Derivative Works

Let's say that you are wandering about a museum. Something(s) catch your eye, and you capture them in the form the original artist delivered.

At home later--sometimes years down the line--you decide to give the image and the possibilities of Photoshop a try.

Whoo! A startling and stellar image emerges. A new work, but based on another artist's work and vision.

What is the spark in this, and what do you think?

inspiration:

Modotti - Composicion con Maiz,+Cartuchos y Guitarra

TINA MODOTTI Canana, maíz y guitarra. Impresión de negativo original del Comitato Tina Modotti. Trieste, Ita… | Museo nacional de arte, Tina modotti, Museo nacional

Derivative Work by me

homage `a Modotti-Composicion con Maiz, Cartuchos y Ukelele

Francis Bacon / samstevens

In my mind this borders on plagiarism , this could be debated.

The original idea is not yours.

You could also be infringing Copyright , once again debateable.

These are my own thoughts only , a Lawyer could give a better answer to this question.

Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.

What Does Copyright Protect? (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office

In other countries, I would suppose that the international conventions would be much the same.

I am not a lawyer, but sometimes I play one on the internets

this borders on plagiarism , this could be debated.

Right on both counts. It borders on it and it's debatable.

It's also an art tradition.

.

.

Good enough for Van Gogh.

LINK.

And Picasso:

"Good artists copy. Great artists steal."

In my mind this borders on plagiarism , this could be debated.

The original idea is not yours.

You could also be infringing Copyright , once again debateable.

These are my own thoughts only , a Lawyer could give a better answer to this question.

JDM's response is spot on.

The OP's words aren't clear to me; but it seems he means to photograph an artwork (not make a pastiche of it like JDM), then use photoshop on the image and claim the result as his own. In my book that *is* theft of the intellectual property. I have nothing in any galleries unless you count Flickr, but even in my little world, Creative Commons licences allow you to allow/forbid such derived works. Even when allowed by the maker of the original, it would normally be required that you acknowledge that maker, and reproduce their licence conditions where you display your derived work. If we don't respect other artists, we have no cause for complaint if our photographs are stolen.

Photographing artworks is always tricky. If I were an art student, I might photograph artworks to help my memory of them, if the gallery even allowed that. I wouldn't think of reworking or publishing the pictures without permission.

On the street, it's often impossible to photograph a scene without an artwork being in view, and an artwork may be an essential part of a place. That's different from the museum, because we own the public space; Henry Moore doesn't get to forbid us from photographing the High Street when one of his things is put there. But even then, I'll check with myself that my picture is 'of the High Street', not just of the sculpture. I might still take a tourist picture of the scuplture, for my own memory, but I wouldn't publish it.

There's a difference in law and custom between "publish" and "exploit"

You can usually post (i.e., publish) things, but cannot use just any image for commercial purposes.

There are still, Disney not withstanding, a few privileges for certain classes of users such as scholars.

I've taken many photos of artworks on public display at museums (where allowable or sometimes maybe not) and elsewhere. Have I "published" or displayed them someplace online? Possibly but would never claim such a work as my own- I see it being akin to a photo of a photo. For my purposes, it's a reminder of where I've been (holiday perhaps) and what I've seen and really liked. Typically, I wouldn't make any attempt tp alter the shot- simply because I'm only capturing it for personal reference.

That said, to speak directly to another aspect of the OP, I do often revisit old photos and (also often) find something I like in shots I had originally passed by.

Fantastic stuff!

Too bad I'm not a Photoshopper. I'm just an old film photog that is lucky to be able to use Lightroom.

I wrote an article a while back on this topic.

Is photographing art, art – Daniel D. Teoli Jr. (wordpress.com)

Since the virus hit I've more or less given up on street work and concentrate on archival material. Everything I work with is from someone else. So am used to it. Plus I'm an underground photog and underground archivist. Copyright only comes into play if someone complains. Which has been very, very seldom. That is one of the benefits of working with old material, everyone associated with it is dead.

About the only derivative I did was one of Araki as a cutout. It is called 'The Birth of Araki' Both of the photos I used are found photos. I'm not too creative, so I usually stick with documentary work which is not the type of photography that lends itself to manipulation that is far from the truth...unless you don't care about the truth.

Years ago I wrote Araki to make me one, but he never replied. So I made one myself. Most the of the big name photogs are too high and mighty to ever reply to letters. If I was a Photohsopper I could have made it that way. But I went old school with cutouts.

Strong NSFW...don't complain

The Birth of Araki : Concept and post processing from found photographs by Daniel D. Teoli Jr. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I got the idea for the Araki cutout from another vintage cutout I ran across. It is probably too strong to post the link here. Even the name may be too strong for you guys and gals. But I have come across many cutouts and derivations working with archival material, so it was not the only one. In fact it was pretty common back at the early 1900's with RPPC

exaggeration postcards - Google Search

I have a huge collection of them, but no time to scan right now.

Keep up the great work with the derivations...very creative!

Now that a bit of discussion has ensued, let's look a bit deeper. If one simply photographs a pre-existing work of "art" in its entirety without modification, then that work is a reproduction. Such things are readily available and often available for licensed use. We also see many 'ordinary' items that have been accurately captured via other media--not necessarily "art" and are accepted openly. One need think no further than Warhol, 70s pop art, or elements of Dadaism.

In the context of the original post, what then if we extract only a smaller element of a larger work, and then proceed to heavily modify its appearance to such point that it bore only minor resemblance to the original--and none of the original context?

What then of things in their near totality? Ask any architect, and they will tell you that their construction is a form of social and public art. What is said then about a photograph of a building, versus a photograph of a statue? Is the following image mine, or am I 'plagiarizing" Henry Bacon and Daniel Chester French?

Too bad I'm not a Photoshopper.

I used Photoshop to adjust some color temps. The photo is shot through the glass of the frame at close range to emphasize the texture of the canvas, exaggerate the perspective and capture the reflection of the rest of the gallery

I think we sometimes forget how much "manipulation" can be done before post processing.

Of course, Bacon started it! ;)

My local photo club doesn't normally allow shots of other artwork to be entered in our contests.

Makes sense. I wanted to join a local camera club...they didn't want me as a member. They were sunset and flower specialists. Guess it worked out for the best, looks like they would have wasted lots of my precious time.

I know what to do...I just need to do it. Time is the issue with me. So let me get back to work right now!

am I 'plagiarizing" Henry Bacon and Daniel Chester French?

Regardless, it's nice that you credit them.

When the focus of a photo of mine is a building, statue, painting, or something else of that sort, I try to give credit (if the source is known) when displaying the photo.

I'm not saying it's always necessary, by any means. I'm saying I appreciate offering or seeing the attribution when it's given.

Regardless, it's nice that you credit them.

 

When the focus of a photo of mine is a building, statue, painting, or something else of that sort, I try to give credit (if the source is known) when displaying the photo.

 

I'm not saying it's always necessary, by any means. I'm saying I appreciate offering or seeing the attribution when it's given.

Yes, credit is good if you know the source. A lot of things are lost to history....about 99.9% of the found photos I work with have no author listed.

Selection from Sooner or Later Y’all End Up on eBay! – Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection (wordpress.com)

Yes, credit is good if you know the source.

Yes. I was responding to Papa, who did know the source and did provide credit.

Also, the credit thing can be carried too far. Do I credit the landscaper of a beautiful garden I photograph? Do I credit the city planners when I photograph a street scene for its design?

Photography is dependent on the world for its raw materials so, in that sense, it is most often "derivative." That's one of its unique qualities, to be embraced and not shied away from, IMO. The "credit" thing will vary a lot and I just use common sense (something often in short supply in today's world that's more centered around litigation than sense) and respect for artists and other creators when giving credit. Were I a professional, I'd also make sure to know the law. And, of course, how to get around it. :rolleyes:

Some elements of the world are iconic. In the case of the last photo I posted, it's the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. It is something embedded in our American civil religion and its iconography. Another notorious item might be the Mona Lisa. If good old Leo had only known what a stir Duchamp would create with a simple mustache and beard...

Duchamp loosely termed such things 'readymades', amenable to reinterpretations. He claimed that this applied only to ordinary objects and not art, but several of his pieces demonstrate the BS of that statement. Generally, the artistic world labels reworkings "Appropriation." And let's avoid a turgid philosophical argument of Duchamp through the lens of the ostentatious dead... :rolleyes:

I am going to play off Daniel (invisibleflash) a bit here. I am even going into the "double dead" realm of monumental cemetery works. Below is a funerary work by an unknown artist of the late 1800s. It is located in St. Mary's Cemetery, Watkins Glen, NY. So is this work mine, or that of the unknown sculptor. Is this now a fusion of artistic endeavor? Do the long-dead individuals who commissioned it hold any claim? In-person, it looks much different... :)

So is this work mine, or that of the unknown sculptor. Is this now a fusion of artistic endeavor? Do the long-dead individuals who commissioned it hold any claim?

What are your answers?

For me, it doesn't have to be either/or.

Photography may be a constant collaboration.

Again, legality and professionalism aside, ownership of it all is not important to me. I'm happy doing my part.

To answer your question. A photograph I make is always mine, irrespective of the content. If I send it out into the world, it's still mine as long as I provide proper attribution. When I sell a derivative/appropriative work, there is a sticker on the back of the mount describing what technical gear was used (printer, ink, paper, mount, camera & lens), as well as the location. If a derivative/appropriative work, the place of exhibition and the name of the original artist is included.

A perfect example of massive change from an exhibited piece. The original is rather bland in pale cream color, and comprises a much larger installation. It has been inverted, shaded, colorized, augmented with two additional layers, and non-existent details added. The location is in the Corning Museum of Glass--and any would be hard-pressed to recognize it from this print.

I think that as a print, it's mine...

Usually, it’s the quality of the photo and what it says to me or makes me feel, more than who signs it and for what reasons, that affect me. A good photo, for me, will go beyond ethical concerns over appropriation or whose ego is invested in claiming full ownership.

As for Duchamp’s mustache, the idea is important enough to warrant appropriation of the original. If, on the other hand, the idea or the execution doesn’t speak to me, the appropriation wasn’t worth it.

I feel the same about photos of people living on the streets. If the photos bring something significant to the table, I’m likely not going to fret too much over the ethics of photographing someone who has no home to offer them privacy. On the other hand, too many of such photos are simply bad or exploitive, in which case I wish they weren’t shown.

Not a bad subject to ponder ... the relationship of ethics and aesthetic quality in photography.

"Not a bad subject to ponder ... the relationship of ethics and aesthetic quality in photography."

No, but one we have beat to death over the years here at PN.

I love street/public photography. We humans are such interesting subjects. Garry Winogrand mostly managed to capture public life in a way that was not "homeless porno." Then there are those who claim that they are only "trying to tell their stories." Many of those folks and their images I call BS on. Shock value is not art when exploiting someone who is at a low point in their journey. Sometimes, I think that we have to have that experience ourselves to understand the injustice of it all. If one can create an image that shows the depth and human beauty of such an individual experiencing homelessness, and then makes a context argument--there is an argument for "art."

But we diverge from the original topic...

one we have beat to death over the years here at PN

We haven't. What's been beaten to death is the ethics of taking certain photos or kinds of photos. What I don't think we've looked at is our willingness to embrace well-done photos of the same subjects we decry when they're badly done. And how aesthetics and ethics so often intertwine. I think we're falsely led to think we're making strictly aesthetic decisions when ethics are actually playing a role. And I think we're also falsely led to think we're making strictly ethical decisions when aesthetics are actually playing a role as well.

As to the original topic, I thought I was clear but, if not, I'll repeat ...

Usually, it’s the quality of the photo and what it says to me or makes me feel, more than who signs it and for what reasons, that affect me. A good photo, for me, will go beyond ethical concerns over appropriation or whose ego is invested in claiming full ownership.

In other words, if a derivative photo is well done, I don't think much more about the ethics of it. If, on the other hand, a derivative photo is poorly done, I may not think much about the ethics but I will simply ask myself ... Why did they bother? or What were they thinking?

In many cases, I will look at derivative photos to see what has been added to (or subtracted from) the original art that makes it something new and worthwhile. Generally speaking, that will be adding something not merely "artistic," but adding something photographic.

Yes FredG, err samstevens, you have indeed and eloquently made the argument for what you believe. And we have made numerous arguments on the ethics of photographing the homeless. As evidence, pick your poison from these:

https://www.photo.net/discuss/search/68625530/?q=homeless&t=post&o=date

I am hoping for more than a continued two-dimensional discussion of the subject. Perhaps it is time for both of us to quiet ourselves for a bit, and let others respond with their thoughts?

In the meantime, here is an image of me filling up our new pool several years ago... It is original and not derivative nor appropriated. :eek: