Good point. I think the holding-hands-with rings in wedding collections is an example of a
photograph I wish I had copyrighted when the idea first came to me in the dark ages. ;)
Come to think of it ... I think there are many more examples of this kind of "copying".
I think that to some extent this is a slippery slope. Edgerton is credited with splash
photographs that are being "duplicated" for better or worse by a myriad of image makers.
They are not the same as his but similar -- and probably "inspired" by his pioneering work.
But even he was not "first"! Worthington in the late 1800s was doing splashes ... of milk ...
sure, not as technically perfect as Edgerton but that was only because he was working before
electricity and electronics had developed to the stage it had in the 1930s.
I think copying is one thing. Similar is another. What bugs me is "appropriation".
all said "tongue-in-cheek" as they say ... just a conversation piece and without meaning any
disrespect to anyone.
cheerio,
andy
Tina Manley wrote:
At 02:05 PM 9/8/2008, you wrote:
Before you "re-create a shot by another photographer," you may want
to consider copyright and other applicable ethics issues. You may
cause some trouble for yourself if you do not.
Jeff
