in color | abstract & art .wandering*.

I do not believe this image can infringe on the copyright of the photo of the week by Mr Walthall since it appears from the details given with each image to have been made prior to the other image. Besides, although the ideas behind the two images may be similar I don't think one substantially is a copy of the other. (my opinion)
Perhaps, the moderator or another member might want to start a discussion in an appropriate forum for the subject? The two photos (and another photo, "Paper", in Barry Walthall's gallery) could provide a jumping off point in a discussion for my own and others understanding of copyright.

Great image, stunning DOF, good colors and sharpness! I just hope the next week's photo-of-the-week will be a colored paper folded with even more folds.

I can see some people here bring forth the classic compositional rules such as focal point and maybe the rule of the third while there is no such thing here in this genre. This is what is called non-objective art meaning there is no trace of a particular object we can readily identify. In this style, whether created by splash of color on the canvas or interaction of fundamental elements such as shapes, lines, rhythm, or color, there is no such thing as a classic composition containing a focal point and secondary ones with balancing and emphatic elements. This is at its best a kind of abstract that captivates using fundamental elements. In this case, rhythm and lines dominate. very nice peiece of work with a two dimensional feel to it defying any spatial sense.

"Composition" is of low importance in most fine photographs. Composition happens acceptably, usually, but it's typically the only thing that's going on when it's commented upon (eg railroad tracks and highways vanishing into the distance). If the photographer labors over "composition" to the point that we respond first to the composition, the photographer isn't much good. Laimis composed this, but that's far less important than his concept, lighting, and technical execution.

This photo is interesting for its mystery (which everybody noticed) and for its tonality.

Titles are used in "art fairs" but almost never by the photographers we think important, except perhaps to identify the people or the place, or perhaps the photo's # in a series.

This image might be labeled something like "light, paper, 2009" ...it's too good for a bogus title like "wandering."

The photo is far better than the title and the photographer's too good to lower himself to titles like this.

This shot really works for me. I love things that appear to be other than what they really are and I love the monochromatic tone. It is a very hypnotic image and not unlike a parked Lamborghini, it appears to be moving. Great capture. Nicely lit.

When my eye caught this image midway down the e-mail, I thought it was an abstract painting, the kind you might see over the couch in a sophisticated, modern house. I really like the parchment-like, sepia tone (as it appears on my monitor) - I think black & white would be less interesting. It's a very feminine image, like a bunch of lips enhanced with botox.
I wouldn't change a thing. Except to blow it up and display it over a couch.

This looks pretty close to the work of artist Tara Donovan. I saw her amazing work at the ICA in Boston and took a few ´snap shots´ - similar to this shot and you can see them in my profile under folder ´Tara Donovan´. Not sure how I feel about not giving the original artist credit, if that´s the case.

Mark , the photograph to which I am actually referring is Mr Walthall's 2004 POW for November 15 (he had two POWs). I, too, would like to see a discussion or even a knowledgeable article on the topic of how similar images made by different artists might be considered an infringement of copyrights. I do not know if the above would be an actual infringement, but how close do two works need to be for one to be regarded as being plagiarized?
As I said before, this is a nice photograph, I wish I thought of doing it. But I think a credit to Mr Walthall should have been mentioned somewhere along the line. Regards.

You shoot a nude
you might get sued,
'cause it's been done
and oft for fun.

Walt, I see no possible copyright violation here.

--Lannie

It is an abstract artwork indeed.I would like more details about how this photo was made.Is it one and only photo, what was the original pattern etc.But if we put aside these technical matters, what remains is an excellent, quite intriguing result that needs a lot of attention, dragged in it's labyrinth.Surprosing work Laimis.Regards

amazing photograph using light ...

Ironically, the picture lost some of its attraction when I learnt what it was. Sometimes captions add to a picture (Taryn Simon's work is an excellent example), and sometimes it's best to leave the mystery up to the viewer.

I agree about titles in general, there's no real need for them and the title doesn't add anything to this particular work.

I particularly like the contrast and the toning that's been applied here. It's very effective and definitely makes the piece.

Thanks to the photographer and all. The work and discussion of it, copyright discussion, and links to other images have been very enjoyable and informative.

I want to withdraw my negative comment about "titles"... in this particular case...

...because Laimis Savickas has produced (see his gallery) a series of photographs that evidently revolve partially around verbalized concepts...not just "cute names."

In other words, the photos are like a series of poems or musical pieces or essays that have central points. Therefore it makes sense to title them that way.

If this photo had been the only one with a conceptual title, I would stand by my general recommendation against titles because those are usually after-the-fact labels, distractions from the image.

Seen together, Laimis Savickas' photos are a coherent body of work, which makes his conceptual titles seem appropriate.

I'd like to like it more, because I like the light, and I like the idea... but unfortunately the idea isn't new - as Walter Tullinski noted - and the light is quite systematically good when trying this sort of stuff... what could still make me like it more would be the composition, but there's a repetitive pattern here, and no specific composition. A pattern TOGETHER with a great composition would make a great shot here, in my opinion. But the composition, for me, suffers from 3 quite unpleasant twists - one of which I'd consider quite serious (see red area n°1), the second one half serious (see red area n°2), and the third one not very serious (red area n°3). My issue is mostly with area 1, simply because it has an unpleasant shape right in the geometric center of the frame. Not too good, to say the least... Overall, it's still a fairly nice picture but the detail work that's needed for such compositions is unfortunately missing... I'd say the photographer is on the right track but needs to work a little harder next time, and look all around the frame for all minor imperfections. Best regards.

I see Mark G's points but I don't think they're important. This image is part of a series...I think it's a mistake to study it too closely as an individual. As well, I don't think we know precisely who came up with this sort of idea first...I suspect it was a famous photo "somebody" at the Bauhaus about 80 years ago.

Mark G hit it exactly - and took the time to explain it. A great idea, great tonality, but imperfect composition. In fact, distracting composition. On a scale of 1-10, how about a strong 8. Close, very close, but no cigar. Having said that, let me applaud the photographer for innovation, technical skills, and bravery!

I do not think that such an image should be analysed or even looked at in its details. The approach must be holistic. You look at the whole effect. This is, to me , the correct approach to this kind of abstractions. Otherwise you miss the point.
Regarding the question of copyright, I think that on this occasion the problem is rather of "plagiarism". However, although the idea stems from somebody else's work, the difference is in the decision to create a more abstract work (and is not a trivial difference).
In the end neither of images are totally original, but originality is not the same thing as creativity and while the latter is important in any artistic work the former is not necessarily a good thing.
So, both are equally creative in their own right and deserve a praise. This is my very humble opinion. :)

" Copyright law protects ideas, not particular expressions of those ideas."
Jeremy - you nailed the explanation, but you got the one line summary bass-ackwards! The rest of your comment is spot on, and everyone should read it and be as clear as possible on the implications, but I thought it important to clarify for the people who only read the headline.

As pretty as the image is...frankly I don't get it as photography.

It's like looking at a pretty wall paper. How long can one stare at wall paper.

That was my thought also. Pleasant. Admirable technically with the backlight... But maybe just a little bit boring and I mean holistically too. I can't see beyond the totality of the impression and appreciate it better in any depth or detail that draws me in. Personal standard of course.

My insufficiency or lack of imagination perhaps. Or just not my thing in its foldings and meandering ribbons. A maze of beauty is stlll a beautiful maze. Think of a well sculptured bonsai tree (weak analogy I know),which I can also admire but don't love deeply. No appreciation for this one,here,sir. Rather wish I did. It is a style not for all,but for many and deserves its place in the sun, or in the studio and in your gallery..aloha, gs...PS. I do not see the argument that one must look at a photo in relation to a series It must stand on its own as a work. Let's discuss that one, John, if you like:-)..mahalo.gs

I completely agree with Stephen Penlands post concerning the use of titles. A title isn't particularly necessary for a realistic piece. But for anything impressionistic or abstract in style a title can be very helpful in enabling the viewer insight into what the artist wants to convey. I don't think I have the right to call any artists (or photographer in this case) title 'bogus'. If the title is 'wandering' it's because that's what this work says to the photographer. Some times I don't feel like working hard when viewing art. Yet I usually want to know what the artist had in mind when creating that art and a title can be helpful. Titles aren't necessary but they certainly are valid. It’s a decision reserved for the artist.

How many artists have copied Monet's style of Impressionism over the years? Goodness only knows how many have copied it and painted the very same subject matter he himself painted. Is that copyright infringement? What about Van Gogh, etc or even modern artists? If a photographer creates a still life consisting of a red vase containing white daisies on a lace table cloth against a black backdrop and copyrights that photo does that mean that he forever OWNS that particular grouping of items in that same arrangement, that NO one can arrange the same vignette and photograph it and copyright THEIR version? No one can steal his photograph and call it their own or change it, try to sell it etc. He owns his photograph, but NOT the subject matter within the photograph. This is just my understanding.

Finally I have to agree with Marc on one of the points within this (wonderful) photo. After scanning the entire photograph my eye went to that top L corner and the rather large 'vacant' area of light. The other 2 areas aren't a problem for me. But it would have been good if that area had been 'filled' as is the rest of the photograph. There isn't only a vacant space but that space creates an imbalance in the lighting within the photo as a whole. But other than that I think it's a pretty cool photograph with a very soothing quality to it.