SPRINGHEEL  wrote:
Odds are, you can go and look and they never bothered to recreate anything

+1

ShotbyRon wrote:
Honestly what hasn't been done? No matter what you do..chances are someone else already thought of it. That doesn't mean you should copy exactly what they did. But instead use their idea or location and try to add your own vision to it

Yep.

ShotbyRon wrote:
Honestly what hasn't been done? No matter what you do..chances are someone else already thought of it. That doesn't mean you should copy exactly what they did. But instead use their idea or location and try to add your own vision to it

The "every thing has already been done, there is nothing left that is original" argument turns up here frequently, perhaps as a feeble justification for duplicating the work of more accomplished talents.

I'd suggest that some folks need to get out more.

Have a look at the Polish photographers water angel recently used in a Paul Buff ad, or the Manhattan "day to night" images by Stephen Wilkes, featured in PDN.

There is no sound justification for "replicating" the accomplishments of other, more capable photographers, also known as copyright infringement.

New Century Studio wrote:
The "every thing has already been done, there is nothing left that is original" argument turns up here frequently, perhaps as a feeble justification for duplicating the work of more accomplished talents.

I'd suggest that some folks need to get out more.

Have a look at the Polish photographers water angel recently used in a Paul Buff ad, or the Manhattan "day to night" images featured in PDN.

There is no sound justification for "replicating" the accomplishments of other, more capable photographers, also known as copyright infringement.

Such originality isn't nearly as common as some people think it is.  Often, the people who complain the loudest about being copied have portfolios full of images that have been done since the invention of the camera.

I Ference Photography wrote:
I've noticed, both on my own photos and on those of other MM members, that one common list theme generally goes along the lines of "Shots I want to recreate", or some variation on this concept.

I understand how this might appeal to a model to an extent.  Although it would be derivative, it might still add some value to their portfolio in terms of marketing, or perhaps the model just wants to see herself in a particularly cool scene.

But as a photographer, I must admit I'm stymied.  When I see another photographer's work and am blown away, I might find inspiration in it, but I'd hardly want to replicate it.  Where's the creative energy in imitation?  If I see a gorgeous location in somebody else's photo, I'll appreciate the hell out of it, but I'm not going to seek it out and shoot there - because it's been done.  And even if I walked away with something that the average observer would term "better" than the shot I copied - it's still a shot I copied.  So what's the point?

I'm curious how others feel on this - especially those of you photographers with "Shots I want to recreate" lists.  What am I missing here?

I suspect that you're taking "recreate" a bit too literally, in most cases.  I "recreate" my own images all the time, but just one aspect. 

These are "recreations" from my perspective; certainly seeing one could have inspired me to shoot the other

(18+)
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/19468943

MoRina wrote:
I don't really care as much about lists like that.  Chances are those people spend more time listing things than actually shooting.  I totally prefer them over lists called "fabulous tacos" though.

I'd really like to think that you're kidding about that list, but I'm pretty sure you're not.

indefinite anomaly wrote:
(without reading any of the other posts)

I'm ambivalent.

On the one side, imitation is a form of flattery; you inspired someone enough to try something new. Also, even when I'm shooting with 3 other photographers in a room shooting the exact same subject, we all end up with different images; each person's brain is a lens that distorts information from the world, so that alone will morph the end result. Also, when other models say "I want to pose like you", it will look different when they pose; different height, body type, musculature, intent, etc will again morph an original idea.

On the other side, it does strike me as a little lazy at times, if that is the only source of someone's inspiration. Especially while I was dancing, the way for me to come up with "new" moves was to watch anime, fight sequences, butoh; listen to different music; watch the sun rise/set, go for long walks, sleep deprivation, long training days with a crew to break the body and free the mind. I'm much more laid back now I guess, at least in terms of physical exertion, but I'm always sucking stuff into my brain and getting inspiration from everything around me, not just work already done by others.

Pretty much this. Except that I will add that I doubt anything I've done is completely new and original. Most things that are created nowadays aren't. I will say that my work has been inspired by others, but I have put my own personal touch/spin on it, so that it's not a total recreation. I am personally flattered when I'm put on one of those lists... it's kind of inspiring to have your worked look upon as a reference of something great.

Fifi wrote:

Pretty much this. Except that I will add that I doubt anything I've done is completely new and original. Most things that are created nowadays aren't. I will say that my work has been inspired by others, but I have put my own personal touch/spin on it, so that it's not a total recreation. I am personally flattered when I'm put on one of those lists... it's kind of inspiring to have your worked look upon as a reference of something great.

the access to doing something new is by shoving off from the past. Someone already invented the wheel, but then someone used it to make a wagon, then a car, then a jet engine, and many other advances. The key is to keep at it. Study what others did, but find other uses for the already invented.

Two Pears Studio wrote:

the access to doing something new is by shoving off from the past. Someone already invented the wheel, but then someone used it to make a wagon, then a car, then a jet engine, and many other advances. The key is to keep at it. Study what others did, but find other uses for the already invented.

So, you're saying exactly what I'm saying...

Fifi wrote:

So, you're saying exactly what I'm saying...

if that's what you read... then yes. I think what maybe you didn't read is that new things are being done all the time. You inferred that most things were already done. I'm saying that is not true. Maybe most of what you see has been done. I don't know... that is yours to say.

I Ference Photography wrote:
I've noticed, both on my own photos and on those of other MM members, that one common list theme generally goes along the lines of "Shots I want to recreate", or some variation on this concept.

I understand how this might appeal to a model to an extent. Although it would be derivative, it might still add some value to their portfolio in terms of marketing, or perhaps the model just wants to see herself in a particularly cool scene.............
........................What am I missing here?

Unless the person is altering your photograph, it would NOT be a derivative work at all.  Your copyright does not cover the 'idea' for the photograph. 

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

indefinite anomaly wrote:
I'm always sucking stuff into my brain and getting inspiration from everything around me, not just work already done by others.

+1   

Light and Lens Studio wrote:

Unless the person is altering your photograph, it would NOT be a derivative work at all.  Your copyright does not cover the 'idea' for the photograph. 

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

Derivative has a meaning outside of copyright law.
It's actually a term people use when discussing other stuff, like art.

I Ference Photography wrote:
I've noticed, both on my own photos and on those of other MM members, that one common list theme generally goes along the lines of "Shots I want to recreate", or some variation on this concept.

I understand how this might appeal to a llama to an extent.  Although it would be derivative, it might still add some value to their portfolio in terms of marketing, or perhaps the llama just wants to see herself in a particularly cool scene.

But as a photographer, I must admit I'm stymied.  When I see another photographer's work and am blown away, I might find inspiration in it, but I'd hardly want to replicate it.  Where's the creative energy in imitation?  If I see a gorgeous location in somebody else's photo, I'll appreciate the hell out of it, but I'm not going to seek it out and shoot there - because it's been done.  And even if I walked away with something that the average observer would term "better" than the shot I copied - it's still a shot I copied.  So what's the point?

I'm curious how others feel on this - especially those of you photographers with "Shots I want to recreate" lists.  What am I missing here?

I don't mind if someone copies my shots.  But I refuse to do so.  I've had a few shoots where rather than copying sort of the theme of an image, the photog literally prints it out and is like okay pose just like this.

Nuh uh.  Copying something mechanically w my body like that has NO feeling or motivation or purpose to me.  I don't pose. I llama.  And I can't llama something I don't feel.

I Ference Photography wrote:
I've noticed, both on my own photos and on those of other MM members, that one common list theme generally goes along the lines of "Shots I want to recreate", or some variation on this concept.

I understand how this might appeal to a model to an extent.  Although it would be derivative, it might still add some value to their portfolio in terms of marketing, or perhaps the model just wants to see herself in a particularly cool scene.

But as a photographer, I must admit I'm stymied.  When I see another photographer's work and am blown away, I might find inspiration in it, but I'd hardly want to replicate it.  Where's the creative energy in imitation?  If I see a gorgeous location in somebody else's photo, I'll appreciate the hell out of it, but I'm not going to seek it out and shoot there - because it's been done.  And even if I walked away with something that the average observer would term "better" than the shot I copied - it's still a shot I copied.  So what's the point?

I'm curious how others feel on this - especially those of you photographers with "Shots I want to recreate" lists.  What am I missing here?

I feel they want to prove they can do it too. The problem is that it becomes too boring quickly. I started thinking the same and went out of the way to recreate what I saw on someone else's work. Think railroad tracks, caution tape, the crazy gas mask, gag ball, etc

MoRina wrote:
I don't really care as much about lists like that.  Chances are those people spend more time listing things than actually shooting.  I totally prefer them over lists called "fabulous tacos" though.

Lmfao!!!

New Century Studio wrote:
Glad to see that we are in agreement Robert, "originality isn't nearly as common as some people think it is", it is in fact very uncommon.

If anyone can point me in the direction of any photographer who has already done the "night to day" of Stephen Wilkes, or the "water angel" by Jaroslav Wieczorkiewicz, I'd be glad to see them, and ready to modify my opinion accordingly.

The milk series, which is gorgeous, is an artifact of new technology.
New technology allows a new way of seeing, which in turn will allow some new creativity.

Night to day, so I seem to be missing the point. I looked, and could not see anything that did not seem familiar. Perhaps others with a better memory can point to who and when the same was done.

Most concepts are re-interpretations of stuff that has already been done previously by another visual artist. You give it your own twist and flavour, that makes it unique from the previous.

Has nobody ever been into an art gallery and watched a painter copy a master, brush stroke for brush stroke? When you can successfully copy the technique of a master, then perhaps one is ready to enter the world of the masters by using your own creativity.

However I do agree, far toooo many copy someones work and pass it off as the product of their genius. That is bad.

Sleepy Weasel wrote:
My lawyer has all those people on a watch list for potential infringement, so I'm not worried.

LMAO

Herman Surkis wrote:

New Century Studio wrote:
Has nobody ever been into an art gallery and watched a painter copy a master, brush stroke for brush stroke? When you can successfully copy the technique of a master, then perhaps one is ready to enter the world of the masters by using your own creativity.

I was wondering when this would be pointed out.  To branch out you have to go someplace, first.  Picasso was an accomplished traditional portraitist before he became a famed abstract innovator.  Copying others to get to a point of creating a personal style is traditional in all the arts: painting, sculpture, photography, music, literature, even sports.  I just wish I hadn't needed to wade through so much same thinking to finally see someone make this point.

Kelleth wrote:
I think it's laughable to want to RECREATE a photo that is not your own and already exists. To draw inspiration from it is great. To use it as a reference is great too. But to copy it is a complete joke.

In the sense that you're using the word (i.e., the literal sense), it seems to me that it would be as unfulfilling to recreate one of my own photos as to create an exact replica of another photographer's work.

I can't think of a single reason I'd want to redo a shot that I did with one model with another model. Well, if there were big bucks involved... maybe.

A few times I've been asked by models to recreate photos from my portfolios with them. Instead, I ask them what it is that they like about the photo. Then I try to create something entirely different that incorporates whatever it was that made them like the photo.

Decades ago I was a lab assistant to a high school photography teacher and then a college professor who later wrote a textbook that was used at many colleges and universities in the US. Both of them would have students select photos and then recreate them - as close to the original as possible.

For both of them these exercises were designed to teach photographers how to achieve a very specific look... so that later they could use the same approach to getting their own concepts out of their head and onto film and paper. I believe this is legitimate.

Otherwise, I think recreating an exact duplicate of a photo would be about as creatively fulfilling as being an art forger. It requires technique, but where's the artistry?