Your stance on artists re-creating photos without permission, but not selling?

[MissCream]

Well what about this?
Original
http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/8b/b8/arte,black,design,diseño,dockera,egg,eggs,flower,flowers,food,funny,gráfica,idea,tuorlo,white,yellow,yolk-8bb8e705b5b41536cb3b0ee121f43bd0_i.jpg

Yours

I've been physically practicing for about 3-4 weeks now. I'm just looking for some feedback in terms of my progress (Sry if I repeat some photos I previously posted). I'm not really looking for individual critique, just an overall view of my progress! All taken with a P&S.

 

[cgipson1]

Well what about this?
Original
http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/8b/b8/arte,black,design,diseño,dockera,egg,eggs,flower,flowers,food,funny,gráfica,idea,tuorlo,white,yellow,yolk-8bb8e705b5b41536cb3b0ee121f43bd0_i.jpg

Yours

I've been physically practicing for about 3-4 weeks now. I'm just looking for some feedback in terms of my progress (Sry if I repeat some photos I previously posted). I'm not really looking for individual critique, just an overall view of my progress! All taken with a P&S.

I am sure that doesn't count... as the quality is so different! BlackRose's version is definitely just a POOR copy! Kind of like someone running the Mona Lisa through a fax machine! lol! And since her EGGS were in different places it doesn't count, right?

 

[cgipson1]

My take on this:

According to those that think it is ok to "COPY" intellectual property..... We should be able to take a book, say Tom Sawyer by Twain (Clemens)... and rewrite it with the occasional word change, possibly change the location, and change the names... and then publish it. By making these changes, it won't be plagarism, right?

BULLCHIT! Theft is theft is theft!

 

[Kerbouchard]

Well, it appears this debate is no longer hypothetical or academic in nature.

It appears the OP routinely reproduces copyrighted material and passes it off as her own. Again, illegal and immoral.

Well what about this?
Original
http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/8b/b8/arte,black,design,diseño,dockera,egg,eggs,flower,flowers,food,funny,gráfica,idea,tuorlo,white,yellow,yolk-8bb8e705b5b41536cb3b0ee121f43bd0_i.jpg

Yours

I've been physically practicing for about 3-4 weeks now. I'm just looking for some feedback in terms of my progress (Sry if I repeat some photos I previously posted). I'm not really looking for individual critique, just an overall view of my progress! All taken with a P&S.

 

[cgipson1]

^^^^ Obviously! Totally! lol! Does a REAL artist copy other's work?

 

[Kerbouchard]

Well guys, I would love to continue this debate, but I'm out of beer and it's too late to go buy more... I'm going to bed, lol.

Hate it when that happens.

 

[blackrose89]

Huh. The egg one was an idea someone gave me personally to try. They must've seen it. I've never seen this photo before. I use free to use stock sites. And even so technically it's a concept. No technical aspects are the same (lighting, backdrop (mine was a dark purple) arrangement, hue etc. It's almost like saying if an artist draws a bowl of fruit containing bananas and apples no other artist can ever draw a bowl of fruit containing apples and bananas. If you consider this copyright infringement that you might as well arrest everyone who takes a cliche suh as a photo of a single tree on a hill

 

[skieur]

Visit - www.copyright.gov and click on the FAQ's.

U.S. Copyright Office - Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine? (FAQ)

By the way. Selling just means a copyright infringer can face federal criminal, as well as federal civil, legal actions. Federal criminal copyright law is USC 18, civil copyright law is USC 17.

Infringers that do not sell only have exposure to federal civil suit.

Conversion of a work to another medium as in the conversion in this case of a photo to a drawing is considered copyright infringement under the acts in both the United States and Canada.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

only when it does not constitute fair use

In almost every single statute, there is a clause which says something to the effect of 'unless otherwise'. Laws concerning generalities often conflict with statute concerning specific circumstances.

You can't take one part of the statute and apply it to the whole.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Visit - www.copyright.gov and click on the FAQ's.

U.S. Copyright Office - Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine? (FAQ)

By the way. Selling just means a copyright infringer can face federal criminal, as well as federal civil, legal actions. Federal criminal copyright law is USC 18, civil copyright law is USC 17.

Infringers that do not sell only have exposure to federal civil suit.

Conversion of a work to another medium as in the conversion in this case of a photo to a drawing is considered copyright infringement under the acts in both the United States and Canada.

skieur

This is true.

only when it does not constitute fair use

In almost every single statute, there is a clause which says something to the effect of 'unless otherwise'. Laws concerning generalities often conflict with statute concerning specific circumstances.

You can't take one part of the statute and apply it to the whole.

While this is also true(only because of how vague it is), converting a previous work into another medium does not, has not, and never will constitute fair use.

 

[unpopular]

^^ not in itself, no. But in the context of the OP, I think it does, provided that the rendering is not passed of as an original, but rather as a study.

The example of the image produced by Rose, otoh, is another case entirely because it is being presented as an original and therefor it was not repurposed as a study.

Rose - do you really expect us to believe that this image isn't derivative given your lack of development as indicated by your previous examples? I'm not saying that you lack potential, but we all know you're not there yet. This aside, being that the arrangement and lighting are almost identical would cast doubt on even the most accomplished photographer.