did to get the shot, nor does it detract in any way from the pride I have when I look at my photo of it.

I really just don't get it. I've never before encountered photographers who are so proud of something they shot that they refuse to show it to any other photographers, for fear that the other photographers will like it so much that they'll want to emulate it.

They aren't putting the work in and coming up with their own ideas. what is their not to get? You would think at least a little originality and efforts could be expected. I am all for the sharing and learning thing but at some point it is closer to photographer welfare. Not like they are earning it. And no, they can't EXACTLY replicate your image. But they aren't even putting the work in to deserve to come even close to it.

Because they didn't walk the same distance you did to get to it? Yeah, they did. So much for the work part.

Because they didn't think to go shoot that location? Yeah, they did. Oh, the reason YOU thought it up is different than the reason THEY thought it up, so only yours counts, eh?

So then, ANY shot you've EVER seen in your lifetime that might inspire you to go get a similar shot, like say, a landscape with a bridge out in the middle of nowhere, is off limits to you, because someone else thought it up first, right? Or does that only apply to SPECIFIC locations that YOU want to claim as "YOURS"?

So, tell us, what EXACTLY was it that made you want to go shoot whatever it was that is so unique to YOUR brain, and nobody else's? Seeing photos of landscapes with bridges out in the middle of nowhere didn't inspire you to go find and shoot a bridge out in the middle of nowhere, right? Because that would just be copying someone else's idea, right? So, what was it?

Tell us, oh unique one, what photographic ideas you've come up with that are totally unique to the world of photography, that you've never seen examples of before, that could never have been inspired in you by seeing examples of them previously by others.

Tell us what's so "original" about shooting landscapes with or without bridges out in the middle of nowhere.

i shot it because i was there. I was there because i follow some of the history around this area. i asked someone involved in local history about where the old train tracks ran in that area. i pulled out my 1800's map and looked at it. Talked to them again to get a better idea of where i might be heading. Then i went searching. The train hasn't run through there in a hundred years. Had nothing to do with me seeing others photos. Had everything to do with my curiosity and determination to track something down. Now if you think i would be a little upset if some weekend fair weather photo wannabee hobbyist with dslr decided ask me where it is because they want to copy my photo, then yeah.. They can go look for it too and come up with their own perspective. .

By the way, what about all the other snapshots where you obviously DIDN'T put that much effort into getting the shots? Shots like where you're just walking around town, see some buildings that interest you for some reason, and shoot them?

Are they fair game for other shooters, or do you "own" them now too, and how do you let other photographers know what it is that you now "own" photographically speaking, and therefore what they are and are not allowed to shoot?

People can shoot whatever they want. I just don't want me or my photographs involved in what they shoot. They are better off coming up with their own voice and ideas anyway. Otherwise everyones photographs look the same. At this point about everything has been done. . You manage to come up with anything original or even semi original covet it. I don't understand why someone would want to copy a photo anyway. I can see a style or premise of a era. I do that. Copying someones actual photo i would think would be worthless on a personal level. It isn't like you actually came up with it. I don't even buy photos or art i would rather make my own. It means more. why on earth would i want someone elses photo or even a mimic of it? Suppose for some people they copy it, get some likes on facebook or maybe sell a print. That is all that matters to them. Maybe they just liked the "idea" and wanted to copy it. Course they never came up with it themselves so it is all pretty much fake and not who they are. Just who they copied..

 

[photoguy99]

Lots of people are happy to copy other people's photos. Look at all the internet-famous photographers and their fanboys.

These are, mainly, people who like cameras and are not actually very interested in images. Their hero(s) use cameras in specific ways to produce specific results, and the goal of the fanboy is to master those techniques, and to demonstrate their mastery of same. I say "fanboy" but there's nothing actually wrong with this activity. It's good nerdy fun. It just doesn't have much to do with photography as I see it.

 

[Buckster]

This.

Folks, we're not talking about a lighting set up, or a technique, we're talking about a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique. I think it would only make sense to and piss of the landscape/nature photographer that works a specific area, at least that is the perspective I am speaking from.

Every landscape shot is totally unique, like it or not.

You can't just go there at the same time of day, even if the guy who originally shot it told you what that time was or you read the EXIF info and knew he had his camera's clock set correctly. You'd have to shoot it at the same time of day on the same day of the year, and then what are the chances the weather will be the same? You can't just go a few minutes earlier so that the sun will be in the same place in the sky, because it's only there again a year later. It doesn't follow the same path in the sky day after day. And what of the vegetation and the state of the bridge a year later? No change at all? Really?

Ansel spent literally YEARS hiking in Yosemite watching and waiting for the right conditions to get the shots he wanted.

I've revisited the same locations many times, waiting, watching and looking for the right conditions to get a shot that I'd deem a "keeper". If someone else wants to do that, good on them. It's no skin off my nose, and takes NOTHING from what I did to get the shot, nor does it detract in any way from the pride I have when I look at my photo of it.

I really just don't get it. I've never before encountered photographers who are so proud of something they shot that they refuse to show it to any other photographers, for fear that the other photographers will like it so much that they'll want to emulate it.

They aren't putting the work in and coming up with their own ideas. what is their not to get? You would think at least a little originality and efforts could be expected. I am all for the sharing and learning thing but at some point it is closer to photographer welfare. Not like they are earning it. And no, they can't EXACTLY replicate your image. But they aren't even putting the work in to deserve to come even close to it.

Because they didn't walk the same distance you did to get to it? Yeah, they did. So much for the work part.

Because they didn't think to go shoot that location? Yeah, they did. Oh, the reason YOU thought it up is different than the reason THEY thought it up, so only yours counts, eh?

So then, ANY shot you've EVER seen in your lifetime that might inspire you to go get a similar shot, like say, a landscape with a bridge out in the middle of nowhere, is off limits to you, because someone else thought it up first, right? Or does that only apply to SPECIFIC locations that YOU want to claim as "YOURS"?

So, tell us, what EXACTLY was it that made you want to go shoot whatever it was that is so unique to YOUR brain, and nobody else's? Seeing photos of landscapes with bridges out in the middle of nowhere didn't inspire you to go find and shoot a bridge out in the middle of nowhere, right? Because that would just be copying someone else's idea, right? So, what was it?

Tell us, oh unique one, what photographic ideas you've come up with that are totally unique to the world of photography, that you've never seen examples of before, that could never have been inspired in you by seeing examples of them previously by others.

Tell us what's so "original" about shooting landscapes with or without bridges out in the middle of nowhere.

i shot it because i was there. I was there because i follow some of the history around this area. i asked someone involved in local history about where the old train tracks ran in that area. i pulled out my 1800's map and looked at it. Talked to them again to get a better idea of where i might be heading. Then i went searching. The train hasn't run through there in a hundred years. Had nothing to do with me seeing others photos. Had everything to do with my curiosity and determination to track something down. Now if you think i would be a little upset if some weekend fair weather photo wannabee hobbyist with dslr decided ask me where it is because they want to copy my photo, then yeah.. They can go look for it too and come up with their own perspective. .

By the way, what about all the other snapshots where you obviously DIDN'T put that much effort into getting the shots? Shots like where you're just walking around town, see some buildings that interest you for some reason, and shoot them?

Are they fair game for other shooters, or do you "own" them now too, and how do you let other photographers know what it is that you now "own" photographically speaking, and therefore what they are and are not allowed to shoot?

People can shoot whatever they want. I just don't want me or my photographs involved in what they shoot. They are better off coming up with their own voice and ideas anyway. Otherwise everyones photographs look the same. At this point about everything has been done. . You manage to come up with anything original or even semi original covet it. I don't understand why someone would want to copy a photo anyway. I can see a style or premise of a era. I do that. Copying someones actual photo i would think would be worthless on a personal level. It isn't like you actually came up with it. I don't even buy photos or art i would rather make my own. It means more. why on earth would i want someone elses photo or even a mimic of it? Suppose for some people they copy it, get some likes on facebook or maybe sell a print. That is all that matters to them. Maybe they just liked the "idea" and wanted to copy it. Course they never came up with it themselves so it is all pretty much fake and not who they are. Just who they copied..

I like how you just go on and on and on and on without actually addressing the questions raised because of the problems with your statements. Does that come natural, or do you have to work at it?