A question of ownership...
An interesting thread about "iconic viewpoints" has been developing in the comments on my previous blog entry (A matter of opinion...). This has got me thinking about the strange concept of "ownership" of a viewpoint.
Before we get down to brass tacks I want to look at definitions. As the local representative of "Pedants are We" I feel obliged to point out a fundamental problem with the phrase "iconic view" in the way it has been used in the comments by Alex and Alan. An icon is:
• a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of something : e.g. this iron-jawed icon of American manhood.
An icon in this sense is something that stands for a class of things. The Buachaille Etive Mòr (or more correctly the view of the crag Stob Dearg from Rannoch Moor) is therefore iconic in the sense that its pyramidal shape stands for all mountains. Like Mount Fuji, it's the way that we draw a mountain – ideally with snow on the top – from childhood onwards. The mountain may be iconic but the view is not. A well known view in itself does not stand for anything other than itself. It is therefore not iconic except in the sense that it stands for a class of images: other well-known views. Perhaps it would be better to use the phrase "classic view", rather than iconic, meaning a view or photograph that is well known.
Anyway, pedant mode off(ish), the idea for this blog entry was also prompted by an email that I recently received about my upturned boat image that graces the hardback cover of Landscape Beyond (see right):
Hi David
I've thoroughly enjoyed a wandering meander around your well presented and inspiring web site. I found it via an article in last month's Outdoor Photography where I was amazed (and also very pleased) to see in print the image of 5 stones on the upturned hull of that clinker-built boat in Achiltibuie, as it was me who put them their to create an interesting focal point.
I shot the image several different ways but ended up favouring the landscape view.... I went back to the area around 6 months later and not surprisingly the stones had been moved so I don't suppose many other people found this little gem.
All the best
Alan
Well, I must admit that my first reaction to this email was to feel slightly deflated, of course it could be argued that I shouldn't have felt inflated in the first place. But the truth is that I'd always been very pleased that I had "discovered" this boat and stones composition. I though that this find was mine alone, a product of the careful exercising of my finely honed vision (yeah, right!). But now, it no longer felt as if it was entirely my picture, it didn't feel as if I could claim true ownership of the image. There was a feeling of loss, heightened by my perception that this was an important image for me. As the cover image on my latest book it was almost my Half Dome or my Cuillin Hills from Elgol – it was one of my classic views.
But hold on a minute! When Joe Cornish or Ansel Adams or any other landscape photographer makes an image of a vista they can only work with the forms that are presented to them. The vista is "found" in exactly the same way that the boat and stones were "found". Ultimately it matters little whether the unseen hand that placed the mountain or rock was a deity or another mortal soul like me. There are a couple of minor differences to do with how one goes about making the image; for instance, with a vista the photographer doesn't have much choice about the relationship between middle ground and background – unless they want to walk a long way. As a result the choice and positioning of foreground elements becomes one of the most important aspects of composition for this kind of view.
Whilst in the closer view, small changes in position can make very significant changes in composition. Similarly, a change from short to long lens can cause a proportionally larger change in perspective. It's usually impossible when photographing a vista to change the lens and keep the framing the same. In the closer view one can change lenses and, by changing position as well, keep the framing more or less the same but radically change the perspective. What's important in either case is not the elements that are included in the frame so much as how the photographer chooses to arrange them in a composition.
When I feel that one of my images is successful I feel proud of it, it's my baby. I naturally have a sense of ownership, but of the image rather than the place.
The idea of ownership automatically throws up the idea of theft. If we can "own" a photograph then someone can "steal" a photograph. We're talking about intellectual property here and the fine line between plagiarism and interpretation. There is nothing wrong with the latter, as Sami pointed out in his comment on my last post, many great works in classical music have been interpretations of themes or melodies originally written by another composer. The distinguishing characteristic of the former is that it fails to add to the canon of work and provides the audience with no new insights or nuances of evocation through interpretation. Basically it's a sterile copy, often made for cynical commercial reasons.
My classic views tend to be of anonymous places, rather than well know ones – or at least geographically identifiable locations. Perhaps the problem with some classic vistas comes when a large number of images are made in a small geographical area. These classic viewpoint positions are relatively easy to find but it's actually quite hard with some classic vistas to come up with a new, interesting and worthwhile interpretation.The elements of the photograph (foreground, middle ground and background) are all to an extent fixed which means that the images tend to look very similar. But not always. In the hands of a true artist the familiar can become unfamiliar. This is when the notion of interpretation really becomes worthwhile.
All this boils down to the simple fact that what's important in any photograph is how the photographer interprets the scene. As Alan Rew pointed out in a comment on A matter of opinion... :
For example, with reference to the Old Man of Storr, if Michael Kenna (whose minimalist photos never cease to amaze me) were to use that location, I'm sure he would produce something radically different from either Joe's or David's versions but which was still original and valuable (I'm imagining the stones shrouded in fog as one possible 'MK interpretation').
If we accept this, and I do, then ownership in a photograph cannot be about a place, it is entirely about what the photographer makes of that place. No one can own a view or viewpoint no matter how well they've interpreted it in a photograph – and I'm sure that Joe would be the first to say that he doesn't own Roseberry Topping or The Old Man of Storr despite his many wonderful images of these places! The single most important factor in a great photograph is its execution, and, incidentally, it matters not a jot whether the concepts for this are expressible in words by the photographer or not. The execution of the image is the part that belongs to the photographer: the choice of lens/film/filtration/shutter speed/aperture/framing/timing/lighting and so on. These choices during an image's execution determine not only the visual style of the image but also how successfully it conveys what the photographer felt.
So, returning to "my" boat... Having looked at Alan's interpretation of the boat and pebbles and mine I am satisfied that (for me!) mine works better. Therefore I still "own" it. Phew, I thought that I'd lost it for a while!
Highlight this Comment David O'Brien01/06/2008, 09:28
My initial thought about all this was to recall David's often-repeated comment about his image of the maple leaf on the rock in Zion (one of my personal favourites) - Q. Did you place that leaf there? A. Does it matter? In my view, the answer is obviously "no" and it was probably naive to have asked the question in the first place. In the same way, the rocks on the upturned boat, in my mind, were undoubtedly placed there by somebody but my liking of the picture is not altered in any way by the fact it may have been done by another photographer.
For me, taking photographs is first and foremost an "emotional journey" - quite what I was doing in Glencoe in a force 5 gale in the middle of winter at 7.30am generates the same bewildered expression from my (non-photographic) friends as my admission to have been a planespotter in the 1970s! However, being out there was an entirely exhilarating experience - the extreme physicality of the place was, for me, an alien experience (and one which I am sure I will repeat). The images I have taken in Glencoe and other L&L trips are by necessity (and in the broadest sense) "copies" (but hopefully with some of my own interpretation!). This matters not a jot and I don't view this as devaluing what I went through to capture the image and what I was feeling at the time - a photograph captures a scintilla of time and I can often be found smiling when I review my images. Not that I think they are any good; they are simply reflective of a personal experience, something memorable. This can't be "owned" in any material sense.
As David points out, execution of the image offers so many countless choices that each image is almost certainly unique (notwithstanding the subject matter). The conclusion I come to is that I'm not actually interested in seeing Alan's image of the Rocks on Upturned Boat or in a forming a view as to whether one image is "better" than another.
I think copyright laws afford the necessary protection of one's ownership in a specific interpretation but the "view" itself cannot be owned - I will still go on L&L trips for the personal journey they offer, even though I am travelling to some of the most photographed parts of the world.
Not that this blog should necessarily be a continuous appraisal of reviews afforded by purchasers of books on Amazon but David's book has a second review (also favourable!) and the below extract may illustrate a relevant point:
"David's insight toward these subjects is absolutely second to none and it seems he is the best proponent of the "inner landscape""
It's the personal journey that counts and one's own interpretation in executing an image. For me, all other thoughts are extraneous and unimportant.
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin01/06/2008, 09:29
Hi David,
Firstly I suppose it a good idea to represent the Yorkshire contingent of "Pedants are We" and state that the OED's definition of iconic includes "Of or pertaining to an image used in worship". Well, we could argue in Joe's and your case this isn't too far from the truth ;-) anyway.. the OED also refers to the science of semiotics and that iconic means "Pertaining to or resembling an icon" and I think that for some iconic images, for example Ansel Adam's Half Dome, the image has become the representation for the Half Dome for most people (i.e. more Americans will probably recollect Ansel's image instead of the real thing if asked to think about the Half Dome). The OED has also recently added an extra definition for icon, probably due to the context we are discussing, as "A person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of a movement, culture, person, institution considered worthy of admiration or respect."
Joe's image of the Cuillins from Elgol is probably an icon for Elgol itself in most UK photographers minds. In fact the OED also has a verb, to iconize (argh - bloody Americans) which means "To form into an image; to figure, to represent" which sounds like exactly what some photographers try to do to a location or object; to form an image which represents a feeling, environment, location, subject, etc.
Considering your boat and rocks picture, I can totally understand your disappointment in many ways. It must have been clear that someone had put the rocks there in the first place but presumably you had thought it was the hard working hands of the down to earth fisherman; However, when you found out it was a fellow photographer it must have felt like it cheapened the discovery somewhat. I can see this point of view, and I must admit I thought the same for a moment but before I thought about what the other shot might have looked like I thought, "Does it matter why the items are arranged like they are? Does it matter if it was done out of a process of living with the land or out of a conscious effort to create a work of art?" This also led me back to the question "Did you move that leaf?" and my usual answer "F ... errr Does it matter?". The photograph exists and people have opinions. If they have to know the background to a photograph before liking or disliking it then it's not about photography (although it could be about art - but that is a different subject).
I thought about this also when reading one of my many Andy Goldsworthy books. My thought was a little question. If I found a Goldsworthy artwork when out walking and then took a photograph of it; if that photograph were well received, is it my photograph or do I have to share it with Mr Goldsworthy? My personal opinion is that it depends on how much I added to the artwork in my composition. Mr Goldsworthy takes pictures of his own work that act as icons for them. His pictures transform his work but personally I think that for many of his pieces, the pictures are his work - the view is how he perceived them. In this case, if I take an alternative view and a transformative composition, the picture is mostly mine.
My conclusion out of all this rambling is that a photograph can be an icon and that if someone tries to recreate the icon, they are almost doomed to failure unless they capture a different essence in their photograph. Someone will create a picture of the Storr one day that will be more iconic than Joe's - it may be in 300 years time though (or perhaps not). For your pictures David, I think the unique nature of your compositions mean that even if you were at the same place at the same time, unless you were in the exact same location with the same lens, you would undoubtedly miss the unique nature of your pictures. An example of this is one of my favourite of your pictures 'Verdant Moss' which is definitely about the subject matter but the qualities of the picture are in the 'exact' alignment and composition of the elements. I can't imagine that there were many other positions at this location where you could have a taken a picture anywhere near as beautiful.
Anyway - I did find the other picture of your boat and I do think that I prefer your interpretation (which means in my eyes it's better). It reminds me of a story (I can't remember who told me now) of a course in which they found a man in Swaledale with Charlie Waite's book open on a stone wall, composing the 'iconic' shot of the three stone buildings and stone walls. The man was flicking between his SLR viewfinder and the book, getting the perfect alignment. As much as I think this is theft, how different is this to art students in a museum sitting in front of Leonardo's art and sketching it as part of their learning... As long as he didn't send it to a magazine for publication as 'his work' I have no problem.
A final question though... If I went back and took the shot from the same angle but with a different arrangement of stones, would that be theft?
Thanks for the interesting post!
Tim
Highlight this Comment David01/06/2008, 12:54
Hi Tim,
OK, I give up, you're a bigger pedant than me! ;-) Seriously though, we're in danger of disappearing up our own behinds but I'd like to pursue this a little further. I accept the use of icon to mean:
A person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of a movement, culture, person, institution considered worthy of admiration or respect.
And I can fully see how Alex and Alan might have felt that Joe's Elgol image was representative of his style. But I still feel that a view cannot in itself be iconic. The thing depicted can be an icon but not the view. In the strict sense, as used by semioticians, an icon is something that stands for something else or for a class of things. Half Dome may stand for mountains but Ansel's view doesn't stand for anything except in the sense quoted above.
Well, call me thick (okay, enough!) but it really didn't occur to me that the stones had been arranged in any conscious way. Their grouping was satisfying but didn't seem contrived (well done Alan!). As you suggest I assumed that a local had put the stones there just to stop the boat blowing away in the winter gales.
In answer to your final question, no. That would be an interpretation!
Highlight this Comment Richard Childs01/06/2008, 13:29
Hi Tim
Only if you took the boat home with you!!
Seriously though, to travel to photograph any well known view/subject in EXACTLY the same way as has been previously done surely goes against all artistic endeavour. I have just returned from a few (more) days on Eigg. The fact that I and many other photographers have visited before is irrelevant. I am simply going somewhere that inspires me to do what I do even if the end result is an image of the Rum Cuillin from Laig Bay ( something I have done before but in very different conditions).
A piano has only 88 notes and yet since its invention over 300 years ago composers have only scratched the surface of the myriad ways these notes can be combined to make music. Then multiply that by all the combinations of other musical instruments and we head towards infinity.
I see locations the same way. Looking straight at Buachaille Etive Mor gives you one view but if you move half a mile in either direction the whole look of the mountain completely changes. Within that mile are countless variations in foreground and all on just one of many parallel lines moving away from the hill. Add in the factors of season, weather, time of day/angle of light etc and we are once again well on the way to infinity.
Of course with a detail such as the hull of an upturned boat there are far less options but I bet that if we had all 'found' the boat first we would all have come up with variations on a theme based on our own personal vision combined with the influence of prevailing conditions, camera format etc.
For a while now I have wondered how popular a L&L tour to a previously unphotographed location with a leader who had no idea what was there would be. I bet most clients would return with just as many great images as they would have had visiting Glencoe, Ullapool or Death Valley but will have experienced the thrill of discovery too. However, without prior knowledge of a location's potential would they take the risk?
While trying not to get too misty here I try to think that I find MYSELF in a location and then hopefully make an image that speaks about both me and the place. It only really matters that I am not repeating myself and therefore wasting my time.
And would it matter to me if a location I had discovered became so popular as to become considered 'iconic'? Yes. I would be delighted to think that I had arrived at a point where other photographers were inspired enough by what I had done to travel to these locations to 'see for themselves'.
Richard
Highlight this Comment Alan Rew01/06/2008, 13:46
David,
Interesting story. I'm not 'Alan' by the way - well, I am, obviously, but not the Alan that placed the stones (TATPTS).
Despite Tim's interesting reference to Andy Goldsworthy's works, and the fact that I think your Boat is a superb composition that only you could have made from the available materials, I think the issue bears a bit more examination.
TATPTS has deliberately placed the stones in a 'pleasing' way, i.e. pleasing to a photographer. I think this is fundamentally different from a situation where you have found something that has been created/placed by chance by forces 'nature' (i.e. excluding human influence). For example, Strangles is an image of veins of light-coloured rock (quartz?) in a dark matrix (slate?) which I am confident you didn't knock up at home in your garage. Most of your images are made in this way. You have created something out of the 'random' forces of nature.
The thing that still bothers me slightly is that the arrangement of stones was part of the creative process of another photographer and therefore, it could be argued (by somebody not familiar with your work, or your unrelenting search for original compositions), reduces the 'merit' of your image in terms of the percentage of the work that is your creation and not somebody else's. Suppose I had taken a photograph of your original Blue Pebble? Even if it had been a 'good' photograph, wouldn't you be due some credit? That's ignoring the fact that my photography is still at a low level artistically, of course.
In the section of your gallery called Hand of Man you are knowingly using objects that have been created by humans, although in most cases (as far as I can tell) the objects weren't created to be photogenic. Pleasing to the eye, maybe, but to a layman only, not an artist/photographer. So aren't these just a teeny bit 'better' than Boat?
Just playing devil's advocate...
Alan (not TATPTS)
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist01/06/2008, 15:40
There are several aspects at work here.
Legally, copyright and intellectual property are hard to define for photographs. An architect can protect the image of his creation, so that we are not free to photograph it. He has rights over what he has created. However, it can be argued that the photographer also has the right to create and that what he might create, would also benefit from the right to be considered as a work of art, which would be protected in its own right.
Bearing this in mind, several questions come to mind regarding David’s post.
a) if a professional photographer finds a spot from where there is a great composition, why shouldn’t he be allowed to protect it so as to protect his income? It can rightly be argued that he has created his/her shot ex nihilo and that s/he therefore has intellectual property. This is make vs take photos all over again.
b) We need to decide what the work of art is: if it is the rocks on the boat, shouldn’t David be paying Alan a royalty? If it is the picture of the rocks+boats, then David’s work is original because he created it independently. In this case, should we talk about co-ownership as we talk about co-discovery?
c) Did either Alan or David seek the right to photograph this boat? Should the fisherman and his family be getting compensation? In the case of the building, the builder has no rights, unlike the architect.
Morally, it is good that David has owned up to the fact that he wasn’t the one who created this view and potential photo, but I am concerned by the less honest goings-on which one can imagine.
Case 1: a low-profile photographer creates this view and then a high-profile photographer comes along, takes the same shot, claims it his own making, then markets it well using his contacts. I daresay that the low-profile photographer will not be a happy bunny. What recourse does he have to point out where the originality lay? Will he get recognised for his creativity? So I can understand that a sense of ownership is legitimate. (This is obviously not David’s case, before those with high horses get on them ;-))
Case 2: a high-profile photographer creates this view and then a low-profile photographer comes along and takes the same shot. There will be no question of where the originality lay. There will be applause for the creative work where it is due. So why would the low-profile photographer do this? Well, to learn. This is arguably the same reason which pushes folk to go on to workshops. Nowt wrong with that. So I would argue that the reason for copying/following determines whether it is a good or bad thing.
Philosophically, originality is linked to free will (inter alia). If we are all beavering away in our own corners, minding our own business, creating for ourselves, then anything we haven’t done personally before, is original. And then there is no reason not to do something that someone else has already done. If however, we are all in it together, then originality is defined with respect to the community. And then, it is up to the individual to be fully aware of what everyone else has ever done. Not easy, as David’s example illustrates. So let’s not outlaw mimicking: it’s all part of the individual’s existence (as per Sartre’s definition). Although I personally I prefer interpretation and the enrichment it gives, I cannot forbid mimicry.
Pedantry rules OK; or more accurately displays many trappings commonly associated with power, dominance, etc. (Quote from Nigel Rees who quotes from a graffiti; but then, am I allowed to quote?).
Best regards,
Charles
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin01/06/2008, 19:44
Blessed are the boatmakers!
Highlight this Comment Paul M01/06/2008, 21:06
Hi David. Light & Land will be pleased (I hope!) to hear that I am, at least for now, a keen proponent of visiting the 'iconic' landscape photography locations.
I remember not long ago seeing a quote attributed to David Bailey which said something about not really respecting landscape photography because pretty much any competent photographer could turn up to an 'iconic' viewpoint and reproduce a given image. In contrast, the studio allowed for much greater creative input by the photographer in terms of subject, lighting and composition.
Well, maybe I'm still in that relatively immature stage of development where I feel I may learn something by visiting the actual viewpoint of a famous image. Last year I read a piece by the art critic in the Independent reviewing an exhibition of work by Lee MIller. He said that he only really came to appreciate the merits of one particular image when he saw the contact prints of the 20 or so alternative versions that were rejected by Miller. Maybe there's a similar process at work for me, not just in visiting the tripod holes of a famous image, but in visiting the iconic location more generally.
I suspect there is also just a remnant of hope, however vain it may be, that I will come away with something I like better than the original that inspired me. However, the real reason I still visit the locations where images of iconic landmarks were made (I'll say 'iconic viewpoints' from here on - it just rolls off the tongue more easily (he he)) is that I feel there is usually still an alternative interpretation or viewpoint to be found - even of the big vista. After all, time has moved on since the original was made, things have changed, and in my (admittedly limited) experience the light is rarely the same on any two visits to the same location.
On my very first L&L tour, not long after picking up a 'serious' camera for the first time, I made an image of what is possibly the most iconic and photographed tree in the British Isles: the one on the island in Lochan Na H Achlaise. During a later L&L course you yourself were very complimentary about the image, particularly, if I remember rightly, because it presented a different view of the subject (the distant mountains were not present in my viewpoint). At the time I made the image I was completely unaware of the iconic status of the subject, or indeed the location, and I confess that I wasn't really searching for an alternative view - I was simply trying to get away from the shooting gallery and tripod holes further around the loch. Anyway, I suppose I could say that I made a different, and very satisfying image at a classic location without really even trying!! What's more, I still rate the image as among my best. What might I achieve if I really tried? To me, there is always the prospect of creating something worthwhile from an iconic location, even if by accident.
Finally, regarding your image of the boat, I wonder if you would have made it had you been aware that the rocks had been consciously arranged with an artistic intent?
Cheers
Paul
Highlight this Comment David02/06/2008, 08:33
Hi Charles,
Thanks for your post, lots of questions to answer!
My original post wasn't really concerned about copyright law but more about the photographer's sense of emotional ownership of an image. However the nature of these debates is that rabbit holes keep opening up for us to dive down so let's see where this one leads...
Photographers' works are protected by the copyright laws and they always have recourse to the courts to protect their intellectual property. This is generally only used if a third party publishes a photographer's image without their permission. I think that this should be as a last resort. In this age with worldwide dissemination of a photographers work via the web, many photographers are overly paranoid about their images being stolen from their websites. It's a relatively simple matter to watermark the images or make them too small to be of any commercial use.
Copyright law has also been used to protect the concept behind an image rather than the individual image. This is a trickier area to defend but there have been a number of successful cases. I'm hazy about the details but I think that there was a case in the 1980's where an ad agency ripped off an idea from a Doisneau(?) image for a cognac advert. They were taken to court by his estate and forced to pay compensation. The key is that the estate had relatively deep pockets and therefore weren't put off pursuing their claim whereas most landscape photographers, including professionals, are too close to penury to contemplate such a course!
Now to get on to your questions:
a) if a professional photographer finds a spot from where there is a great composition, why shouldn’t he be allowed to protect it so as to protect his income?
The photographer already has protection of their individual images under the law. Copyright protects the individual's intellectual property, this resides in the work of art not in the subject – be it landscape, nude, architecture, sports or whatever. To allow an individual to protect a viewpoint would be unenforceable madness. How could they protect their claim or even prove that their claim was the first? Wouldn't large parts of the landscape have already been claimed by dead painters? Would we all have to take special maps with us everywhere telling us which parts of the landscape had been claimed and which were still free? Or would the landscape be paved with little brass plaques letting us know who owned which views? In civil cases, the Law generally favours those with the money rather than those with the greatest moral right. One can imagine a bizarre and entirely counterproductive situation arising where the photographers who are already financially successful would be the ones to grab large areas of the UK landscape as theirs. Not something any of us would want to see. And if the photographer could protect their subject from other photographers, just imagine the chaos with portrait photographers or news photographers!
b) We need to decide what the work of art is: if it is the rocks on the boat, shouldn’t David be paying Alan a royalty?
I think that it's fairly self evident in this case that the work of art is the photograph. TATPTST (The Alan That Put The Stones There to quote TOAA (The Other Alan's Abbreviation!)) by his own admission did so in order to make a photograph. One might argue that he was inadvertently working as a sculptor but his intention was always to make a photograph rather than to sell his physical arrangement as a piece of art in a gallery. Of course TATPTST need only have removed the stones from the boat to have removed any possibility of another photographer inadvertently nicking his idea. TATPTST was in any case quite chuffed that somebody else had found his arrangement and made an image of it.
c) Did either Alan or David seek the right to photograph this boat? Should the fisherman and his family be getting compensation?
I'm assuming that you're asking this question just to play Devil's Advocate?! My understanding of the law is that photographers are free to make images in public places without having to seek permission except when photographing people or buildings where the architect might sue (ones where the architect are dead are presumably safe to snap away at!). Firstly, the boat was on the shore, a public place not private land. Secondly, it was derelict and any fisherman that had once owned it had long since lost any interest in it!
Now to your case studies:
I actually think that morally there's not much difference between the two positions, whether anyone is making a profit from the image or not. In both cases one photographer is stealing the other's idea. The only justification is, as you point out, as part of one photographer's learning process. Though I personally doubt that one can learn very much by trying to make an exact copy of another photographer's work. Of course, taking another image from the same point isn't, in any case, the same as copying another photographer's work. Unless the lens/light/clouds/filtration/composition are exactly the same they're not the same image. For this reason pursuing a claim of copyright infringement in either case would be tricky and, as stated earlier, require deep pockets.
Apart from it being a silly idea there's no point in outlawing mimicry. Personally, I think that proponents are really only showing themselves up by not having any original ideas.
Pedantry rules OK; or more accurately displays many trappings commonly associated with power, dominance, etc.
Whoever scrawled this on a wall sounds like they were suffering from a severe case of sour grapes. Some people just don't like to be told that they're wrong! ;-)
David
Highlight this Comment Alan Rew02/06/2008, 12:05
By a happy coincidence, there's an interesting discussion in the current issue (no. 76) of Lenswork magazine, about re-shooting a type of subject that's already been used umpteen times by others (in this case, grain elevators, but it quickly branches out into more general issues). The discussion would be just as applicable to 'iconic' viewpoints in the landscape. One point raised, that might be slightly pertinent to this thread, is: does the existence of Edward Weston's Pepper #30 prevent everybody else from photographing peppers, in perpetuity?
Highlight this Comment Lynne02/06/2008, 13:13
Hello David,
I'm glad to see your comment
I personally doubt that one can learn very much by trying to make an exact copy of another photographer's work
as this has never seemed to me to be a valid reason for 'tripod holing' an "iconic viewpoint". Personally I make a conscious effort to avoid these locations, partly to avoid contact with other human beings, but largely because I want to find my own images. There can be no doubt that having seen a great photograph of a location (or in the case of Buachaille Etive Mor, lots of great photos!) you cannot help but be influence by it - whether it be to imitate or diverge from that original. Hence Richard's suggestion of exploring different viewpoints in some respects only serves to accentuate this influence. I can see that this line of thought could well be heading into Charles' territory, for it is obvious that whatever we try to photograph is going to be influenced by something we have already seen, but I feel that the weight of that influence is greater for the "iconic viewpoints" than for detail shots where the photographer's relationship with the subject matter is always going to be that much more personal.
On the matter of Richard's suggestion that L&L heads off with groups of photographers to unknown and unprepared locations - let's hope that never materialises! At least we independent travellers can be pretty sure of some locations where we won't be tripping over the massed ranks of aspiring DWs and JCs! Anyway, I doubt that there would be many takers if an honest description of the amount of legwork, time, and the generally inhospitable conditions involved in such a process was forthcoming, and the relatively low hit rate that can be expected from this type of exploration photography!
One final point (sorry, I can't resist): you say
As you suggest I assumed that a local had put the stones there just to stop the boat blowing away in the winter gales.
Come on David! Just confess that you didn't have your thinking head on that day!
Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews02/06/2008, 15:21
Trying to copyright a particular view is both impractical and unnecessary in my view. Using portrait photography as an analogy, it would be like trying to copyright images of a particular person or a style of portrait. There are, dare I say it, iconic pictures, such as Lewis Morley's picture of Christine Keeler, which are often imitated but clearly have links back to the original. What we have is an image that itself has become an icon for the swinging sixties. And by the way, we wouldn't expect the person who made the chair to be consulted about its use in the image (although I'm sure they would have been delighted).
In instances such as this, and the examples quoted in previous blog entries, there is always a fairly clear time line and we can tell who created the concept. Under normal circumstances people will be taking the image at a different time so the picture won't be exactly the same. But on group tours, such as those with L&L, there is a greater chance of two people coming up with very similar images. It is not as common as you might expect, but it does sometimes happen that people independently come up with pretty much the same thing. Furthermore, ideas are shared on these tours and it has also been known for people to copy somebody else's idea. I don't have a major problem with this (it's kind of flattering in a way), and this is far better than the stories that do the rounds about photographers destroying a particular element of the picture so nobody else can take it (this has never happened on any L&L tour I've been on, I hasten to add!). But if you use someone else's idea, I expect there to be some sort of acknowledgement when the picture is shown or put on a website that it wasn't all your own work. There should be no shame in this: I think it is far more honest admitting that someone else sparked the idea rather than trying to claim something as all your own work when it wasn't.
And getting back to the boats image, I can understand that there would be a feeling of disappointment when you first find out that the stones were not placed there in the manner you expected, but I don't think it devalues the image at all. If the stones hadn't been quite in the right position, or needed a little gardening to tidy them up, would you have thought twice about intervening? And when you think about it, would a fisherman really use such an artistic arrangement of stones to weigh down his boat, rather than just a couple of big ones? And does any of this make this simple image less beautiful? I think not, although some of the mystery may now have gone as we know how the stones got there!
Highlight this Comment David O02/06/2008, 17:01
Chris' blog reminds me of the L&L Tuscany trip last year (with Phil & Clive) and the trip out to the abandoned farmhouse (the one with the chair in the Red Room and the crumbling floors). There was a "moody" broom leaning against a decrepit red wall - Phil and I both took photographs - lovely. Half an hour later, Clive entered, picked up said broom and swept the floor (cat pooh) so as to compose an entirely different image involving the window and floor! I was agog. I think the head then fell off.......:)
Highlight this Comment Julian02/06/2008, 21:24
Talking about similar images arising by pure chance, reminds me of my experience of shooting in Upper Antelope Canyon - an icon if ever there was one. Given the wealth of subject matter, you'd have thought near exact duplication by chance would be very rare - even taking into account the many thousands of images shot there.
Here's one of my interpretations:
http://www.jbarkwayphotography.com/photo258662.htmland an image I found whilst browsing Nigel Halliwell's site some time later. You'll have to take my word for it that I had no prior knowledge of Nigel's image:
http://www.nigelhalliwell.com/gallery/overseas/NH000061!photoSpooky....
Since then, I have been following a course of IVAT (Iconic Viewpoint Aversion Therapy). It seems to be working, so far. :-)
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist02/06/2008, 22:44
Dear David,
Thank you for taking the time to answer. There is no denying that I like to be the Devil's Advocate (dangerous but fun while it lasts!) and that I also like to follow logic through to the limits of absurdity.
See this article in the Washington Post or this one in ephotozine for sobering comments on web theft, and this article in the Guardian on the meaning of copyright in the modern world.
That thing about protecting a concept is very scary: how close is too close? “Nah, mate, that rock has two bits of moss on it – you can’t photograph that” or “Nah, mate, that’s a big boulder in the foreground – you can’t photograph that.”
I agree that chaos is nigh with all these people claiming ownership. I have a gripe with this ownership thing because of the difficulties I have encountered with building owners/ guardians everywhere from the National Theatre in London to a shed in South Uist. If the architects can protect the object of art from photography, they can protect it whatever the weather, whatever the lighting conditions, lens focal length, aperture, etc, etc. Now consider this: the natural world is whatever it is. But is there beauty in it? Not if one accepts that beauty is only created by human beings, ie it takes a human being to formulate the beauty. Such a person has a sense of aesthetics and I shall therefore call him an artist. He explores a landscape. He finds a viewpoint from which the elements of the land form a pleasing ensemble. Don’t you think he might have a chance to claim he invented that view – as opposed to merely discovering it? I agree you can’t claim protection over a discovery. But this view is invented because it requires a human intervention to take it from raw nature to something beautiful. And so the photographer creates a two-dimensional object from elements of the land like an architect creates a three-dimensional object with building materials. Therefore, I think that a photographer’s sense of ownership is entirely justified. Why shouldn’t he be allowed to protect it? If the architect can control the photographing of his building, can the photographer not protect the photographing of his view? The view depends on the position of the camera and the focal length within a range, and to a certain extent on the weather (got to be able to see it!), so the extent of the claims would be restricted relative to the architect. I agree this would lead to chaos (I’d thought of that!) and brass plaques (but I hadn’t thought of that!). I am not demanding you respond, I am just trying to see how far the logic can be pursued.
I think you can take the argument further in another direction. That would be to move away from a photograph of the view to the creation of a photograph which has its own intrinsic, graphic interest – something which is dear to you. You are then sampling from the world in order to assemble in one image a set of colour, shapes, textures, etc. By saying that the locality is unimportant, you are clearing yourself of any right over it and you must be prepared for people to copy your actions. You can also afford to go to a much-visited viewpoint because you will seek to stamp your mark on the arrangement of forms, even if that means waiting hours and days for the single cloud to be in the right place. Is that what distinguishes the great artist from the wannabe?
I do like the quote. Beyond the humour, there is the point that a quote is seen as a good thing, a sign that one is well-read, in spite of the fact that one is surrendering one’s creativity to someone else. The photographic equivalent is not seen so kindly. Is it because the text comes with context and a reference to the original author – something a photograph cannot do by itself? Going further, why is it that aping someone’s literary style may be regarded as witty, whereas aping a photograph is at best boring and a sure sign of a lack of creativity, at worst derivative?
OK ‘outlawed’ was too strong – but you got the gist.
Best regards, Charles
Highlight this Comment Alice Strange03/06/2008, 00:30
In the 8th century, iconoclasts took their mission of iconic image-breaking seriously: any iconodule (venerator of images) discovered harbouring an iconic image could be punished by flogging, branding, mutilation or blinding.
Andy Warhol was clearly fortunate that the practice went out of fashion a century later - his replicated images of Marilyn Monroe would’ve had the film studio heavies banging on the door of the Factory in the wee small hours.
What Warhol demonstrated was that an iconic image could be replicated, yet still say something completely different from the original.
So rest easy all you photographers of the Storr or Buachaille Etive Mor. Harbour as many images of those well-known landmarks as you like. If the iconoclasts come knocking at your dark-room door, you’ll be able to avoid charges of copyright infringement with a lively debate about the infinite number of possible interpretations!
Not sure you’ll avoid the flogging though!
Highlight this Comment David03/06/2008, 11:25
Hi Charles,
Playing Devil's Advocate can be fun but there are limits to what some readers might find amusing! ;-)
I fully accept that the theft of images from the net does take place. However there is always the risk that whenever you put your images out there that they might be stolen. I have personal experience of my images being used without my permission on a couple of occasions. Neither of these were thefts from the net but the use of original material submitted for one purpose and used for another without my prior consent or payment. One can only protect against this by never sending out any material for publication. Yes, I had recourse to law but I was advised that it would have cost me more than I would have recouped. Annoying, but the fault isn't with the law per se but with our access to the law i.e. one can't get Legal Aid unless you're poor.
Charlie Waite has experienced a bizarre twist (no pun intended!) on this scenario. A few years ago he was visiting the Spring Fair at the NEC in Birmingham and came across a stand of paintings, being sold as original works of art. The only problem was that the painter had made "faithful" (but unattributed) reproductions in paint of Charlie's photographic images. Now image resolution wouldn't make much difference here, a painter could nick a photo at screen resolution. The painter had "stolen" Charlie's intellectual property (probably from a postcard!) and made it his own by interpreting it in paint. The law apparently sees no problem with this.
Does this mean that we should never show our images on the net or in print? No, of course it doesn't! What's the point in making images if we don't share them? Life is full of risks and this is just one of them. One just needs to take the precautions one sees fit – as long as they fall short of paranoia!
The key difference between the landscape view that the photographer captures on film and the photograph of a building is that the building is the product of design, the landscape isn't (Tim, don't start talking about Capability Brown just to be pedantic!). The building is a work of art (well, some are!) which the photographer is making a two dimensional copy of. This is similar to someone photocopying a book and then selling copies to avoid paying royalties to the author. Not a very likely scenario, I'll grant you, but also theft of intellectual property. And I can see that you might feel aggrieved about architects protecting their intellectual property but surely you can see that in a sense you are profiting from their hard work by selling images of their buildings. It does seem churlish of them but I can see their point of view.
In the case of the landscape the image made by the photographer is the work of art , not the view. Therefore the law has rightly decided that the captured image be protected (if you've got enough money) rather than the physical location. It's quite straightforward really. I have absolutely no desire to lay claim to a location. I am happy to let anybody come along and make an image at a location that I've worked.
There can be no direct comparison between quotes and copying a photographer's work because they're different languages; you can't directly translate images into words or vice-versa. In theory one might ironically ape another photographer's style but this would be open to misinterpretation – in all likelihood nobody would notice that any irony was intended! This is because irony depends upon subtle but defined shifts in the meaning of words. Semiologists long ago discovered that there can be no definite meaning for a single image. Words have definitions; photographs don't. The only way to be sure that an image would be seen as ironic would be to use an accompanying text to fix its interpretation.
Context, as you rightly point out, determines our interpretation. By definition a written quote is attributed and hence a context. If it's not attributed then it's just theft. Whereas a copied photographic composition is rarely, if ever, attributed. The unspoken assumption when we look at a photograph, or any work of art, is that it is an original work (as original as any piece of art can be). It's assumed context is therefore that it stands within the body of work of the photographic author. We obviously haven't the time, or the capability, to study all the works of art in the world to check whether this is in fact true so a percentage of people will get away with making rip-offs without being caught.
I am quite concerned that there seems to be an underlying sense in your comments of the odds being stacked against photographers, a sense of the whole world (including other photographers) trying to rip us off. Perhaps I am being naive but this doesn't square with my experiences. Yes, I have been ripped off a couple of times (both times by "respectable" ad agencies) but in twenty five years work this isn't really that significant. Annoying, but not significant. Some photographers do set out to copy the work of others, but not many. Is it not equally likely that two photographers working in the same environment might converge on the same compositional solution? (See Julian's comment on this blog) Does this not say more about the limitations of photography rather than about the implied low moral standards of other photographers? My experience is that the overwhelming majority of photographers or artists are keen to make their own mark rather than to subsist on someone else's ideas. The desire to express their feelings through their work is, after all, what got them into a creative field in the first place.
David
Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson03/06/2008, 13:05
Hi David and all other contributers.
On the question of copyright and ownership of images, there was a very worrying article in the British journal of Photography last week dated 28/5/08 vol 155 no 7687 page 12/13.
Copyright alert.
Orphan works legislation is creeping closer to reality with two separate bills progressing through the US legislative system with alarming ease. Photographers all over the world must combine to protect their copyright, says Pete Jenkins, as non Ammericans might be the worst affected.
These bills if passed will be illegal under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
The bills are to broad spectrum and will also cover non orphaned and non registered photographic works. The US Copyright Office makes no allowance for work produced outside the US.
Quote,
Pete Jenkins, " If these bills become law, i as an individual creator, will be powerless to stop the unautherised use of my work, even in cases in which i would not permit it. My work could be used in objectionable ways, with which i do not agree. And it could nullify my existing contracts with clients."
As the article is two pages long it would need to be read in full to see the many other repercussions it could have on us as photographers.
Pete Jenkins is a photojournalist with more than 30 years experience.
David, I do not intend to turn this debate into a political issue, but this article was a real shocker to me, and it could dire consequences for us all as photographers. I also felt that it was so important that I had to mention it here.
Kind regards
Sandy Wilson
Highlight this Comment Alan Rew03/06/2008, 13:08
David, Julian...
"Is it not equally likely that two photographers working in the same environment might converge on the same compositional solution? (See Julian's comment on this blog)"
This reminds me of a coincidence I experienced on my first L&L tour back in 2004, on which both Brian Ripley and myself made nearly identical compositions of the same subject (albeit with different croppings). Neither of us had been prompted to use this subject, or was aware that the other had used it. It was located within a larger area which had a lot of possibilities, and AFAIK wasn't at that point 'iconic' (nor is it now). If nothing else it shows that some people can't resist diagonals going into corners!
Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews03/06/2008, 14:19
The comment about Charlie and the painter reminds me of one of Clive Minnitt's (many!) anecdotes. When he was at a craft fair with his collection of cards from Cuba, New England, Venice and other locations around the world, one of the potential customers asked him "Have you actually been to all of these places?". Perhaps not such a silly question after all...
Highlight this Comment David03/06/2008, 16:27
Hi Lynne (belatedly!),
You've found me out, I am Wurzel Gummidge!
David
Highlight this Comment David03/06/2008, 16:45
Hi Alice,
Phew! Good job that some of us are not living in the 8th Century! I must thank you for adding to my store of unusual words with iconodule. My brain is now almost full to overflowing and, as Homer Simpson observed, when a new fact is added another is forced out by the pressure. If only one could add on extra storage.
A link that Charles sent on a recent exhibition of Pop Art is very relevant to your point on Warhol.
The ongoing commodotisation of art is at the root of these thorny issues of ownership. We have to strike a balance between the old leftist slogan, "All copyright is theft!" and the equally rabid position of companies such as the major record labels who until recently considered all private duplication of copyright material as theft. On the one hand we want to be free (as the Pop Artists above apparently are, not to be confused with pop music where sampling of other people's music is now tightly controlled...) to take our inspiration and raw material from wherever we want, on the other we want to protect what we have gathered as ours and ours alone.
Most artists, myself included, have to strike a balance between making art and getting our hands dirty by making money from it. It's when we become too concerned about the latter that, naturally, we start to get picky about who owns what and the art itself can begin to suffer.
Anyway, this has all moved a long way away from my original point about emotional ownership... For me, Art's purpose should be (amongst other things!) to uplift, inspire, evoke and enlighten – not simply to make money. Though I do need to pay that gas bill...
David
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist03/06/2008, 16:55
Sorry David if you or anyone else was not amused: I am just kicking the ball around – it’s nothing personal. And I don’t mean to sound doom and gloom: exploring the limits of one’s rights might seem it, but it defines equally what we are free to do. Although I don’t wish to upset you or turn your attention away from other reader’s comments, I am confused by something you write. You say it is legal to paint a reproduction of Charlie Waite’s picture, but it isn’t right (legal?) to photograph an architect’s building (or photocopy a book). What’s the difference quite? They are all transformative techniques producing less faithful copies of original works of art, aren’t they?
I am not saying that there is evil everywhere; in fact I believe quite the opposite.
Best regards,
Charles ‘Bizarre’ Twist (LOL)
Highlight this Comment David03/06/2008, 17:25
Hi Charles,
Not offended at all, and I doubt anyone else was, just making a general point that playing Devil's Advocate too hard can get one into deep water.
I am equally as confused as you about why it should be alright to paint a photograph but not to photograph a building (or a painting as the link in your earlier post pointed out). A photograph of a building is patently not a building. It fails on all sorts of levels to provide the same amenities as the building; though I'll grant that if you had a nice big print you could use it to keep the rain off! Presumably the design is the subject of the protection, rather than the building itself. However, the complex three dimensional design of a building is so far removed from the two dimensional information contained in a single photograph that they really don't bear any comparison. Whereas the "artist" who copied Charlie's image is producing an object of equal utility(?), but apparently this is considered a bigger transformation of reality!
All I can do is fall back on that long standing criticism, "The Law is an ass!"
David
Highlight this Comment David O03/06/2008, 18:39
As a lawyer (but no, I don't know anything about copyright law!), I must take umbrage at your last comment! But to continue such badinage, a rip off quote:
"Lose? I don't lose! I win! I'm a lawyer, that's my job, that's what I do!"
Which, to keep this topical (and the themes tenuosuly linked) but nothing to do with photography, ushers forth from the mouth of the tremendous Keanu in......The Devil's Advocate!
Eikon - from the Greek........simply means "likeness" and I suggest English language has contorted this meaning for quite some time.
Interesting that one of Joe's portfolios on his website is entitled "local icons" but as Joe is an "icon" and I duly pay homage, I ain't gonna ask him what he meant by that.
David O
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin03/06/2008, 21:01
As far as I can research, photographing buildings is not restricted apart from where the photograph is taken on private property (in which case the owner of the property can put whatever conditions they like on the use of the land including restricting the taking of photographs of famous photographers presumably). As for photographing (or painting) other artworks, there is a robust history of this (see appropriation art and legal protection always asks "Is the item produced a copy or a work of art?" which is generally evidenced by intent, history of the artist, etc. This is the fine line that gets blurred when money is introduced into the equation.
I also have to say it's a pleasure to have this website being put to such popular and erudite use. If anyone has problems following these conversations, please post suggestions to David and I'll try to implement them (for instance, it would be good to know which comment a comment is a comment on ...err... you get what I mean) and have David's posts highlighted in some fashion..
Highlight this Comment David03/06/2008, 22:36
Hi Tim,
I must admit that I can find no reference for it but I do recall a story about a photographer being sued for taking photographs of a modern building. Perhaps this is too nebulous to pin down. Or is it an urban myth? Anybody else heard of this?
Thanks for the link on appropriation art. Very interesting. The passages about law suits brought against Andy Warhol and Jeff Koons by various photographers are particularly interesting. The links on fair use and parody, whilst referring to American law, may give us some more insight into how copyright law has developed.
I'm really glad that you're enjoying the blog, it would be nothing without the input of its readership!
To start the ball rolling, I do have a suggestion for improving linking on the site, well actually you've already brought up the idea! It would be great if one could link to individual comments rather than all the comments on a blog. Sorry that's more work!
David
Highlight this Comment Alex Nail03/06/2008, 22:55
Hi David,
As usual this was a really great read and quite refreshing to hear. The more I think about it the more I am inclined to agree with you although I should still be wary of replicating another photographers composition which would probably result in me having less individuality in my work. Without wanting to stroke your ego...I think your work has a rather unique style, that very few photographers (certainly that I am aware of) seem to achieve, so in a way you are coming at this from the perspective that your work is unique and therefore perhaps less susceptible to the influence of images you have seen of the location you are shooting.
I think this is a genuine concern of many photographers. I am heading to Skye with 2 or 3 other photographers (on what is sure to be a grueling road trip from Devon!) and one thing I personally wish to avoid is all of us coming back with carbon copies of each others images as we might each spot something that the others think is a worthy subject. For this reason we may well split up at times in order to avoid this kind of influence. Whilst taking a shot that has been taken many times before is not in itself a crime, in my case at least, it would probably lead to stifling of my creativity.
I really enjoy your blogs and I do hope you will keep them coming!
All the best
Alex
Highlight this Comment Julian04/06/2008, 06:05
David,
It's certainly the case in France that architects can extend copyright to images of their buildings. Whether this is enforceable worldwide is debatable.
Interestingly, I submitted an image of a French TGV, taken at Zurich Hauptbahnhof, to a stock site once and was told to remove it some time later because of copyright concerns. Apparently, you are not allowed to sell images of that particular train as it (the train!) is subject to copyright - even though my image was not shot in France.
Highlight this Comment Alan04/06/2008, 09:00
WRT Julian's comment about French TGVs being copyrighted, apparently the Eiffel tower is copyrighted when the lights are on, but not when they are off. This is mentioned in the Wikipedia article.
Highlight this Comment David O04/06/2008, 10:07
David
Needless to say - and I am claiming fair comment - most lawsuits on copyright law and photographing buildings seem to originate in the US. The general rule there would seem to be that anything visible in a public place (unless it was protected heavily-armed marines!) can be photographed legally and I believe there is legislation to the effect that the mere appearance of a building is exempted from copyright protection. But if the building is architecturally novel, owners may seek to protect the imagery of their building but this would seem only likely if one seeks to exploit the image as a commercial enterprise. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is an example. It's an old-ish example but may help to make the point.
A more recent example in the US is the case of a block of condominiums - Marina Towers in Chicago
To finish off with a return to levity, a lawsuit against Google by a so-called "boring couple" who objected to Google using an image of their house on their "Street View" web search tool.
As I live close to Blenheim Palace, I feel duty bound to defend Capability Brown (!) but my final point relates to Westonbirt which although, in part, a man-made natural paradise (in Autumn) is protected from commercial use without license/permission and that generally they are reviewing their policy on photography.
The motto is that if there is something to protect, people, either for the sake of principle or commercial gain, will seek to protect it and (s)he who has deepest pockets will probably win the day. Who said life was fair?
Rgds
David O
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist04/06/2008, 11:36
Hello Tim,
Good thinking! I think that if you try and attach comments to comments you will end up quickly end up with a sprawling octopus, which will make cross-referencing between the sub-threads quite difficult. The debate will lose focus and drive. May I suggest that you write some code so that each comment is entered into the blog with a number which acts as an HTML anchor, so that when we want to reference it, we the writers can simply use your bracket syntax to link to the URL. If the idea is a good’un, I will claim copyright, royalties, licenses, etc… ;-))
Hello David,
I thought this thread was coming to an end, but it isn’t, so I will let my pride speak, for I think that you misread me. We are agreed that the location is not copyrightable: Nature is whatever It is. What I am arguing is that the view is copyrightable (or could be) if the architects can have their way. I did write that the view is dependent on the location and the focal length of the lens (both within a range). I am arguing that there is little difference between creating beauty by moving building elements in space and creating beauty by moving visual elements on the ground glass (the view and the image on the GG are identical even if you see the former as out-going and the latter as in-coming). Because the untouched landscape is static(ish), photographers have to move the camera and select the focal length to achieve their ends. Why couldn’t we consider this to be the inventive part? Well it is. After that, it is merely a matter of recording it and that’s technique. Whatever is involved in the technique, however much creativity, it will feature also in the recording of the image of the building (which they extend to all focal lengths and all weather and lighting conditions). And this is the contentious bit. The problem with photography is that it is a creative tool as much as a recording tool. (Obviously, if the architects do not have this right or if the right is not recognised by law, then the view is not copyrightable by this argument.)
Secondly, you say that landscape is not man-designed. The landscape pictured in the photograph you have chosen for this post, is about as artificial as it comes: man-made boat, rocks positioned by an artist. I am not talking just about the grand view. I am talking about landscape in the broad sense which you promote.
Finally, with regard to copyright, my main quibble is with architects and designers. I would like to say that I support owners’ right to protect the way in which the image of their possessions is used. I would not want to see my van or my house (for instance) used to promote something I do not support, or to say something defamatory about me. I would be less (or not) hurt to know that my possession was used to create art, even if my possession was an art-work in the first place. I believe that is the spirit of the law in France: if you can photograph a building from a public space, you are allowed to use the image commercially provided you are not being negative. There are however special cases such as public gardens, which are not public but belong to the council (don’t ask!) or a ministry or whatever. In those cases, permission should be sought.
I suspect that if the boat were recognisable, it wouldn’t matter that it was in a public space: you and TATPTST should still seek permission to photograph it. Assuming that is the modern way, up to you whether you want to abide by it.
Best regards,
Charles
Highlight this Comment Alan Rew04/06/2008, 11:46
As David has already strayed off-topic in this thread :-), some requested improvements to this already excellent site (well done Tim, for a really professional looking job):
As there are so many comments on each blog entry (30+ for this one, for example), it's taking a lot of mouse clicks on the scroll bar to wade through all previous posts to get to the last few entries. Could we have a 'quick link' of some sort that takes us to the end? Alternatively, I suppose, we could have entries in reverse chronological order, although this might confuse some readers. There might be other technical solutions to this, like expandable/contractable entries i.e. tree nodes.
Add a new 'links' page to the site so that David can list other blogs, forums/fora and web sites he likes or feels we should know about.
I suppose David should have his own distinctive heading so we are sure which particular 'David' an entry originates from.
Highlight this Comment KK04/06/2008, 12:45
I think there are aspects to restrictions on images of certain buildings that are understandable. A couple of years ago I set up to photograph some very striking red cliffs near a small harbour and included a cottage next to the sea. After a while the owner came across and explained very politely that he owned the cottage and harbour, running it as a trust of some kind. He pointed out that photography was restricted and this is stated on a sign near the top of the path. For some reason I had not seen the sign (too busy looking at the sea probably). Naturally I apologized for my oversight and offered to leave. After chatting some more and explaining that I do not make my living from photography he was happy to give me permission to photograph there provided I did not identify the location (he suggested using a rather wider geographical designation of the area).
I'm not usually in favour of restrictions but in this case the owner is preserving a beautiful harbour and cottage that might otherwise go to ruin. His cottage was used in an advertising campaign and a fee was duly paid. In fact I have decided not to photograph any of the copyrighted area but I do often photograph around there. For these photographs I always use the geographical designation agreed with the owner. This seems an appropriate way to thank him for his friendly way of handling the issue, indeed I will not reveal the exact location to any one else.
I draw a sharp distinction between examples such as the above and any suggestion that natural features or views of such could be considered for copyright. I see no conceivable justification for this and there is advocate devilish enough to convince me otherwise. Yes the situation is not black and white (no pun intended), e.g., much of the Lake District is the result of human activity but the vast majority of cases are clear enough.
So much for legalities. I would like also to comment on what seems like a tacit assumption that the purpose of art is for the artist to develop and display his/her ego. OK it is not phrased like this, instead it is phrased in terms of "personal vision" but to me the distinction is often very slight. Imagine an exhibition of work without any artists' names revealed. Does that make the works exhibited any less interesting? You can guess my position. Indeed back in the 70's the composer Robert Simpson used to run a programme on Radio 3 called "The Innocent Ear," you got to find out the composer after the music was played. What a superb idea (one that was initially opposed by the apparatchiks).
I can understand the concern over making photographs from well known positions but it seems misplaced. If a photographer only makes such photographs and nothing else then clearly he/she has no imagination and we can move on. I know of no such people, maybe I should get out more; surely we aim to produce a body of work and it is within that context that well known views can be seen and understood. It seems to me that the only justifiable concern is against lazy copying. However I disagree very strongly with any suggestion that locations can be "exhausted;" that they can somehow be trade marked by the past and denied to us and those in the future. Landscape photography, at least for me, is exploration of the landscape with a camera. I will not let the past rob me of my experience and the expression of what I feel and have to say about a location. (I am aware that this might seem to contradict the preceding paragraph, in fact it doesn't but I don't want to take up excessive space here.)
Returning to what started this thread, David's photograph of the boat, the situation seems very clear. The efforts of another person were unknowingly used. Well if the small group of rocks had not been there, presumably there would have been plenty around to substitute. The only question is whether David would have chosen to put rocks there at all; we cannot know the answer to this and it really doesn't seem that important. Of course having been informed of what happened it is only right and proper for him to acknowledge it. This situation is fairly common in scientific research where previously proved results are often rediscovered or relevant work is not known to the author. Once the author is made aware of this (usually by an anonymous referee) an acknowledgement is put in the paper (assuming it is deemed worthy of publication). Of course we all prefer to be first but in the scheme of things it is irrelevant.
KK.
Highlight this Comment David04/06/2008, 22:14
Hi Charles,
I have indeed been very confused by your argument and am willing to admit that I may have misread your comments.
I interpreted your previous comments to mean that you were an advocate for the copyright protection of individual views. But a careful reading (and I do mean careful!) seems to show that you are actually a proponent of the opposite view.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I now read you as saying that you're worried that the alleged desire of some architects to protect any view of their building might spread like a cancer across the wider landscape. Is this your position?
Your argument runs; the view © = the image on the ground glass = the resulting photograph. I was (mistakenly?) arguing that this photographic image is already protected under copyright law so we don't need to worry about copyrighting views (as opposed to opinions! ;-) as it would be redundant. You are arguing (if I've got it right now) that if the view ("A building" ©) can be protected from being photographed by an existing copyright holder (the building's owner or architect) then this will potentially banjax outdoor photography as whole – I was going to use another word beginning with b but thought better of it...
I really don't think you need to worry about this.
Links in various previous comments have highlighted the point that it is actually the exception rather than the rule that a building's visage is protected by copyright and that there have to be quite specific parameters in place before such a position can be adopted by the building's owner or architect. Successful cases seem to have relied upon the building having value as a logo or trademark which might be devalued by the inappropriate use of a photograph. This argument can only be upheld for a very small percentage of structures. Indeed, as far as I can gather, the law in several countries specifically forbids this use of copyright or excuses a photographer/artist from being beholden to this interpretation. Yes, there have been occasional cases brought by architects, or more commonly the owners of a property, but these are in a tiny minority. I suspect that in most cases the owner is practicing intimidation by asking you to desist – in the same way that Robert Maxwell (allegedly!) did – but actually they would have little chance of enforcing matters if it came to a court of law. Of course you would have to be pretty confident to carry on in the face of an unfriendly security goon...
Similarly, the owner of "Das Boot" (it certainly wouldn't float as a unified structure anymore!) cannot sue me for photographing it unless he can prove that it has some financial value to him as a trademark or design.
And in any case, how the hell is anyone supposed to find the owner of every object that one might include in a location photograph?! Answers to somewhere else please... ;-)
I'm just off to untie myself from all the knots I just got into...
David
Highlight this Comment Paul M04/06/2008, 22:46
This morning I went out to photograph a mountain. I hiked about 20 minutes from the car in the pre-dawn light and set up my camera...ready....and waiting.
Then, whilst idling away the minutes before the great crescendo of dawn cast its glow on the mountain peak, I started musing on some of the ideas and comments in this thread. What if someone else has stood where I'm standing, camera in hand, with my image (which I haven't even made yet) in mind? What if they'd succeeded in making an image like the one I wanted to make...better than the one I wanted to make? After all, this was a very well known and characterful mountain, easily accessible, and blessed with a beautiful mirror-calm lake at its base, shallows adorned with scattered erratics. I hadn't seen such an image in print or on the web, but then I hadn't looked very hard.
Surely someone must have been here before me - another photographer. Worse, another landscape photographer, another FAMOUS landscape photographer, damn them!!
Wait...is this a tripod hole I see before me? And another one...and another one - oh no, three tripod holes, right where my tripod is! Surely I was foolish to think that I could be the only photographer to see this opportunity, to think that I alone could create art from this coincidence of compositional circumstances. Maybe I should change my position. Maybe I should come back when its overcast - that would be different - but I'd still be photographing the same mountain that all those famous landscape photographers have surely already photographed. Maybe I should find another mountain, one that no-one has photographed - but then again hasn't everything about mountain photography that can be said, already been said? And lake photography...and river photography, and wilderness photography? And landscape photography?
I know, I'll get in closer. Open the recesses of my visual mind to the possibilities in the detail: the rocks, the grasses, the reflections, the strata, the flora. But thinking about it, that bloke David Ward has already been there and done that......aaahahhh. What am I going to do? The whole world of landscape photography is already owned by someone else who got there before me!
I know. I'll take up cooking. Anyone want to buy an Arca cheap?
Paul
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin05/06/2008, 11:08
Hi All,
I made a few tweaks to the blog system last night to add 'comment threading'. What this means is that you can now optionally click on the 'reply to this comment' and each comment will have a 'inspired by' and 'inspires' links which you can click on to navigate the conversations. The 'highlight this comment' also highlihts the current comment in green, any follow up comments in blue and previous comments in red. Any more ideas, let me know (and if anything inevitably goes wrong with my tweaks). This does work better on a white background so try clicking the checkered square at the top of the screen...
Tim
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist05/06/2008, 11:36
Hello David,
Sorry to read that I utterly baffled you. Yes, you are right with your current interpretation. Like you say, I hope that this habit of protecting one’s inventive steps doesn’t get out of hand. If spatial positioning of building blocks for an architect (or fonts for a designer) can be protected on the basis of copyright, whatever next - a projection on the ground glass? Even indiscriminate restrictions on usage would stifle creativity. I have read the proceedings of the famous court case Brancusi vs US and some of the logic I have applied here, would not have been out of place in there. (Brancusi wanted to exhibit a work of art in the US. Normally this is not subject to import duty but because the customs officer saw it as a lump of brass not a beautiful bird, it got taxed. Brancusi wasn’t happy and sued the US government.) I seriously worry that it might be possible on the basis of logic to protect a view, as I defined it, within the bounds of today’s intellectual property laws. I am sure common sense will prevail - so I'll stop worrying.
Do L&L offer writing-for-blogs courses?
Best regards, Charles
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin05/06/2008, 13:54
And as if by magic, the Guardian has a great article which includes commentary on the legalities of photographing buildings!
Highlight this Comment Robert M. Teague06/06/2008, 06:11
Our ownership of a photograph isn't about the place we are photographing, it is about 'time" we are photographing it, as fleeting a concept as that may be.
Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson06/06/2008, 13:58
Ref my item 3/6/08 about Copyright Alert.
Is anyone paying attention as this was a wake up call to you all.
If you value protecting your copyright on your images, pray that the bills quoted in the above article are not passed. For if they are you will have no rights at all for trying to protect your images from being ripped off and used unscrupulously by other people.
This applies to all you professional photographers trying to make an honest living by selling your images.
I repeat this is a very serious matter for us all as it is not just about making images from the same spot as other photographers. IT IS ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE STEALING YOUR IMAGES AND YOUR LIVELIHOOD, AND I AM SURE NONE OF YOU WANT THAT.
PS David if you want a copy of the article, I have a spare copy I could send to you.
Regards
Sandy Wilson
Highlight this Comment David06/06/2008, 17:54
Hi Sandy,
Thanks for reiterating the point about the proposed changes in the copyright laws in the US. I was aware of it from another source. It is a worry but it seems to me that there's a very simple way to make it less of a problem. One only has to ask oneself, how are these potential copyright thieves going to get hold of your image in the first place? The only way for them to do this and have any chance of claiming that it's an orphan work is for them to lift it off the web. So all you have to do is watermark your files and keep file sizes small enough for them to be of little or no commercial use. Job done.
David
Highlight this Comment Julian06/06/2008, 21:33
David,
As I understand it, things aren't quite so straightforward. In its original form, the bill effectively required a copyright owner to register that copyright with one of several companies specifically set up for this purpose. Any work not so registered was to be considered as an 'orphan work' with only cursory checks being required to support this assertion. Clauses have, apparently, been changed in subsequent presentations of the bill in order to even the balance between copyright owner and the user of the image. Obviously, the precise wording is subject to alteration right up until the final version is voted into law, so there may ultimately be no real cause for concern. We can but hope.
One major advantage of film, for those of us who still use it, is that we have a permanent physical record of ownership that is difficult to fake. This could turn out to be very important.
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin06/06/2008, 21:37
Of course to be completely guaranteed of not being at risk, don't sell your photographs (people can scan them at high res or just take a picture of the picture) and don't exhibit them at galleries (people can take a picture of them whilst they are on the wall).
It would be better if you never actually printed them at all, or if you do make a really bad job of it - that would foil their evil plans. In fact, just take really, really bad photographs and then your risk is totally minimised. This seems to be the de-facto route I'm taking so far.. ;-)
Tim
Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson08/06/2008, 11:50
Hi Julian,
As these sites that we will have to register our images, will be run by private companies (which has been stated by the US copyright office,) somebody is going to be making a killing at our expense. I for one will be keeping a very close eye on this matter.
Regards
Sandy
Highlight this Comment SandyWilson10/06/2008, 08:49
Being a right saddo who has always got his nose in a photography book. I particularly like reading books on the history of photography and have noticed that most things have been done before. However the important point I have to make here is although they have been done before, they have not been done by us. It is our personal interpretation of the of well know subjects that sets us apart from each other.
I for one have my own interpretation of The Sea of Steps originally photographed by F H Evans, circa 1904, my hero. I did not set out to copy Evans' image, instead I wanted to pit my photographic skills against his using a 35mm camera where he used an 8x10 camera. Was I successful I would like to think so, as my image has been admired by other photographers.
My image is not the same as Evans' image but the exercise was worth doing and gave me more insight into the mind and techniques of this great master photographer. It is not just looking and learning, it is doing and leaning that counts.
I was recently looking in photographer friends web site and happened to notice an abstract image of what was the side portion of a rusty yellow skip photographed in Penzance.
When I enquired about the image, it turned out to be the same yellow skip, that I had a slightly different image of another portion of the same side, photographed a year earlier. Coincidence, no we both like photographing the same types of subjects that is what brought us together as fellow photographers. Finally he has never seen my image of the skip, but I will be showing it to him when I see him next week.
Whether we photograph the same things as other people, we must remember it is our image of the subject and our way of seeing the subject that makes us individual photographers.
Regards
Sandy
Highlight this Comment Alice Strange13/06/2008, 01:04
I'm boggled (bloggled?).
Lost for words, and too impatient to wait for the hundred monkeys at typewriters to come up with anything sensible, I'll steal a few from Tom Peters ...
“Life is pretty simple. You do some stuff. Most fails. Some works. You do more of what works. If it works big, others quickly copy it. Then you do something else. The trick is the doing something else.”
Highlight this Comment Jonathan Horrocks13/06/2008, 15:00
Hi All,
On the subject of iconic images, I saw this on the BBC and was (some would probably say childishly) amused. Worth sharing on a Friday afternoon I think. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/in_pictures_inspired_by_classic_photographs/html/1.stm
I am now off to build an Old Man Of Storr from lego. Have a great weekend all
Send us your comments
Comment Preview
Comment Formatting
The following are a some examples of how you can add links, bold text and lists to your comment entry. The section below this shows how they will look on screen. You should be able to see a preview of your post as you type.
Enter This
Get This
One or more consecutive lines of text separated by one or more blank lines.
This is another paragraph.
This is bold and italic
Links need angle brackets like so http://example.com/...
...or if you want to link some text you can!