Yours is a good point, Herschel. It is also good to keep in mind that the conceptual basis of appropriation of photographic images, not that I approve, is that the original photographer can be viewed as "stealing" images from those he finds in front of his camera. It's not an illogical inference that stealing what already is, in fact, stolen isn't actually a theft in the ordinary sense of the word. If people in front of a camera don't object to having their image taken, how can a photographer place a nonexistent restraint on what people can & can't do with his image?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Herschel Mair <herschphoto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Making too much of this. We all stand on the shoulders of our predecessors. We steal ideas all the time. It's called inspiration... What street photographer can say Cartier Bresson was no influence... Or how unfortunate the still life shooter that never saw Irving Penn's work... The travesty is giant corporations with fat legal teams that can buy up and own the work of great minds. That you can lose the rights to your own creations or be restricted from seeing what others are doing.
