Jo O'Brien

are the readers of cosmo likely to understand it as homage? i don’t think so. they, like me, have probably never heard of tim walker. so in this case, it must fall into the ‘copying’ category, even though it’s a poor copy. :) not that i think it’s close enough to be a copyright violation … and not that i know what people ‘should’ do about those anyway … i long for the communist solutions, where no-one or everyone owns the art, and the artists are simply paid a salary like everyone else so don’t have to be scrooges with their ideas … :)

ditto

well this is shameless really, but I’m sure there are many many examples of art being ripped off and used in this way they bank on the fact that a large a percentage of the punters out there have no idea.just shows how lazy the art director has been here

I believe it’s a direct copy.. and not even a very good one. Here is how my opinion stands on the issue:

I myself have taken inspiration directly from other artists, but I NEVER blatantly copy any elements of it. I use it as a general “guideline” for what I am going for, but I recreate it. So really the end result is something totally different from the original inspiration.. only similar in some strange subconscious way. Does that make sense?

It’s like when a traditional artist does a drawing or a painting of a photography only the shapes, colors, details are all completely different.. and they’ve probably added their own unique elements to it. Then it’s not even the same thing anymore. Just inspired by something else, to create something new. I think that’s totally okay.

But the context in which it was done in your example I don’t believe is okay.

“I wonder how much of this image would have to be different before it stopped feeling like a copy? Would the rabbits have to be dogs? Would the chairs have to be filing cabinets?” ... well enough so it’s not obvious, but that is a stupid way to go about making a picture, it still in essence is copying, even if people can’t notice … the artists should start with an idea, and build it, not start with someone else’s picture and shuffle things around until it’s unrecognisable :) but in more detail, yes, chairs are one very obvious element, the rabbits, the location of the light fixture and window and each element in relation to the others … all are basically the same, changing just details like ‘what object has been piled’ i think would still leave an afficiondo like yourself able to see the similarity :)

this makes me all grrr… see it far to often and I’m afraid the old imitation/flattery line just doesn’t cut it… do you clever photie kids ever get nervous putting your works online because of this stuff?

plagerism, no doubt

Grrrrrr…. Rip Off!

This is clearly a rip off. There are far to many elements in each photograph the same for it not to be.

I think “homage” comes with certain qualifications. If the Dotti photog said “I’ve done this as an homage to the great Tim Walker”, and this image was part of a private collection, or exhibition by that photographer, the influence of Walker would be explicit, and important to understanding that work. But, this is a commercial work to advertise a fashion label. The photog is anonymous. It’s also debatable as to whether your could claim 95% the same as an “influence”.

If the work is satirical, I’d expect a twist on the original, to hold the original concept up to scrutiny. But there is no twist. (Mayebe the hat?)

If Walker was commissioned for this, then good for him – his art has reached a place where it can sell product for a company. Royalties galore to support an artist – all for that. But, from the difference in style and detail, this image would seem to be like a Rolecks watch… a cheap knockoff, with all the subtlety lost…

I can kinda see how it would happen (having worked in – gulp – advertising…). Account exec asks designer “can you photoshop one of our models into this great photo?” Designer, hoping desperately to find an original idea instead, says, “nah, better to shoot a new image.” Exec hires photog, says “I want a room full of chairs and rabbits, and a model posed like this”... et voila, plagiarism is born.

Thank you for introducing me to Mr Walker…...................I think I would need a glass of red, a chair (rabbits optional) and a couple of hours to have this discussion with you properly :)

Definitely a copy. If it were in reference to, there would be something other than chairs; her positioning would be completely different; the room would look less like a cheap imitation; the drapes would be blue so as not to be a true mockery of the colour theme in the first image. I’m sure I could go on. Those are merely the things which caught my eye the first go-round.

Ideas are rehashed, sure, but Great ideas are made lesser by would-be starving egotists. To call them artists would demean all of us who Are creative. For me, the line rests in the number of ways an idea mimics the First. 3 or more direct copies or mock-ups of the original image or idea … straight theft.

Look at the music industry! If you complete an entire bar of a song, which can mean 4 notes or more (only 4 notes!!) in direct imitation of a song that came before it, it is considered copyright theft and can be upheld in court. Why not the same for imagery?

Art, like life, is biased. But the more rules we create, the more chaos becomes evident. In a perfect world people would all be mature and love to laugh and just Be.

if you find that space, please send me a note and include directions. ;)

clearly a rip off indeed, interesting stuff aey – is anyone going to come up with something original or what eh? I ask you eh? heh?

I’m so glad you raised this Jo. I posted a similar journal last year Should I contact my Peope. Now, I know I’m not Tim Walker but jeeez!!

I am studying photography and later have to do a series inspired by another photographer. This is where this course worries me. I never want to lose my personal creativity.

Oh I absolutely get you there. Spent most of my teen years trying to write like my favourite writers. It makes me squint in embarrassment now, but it was just the apprentice, like you say copying the masters stroke by stroke until you have your own style. But making a meal out of it still makes me grr.

This blog post by a stock photography maven on the subject makes an interesting read.

I saw the copying immediately, and there is no doubt whatsoever that it’s a direct and very close copy. I’d never heard of Tim Walker before, and went and checked your link. For something like a magazine to make such a blatant copy is both laziness and copyright infringement. There are people who are employed to come up with original and unique ideas.

Having said that, though, I sometimes see something which I like and want to put my own spin on – sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don’t, but, when I have succeeded, I have attributed the source of my inspiration in the final image. The final image isn’t much like the inspiration, but, the idea is obvious!

I hope that if Tim walker knows about or discovers this infringement, he will take legal steps to stop it happening or seek some form of compensation.

Just to add to that – while the images are very similar I think the concepts are quite different, and that would appear to be the most significant thing legally

a rip off… a cheap rip off actually - they didn’t invest in even half as many rabbits
OK that’s it… I’m cancelling my subscritption to Cosmopolitain, which I only ever bought for the pictures, blow the articles.

I’m aware that for many people studying photography, or art, one of the first projects they are given to work on is to replicate the work of another artist. It makes me wonder whether we are creating a ‘culture of copying’

I suppose it depends on the intent of the project. If it’s to ‘get inside the headspace’ of the original artist, to understand how and why they produced what they did … so that one can learn from those techniques/styles to develop one’s own …. then fine.

But if it’s just to learn to perfect a ‘tried and true’ formula, in order to capitalise on that formula … lame.

Love his stuff Jo (thanks for the intro!), and hell yeah this is a rip off!!! I know the line gets blurry sometimes, but that to me, is well over it.

I think a very significant element in Tim Walker’s image is that the model is dressed as a Playboy Bunny, and that is not duplicated in the advertisement.

even if it is a homage it is so poorly done its more an insult. shameful really.

Puppies or kittens and a pile of something else would have been homage or at least inspiration. That’s just downright copying!

But this can’t even be a homage, it’s a commercial ad. That’s where art ends and copyright really gets into gear.

Some appropriation can count if you accentuate and increase the idea. If, for example, they’d made all the bunnies cardboard cut-outs, it could be seen to be based on the original but joking about the idea.

Interesting discussion. To enter an opposing position to this discussion: which photograph was taken first who which then begs the questions of who is actually copying who? The photo used in the Dotti ad may or may not have been taken recently. In fact it could have been taken prior to the date Tim Walker’s photo was taken and just for this current ad campaign did the art director of Dotti au choose to use the image they have had on hand for possibly a number of years. And to add more to this, Tim Walker himself may have freelanced for Dotti (or their parent company, Just Jeans) when he made that photo and then later tried to improve on his own work. You never know.

Yes Jo, this is a total rip off, I can accept that we can all produce work similar to others, two people can have the same idea, but this is REALLY specific, where the whole concept has been copied! Forget the minor changes, as they are irrelevant and probably deliberately different , which just makes it even worse. The copy has been done for money, which takes out any concept that this is any sort of homage to the original artist. It just makes it a really ugly rip off. I have had people copy my ideas ( believe it or not :) ) but at my level, it is mostly flattering with a flash of annoying. Thanks for highlighting this, I hope it gets back to the rip off artist, as public condemnation is the best result

Yep rip off but nothing surprising in that conclusion.

But on two occasions here on the bubble I’ve encounted duplicate ideas (one I indepedently developed some time after another artist who’s work I didn’t see – the other where the artist developed the work after me and who also didn’t see mine).

They were simple concepts so there was a chance of duplication but the more complex the concept the more this fades as a reason.

puppies don’t hop

I think that in most venues, yes, it would cheapen the original highly. Unfortunately, with photos and with the availability of cameras and equipment for the run-of-the-mill person today, it is a tougher call.

On one hand, it absolutely cheapens the original. It “steals their thunder” so to speak. On the other, how does one police in such a widespread area of creativity and expression?

For example: you take an Excellent shot of (insert random awesomeness here). John Brown comes along and sees the same icon or landmark with a slightly different pair of eyes but with similar life experiences. Now John decides to shoot the icon. Due to the similarity of your experiences in life, his shot comes out looking vastly reminiscent of yours, to the point of being a direct overlay.

Is he wrong simply because he sees the world the same way you do? Or is he wrong for posting his image and trying to sell it without looking to see if he is stepping on any toes first?

What if no one is wrong and everyone is right and rules are bunk and we should all just get drunk and dance and laugh as if life ends tomorrow?

Retrospection is hard work in the face of perspectives. Great thought-food. I’ll dream well tonight.

......and they skimped on the rabbits!

Maybe if we all bombed dotti with protests they wouldn’t think their audience are the bunch of ignoramuses they think they are. How would they like it if someone started to pirate their designs. I think they would rightly be peeved. Maybe the photographer passed this off on them and if it was brought to their attention the photographer would be suitably ‘rewarded’ with no further commissions

Surely Vogue would have the right to be a bit peeved?

Indeed.

Whoa, that’s so blatant!

I absolutely think that a staged concept shoot is a different ideal than a “natural setting” shot.

I used to model, and as such, were I to imitate a photo shoot that You had done, with similar hairstyle, dress, lighting, props, and posings … I would not only be a concept thief but a lousy hack. Those things are all changeable; unfettered, as compared to buildings, statues, and et cetera.

With something such as London Bridge, however, it is steadfast; it never moves, haha! (at least Londoners hope not!) Am I a copycat for taking the same shot, even after you were found spending oodles and gobs of time and energy on its creation?

Yikes, but not really.

I’m off to bed, as it’s quarter to 1 in the wee morning bits here, but I’ll come back to this. I’m fascinated! Thank you for such fun stuff to wrap my brain around!

hmmm, by simply swapping two letters in their brand name, you get ditto, instead of dotti.

It’s a blatant rip-off and not only did they skimp on the rabbits, but I reckon the chairs aren’t so well upholstered too.

Looking at it from another angle, is this really good advertising for a store selling fashion clothing? Might it not suggest something about the calibre and originality of their clothing designs? Especially if they’ve slavishly copied this ad from a well-known source like Vogue?

... almost seems like a deliberate play on words – maybe they actually want to be known as a ‘me too’ label!

Some art director or photographer or stiff (or maybe all 3) decided Dotti customers and readers of Cosmo are not intelligent enough to appreciate real art: so they’d never notice a fake reproduction of what was an original idea.
If I were their target audience I’d stop reading/buying.

i can definately see where your coming from Jo …
a definite rip off in my eyes …
more noticable to some more than others!

Now, this is homage…

This is by far one of the most interesting forum topics that I have read.
I will try and explain what my thoughts on the situation are. If you use the lighting or a particular pose that you have seen in another photo, or if you use a particular location that is ripped straight out of another’s photo, I do not see a problem with this. I don’t see this as a reproduction; I see it as a photo inspired by another’s work. However if you are to copy 2 out of 3 elements from another’s photo, then it does becoming plagiarism.
If on the other hand, you copy a set (stage) idea from other persons photo, (such in the case mentioned above) whether you are copying the pose and lighting or not, this is plagiarism. I see the set design as an art form in itself and as a separate entity from the photograph.
If someone wants to copy an image verbatim, either for a school assignment, or as a project to improve ones skills, this is OK with 2 conditions. One, the details of the original photograph i.e. photographer, model, set designer, etc must be acknowledged, and secondly, the photo in questioned cannot be sold or displayed for commercial purposes, or be used to represent the photographers body of work.

A referenced work might mimick the underlying idea, but details like drape colours, animal types, window position, leg and arm positions might be different.
My thought is that there are way too many identical details in this one for it to be an innocent mistake.

Hi again Jo. Some of the freelance work I’ve done required me to deliver all images shot (files or negatives), copyrights, and ownership to the people who hired me. At other times I’ve only had to release those images the publication wanted. I kept the rest including all rights to them.

Speaking of Dotti. Have you thought of contacting their Art Director and bringing this up with her/him … if they are in Austrlia? I’m sure that when contacting them if you just mentioned, in passing, to the secretary or assistant that you needed to speak to the AD about something relating to copyright infringement in one of their ads they’d talk to you. Who knows, you might even get a photo job out of it. (grin)

This sounds like a job for You Thought We Wouldn’t Notice

sorry joe dont agree, henry ford had an idea once, he called it a car, guess what,it got copied,thats how we evolve and grow and learn,there thousands more examples,I spend my time studying art to do just that,recreate it my way.

Tim should be proud not angered.

love your stuff joe.

Nick.

Henry Ford didn’t invent the car, he made the production process a lot faster and cheaper.

I’ll bet if you copied the design of a particular Ford closely enough, you’d get your buns sued right off.

Karl Benz is closer to being the inventor of the car. But even then, there were other people doing similar things at the same time, he merely patented it first.

Here endeth the history lesson.

Yeah…. ‘homage’ is a bit of a freaking weak euphemism for “see what that guy over there did?... I’m doing it too”. I think if you’re an up-and-coming artist then doing this deliberately might work for you to showcase your abilities at controlling set design and exposure. But that a magazine like Cosmopolitan would actually allow itself to be seen to be copy-pasting a work done by Vogue like this can not possibly benefit them

Unless Dotti decide to come and comment here I’m not sure we will ever know.

Have you invited them to do so? At the very least it could be worth a little bit of “investigative journalism”, just to find out some of the facts. Like, who did the Dotti shoot, things like that?

But don’t you think that our reactions to a (perceived) “ripping off” are an important part of the point you’re raising? If we care about the work of some random artist and we see what we believe is a copy of their work the immediate reaction is to be outraged (or some variation on that reaction). Sometimes we might even hold up someone’s (apparent) copy for scrutiny, a kind of “name and shame” approach, without finding the facts. I find that interesting too.

The photographer will have been directed by the agency art director

this has been going on as long as art has…..
artists have always used other peoples stuff…
have a look…

my question whose rabbits are they.?.and yes you are right…i would think someone would feel weird doing thesame thing without their own spin on it…....but i do not know all the circumstances…..i always believe in dare to be different….at least somewhat…francesm

I love the way you didn’t write an homage

And unless they have hired Tim Walker to shoot the Dotti commercial and he decided to rehash his own idea (Sorry Tim, but I wouldn’t love you as much anymore)

Looking at the photos in the link you gave, it looks like he has rehashed before now. Compare this image with (what appears to be) this later one.

How does one say this?

You can’t copyright an idea. Having spent enough time in the commercial stock world…there is nothing new. Every good photographer has their “ideas” copied.

It’s not pretty and it’s a shame, but it’s not new either.

“You can’t copyright an idea…” Good Point….

Jo O’Brien wrote: “Mind you I am very curious whether this was known when they shot it or if it was an oversight.

You’ll never know the answer to this one unless you ask them.

Hey Joe,

Yes i feel they do,its just an idea,when a design is forwarded and NOT copyrighted or patented,if its good its copied very quickly,we see it everywhere,food,clothes,cars,holidays,games,just about everything i can think of,whos to say that the idea isnt in everyones head already??

thanks Joe.

Copyright, Is copyright from the moment you take another persons idea, even if you twist it slightly. Do we now have to patent everything before it can be viewed by another. I think that if your imagination is sparked by anothers work then give them their intitled acknowledgment that shows you respect their work but wish to share your view of it through your own piece even if it resembles theirs closely you are not taking their glory you are informing the public that theirs is the original idea and yours is an interpretation of it. . I think your example is a copyright issue to be sure. Unless Tim’s permission was given or he was commissioned to change it and reprint it , he as the artist should have the right to do this , even if we think the original was the best.

Hi Jo,

If you do want to enquire further, the parent company for dotti is the Just Group – http://www.justgroup.com.au/ and I believe their media agency is Carat – http://www.carat.com.au/

Would be interested to hear the story behind these images :)

Hmmm… appropriation. In the ‘art world’ which you are all now a part of or have been there is thing that I learn’t about called appropriation. In art it is very common, to take a masters work and then do your own take on it, or to ‘appropriate’ what they were saying and put a twist on it. All we have though is our own creativity. There’s a whole lot of philosophical discourse art speak to back it up, but its not worth the web space…And we can’t neccessarily blame the photographer of the dotti ad when there was probably an art director/ stylist etc. who were pushing the idea as well – even though the out come was a very very poor interpretation of it, and they didn’t even use natural light. but do these things really matter?
No.
And for one reason. When I was starting out in wedding photography I started working with another lady who’s business sense was fantastic, and I had already developed a style of my own and a few ‘signature’ shots, however I realised that she was ‘appropriating’ my signature works! Now this used to really really get to me as she was already making great money and I wasn’t yet! Dang her, then after careful introspection I realised that she HAD to take my style becuase she didn’t and couldn’t make her own( she is still a really nice person though, and very kind too!).
Which is where I realised that the people who are truly creative wont care about what is stolen because they know that they will keep working forward and creating new images that surpass the last ones(with the exception of a few bung ones :p ) And it is there style that others are copying.
Please feel free to ‘appropriate’ my work and then sell it and rub this all in my face. But I really wouldn’t care.
A person can steal another’s idea, a smart person will do it better than the original – at least to them. and that’s all it is perspective. excuse th spelling

rip off, indeed

One of the greats in advertsing once told me that no idea is original.
At first I was offended by this notion but time and time again it proved correct.
Perhaps this is where the other saying Great minds think alike comes from?
I’d be curious to know more about the Dotti shoot. Perhaps the Creative Director was a Tim Walker fan? Knew Tim? Used Tim? Asked permission to create a similar work?
It’s a real who dunnit mystery Jo. :-)

Jo, I’m not saying it’s right or wrong to use some-ones idea just that by acknowledging where your idea came from allows the viewer to decide as to whether they like the original or the copy. All things come from our experiences, how else would we learn. It’s whether we renew it totally as our own that makes copyright an issue. If like in the example you can straight away see it was a reproduction of the original and by changing it just enough, copyright can not be claimed that I think is unfair because you have not had an original thought to make the piece a part of. I personally think the copy just show how talented Tim really is, because it’s no where near as good.

For me I don’t want to intentionally copy an idea but still use it for inspiration.

That would undoubtedly stand up in court as a rip.

geezus I just found this… it’s so blatent I can’t actually believe it…. maybe they are relying on their name…dotti…. to get out of trouble… you know… but we’re so dotti that we just didn’t really know what we were doing…..

I agree with you Jo, but according to an article I read, ideas can’t be copyrighted, so this would be legal as it does not precisely resemble the original. Copyright (which is currently being discussed in my Journal too) is a bummer. It varies from country to country and I can’t get any really precise answers to the questions I ask. Although I use photos for reference, I try to get permission or I use my own. The safest way is to paint from imagination, which I don’t always find too easy. This is a good debate you have sparked off. It’s nice to know people take such matters seriously.

By the way, I forgot to say that in my opinion, I agree this is copying. It should carry some sort of thank you to Tim Walker.

I bow my head in serious shame… my cheeks blushing with extreme embarressment at having to admit that I’ve not known of this genius Tim Walker prior to reading this journal entry!!!

But after the my red cheeks turned back to their pinkish ways…. All I could think to say was Thank You….. Thank You….. Thank You …..for introducing me to this fun fantasia Wonderland where his art is pure genius in my eyes!!

I’m simply compelled now to purchase one of his coffee table books just so I can curl up on my couch and spend hours delving deep into each image…. looking for the surprises and delights within each new world he’s created!!

I can’t tell you how happy it makes me to find such a treasure!! The name Tim Walker will now remain in my mind forever as one of the best in the photography field. (but it’s not just photography…. he’s an artist who creates new worlds!!... it’s f*#king marvellous and so so so exciting!!).

Seeing his work has reminded me of my all time favourite watercolour painter from New York Daniel Merriam (his work is one that needs to be studied too… the deeper you look the more you see) Perhaps I too may be able to return the favour and introduce you to another wonderful artist who creates little glimpses of worlds to get lost in?

Thank you for being the messenger of this work that has just opened up my world in a new and exciting way!!

Wouldn’t you just love to see Tim Walker do a photo shoot with Sarah Jessica Parker?? that would be just sublime (and so Sex in the Cityesque).
Perhaps he already has?

this is definately a copy…wow…

As far as being a cheap copy – the rabbits are a dead give away.