Is There A Difference Between Inspiration And Copying?
from the I-think-so,-but... dept
We were just talking about the extremely fuzzy border between idea and expression, and how that leads to problems and the stifling of creativity. Well, how about a similar discussion between "inspiration" and copying? We hear this all the time. Whenever we show widely accepted pieces of art that are actually quite similar to something earlier, defenders of copyright insist that this is fine, because it was just "inspired" by the original, rather than a direct copy. But where's the border between inspiration and copying?Take this case, which was first called to our attention by Stephan Kinsella, in which photographer Janine Gordon sued photographer Ryan McGinley claiming that 150 of McGinley's images were "substantially based" on her own photos. The site PetaPixel (linked above) has posted some of the "evidence," which should immediately make it clear how ridiculous this lawsuit is:
Gordon is apparently seeking $30,000 per infringement, which is the maximum statutory rate... though, to be honest, I'm surprised she isn't going for the full $150,000 by claiming these are "willful" infringement. Either way, it's yet another example of how the state of "ownership culture" today leads people to think that they can lock up ideas, and anyone who does anything even remotely (perhaps very, very remotely) similar, somehow must owe them money.
It's a sad statement on the state of culture today.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copying, copyright, expression, idea, inspiration, janine gordon, photographs, ryan mcginley
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Without the Consent of the King.
Nothing has changed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Frak?
Interesting that the images are reversed in the first set (or, arguably, in all the rest) and uncredited, which invites confusion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not even close
There are enough photos in the world that some are going to be similar to others. I wonder how long it would take to find similar photos that are older than Gordon's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not even close
If this lawsuit holds up, you'd better not use two different photogrpahers for your family in different years. The first could claim copyright, since he has all these similar pictures of you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not even close
Pshaw. I'm hoping he wins. I've got a box full of old family photos that I can use to nail his infringing ass! "Kid returning to the beach from a swim?" MINE!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is a repeat of the Rhiana video fiasco.
This culture of ownership is getting stupid. They aren't even copies. If they were to suffice to be called copies, they would have to be a pixel per pixel duplicate. That would be a copy and that might be infringement. Two photos shot by two different photographers with different subjects in different places that have different lighting, costume, and makeup are not copies. Even if the other photographer attempted to duplicate Gordon's work manually, it still wouldn't be a copy because it's an entirely new photo created to look like the other, but it's still not a copy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Time: 2020
Place: Anywhere on Earth
Subjects: An average citizen, his family, and a police officer
It's just another average day. People are out with their families on vacation. As one citizen prepares to take a few shots for the family homepage, a police officer approaches, his hand on his sidearm.
"Move your hands away from the camera!" The officer calls out. "Let me see your permit!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
From the small sample of images, it is hard to tell if others might actually be "copies" and these other images are just being added to increase the potential profit.
I understand that sometimes "arteests" are sometimes a little to full of themselves, but given the current atmosphere of it costs nothing to sue, and you can just out spend them to win it should become much more clear that the law is broken.
This is how intellectual property works now.
I own this image and anything I say that looks like it is infringing and you should settle because I will win trillions in court.
I own this idea, it does not matter I've never done anything with it and its so vague I could sue God for creating light, but it is infringing and you should settle because I will win trillions.
My clients own this movie and your IP address shows up on a list, you should settle because its less than a trial would cost.
Intellectual Property is our most important asset!
It exists to keep lawyers busy, and money changing hands with nothing created in the process.
Mike should we take up a collection to purchase a patent on a system of registering ideas, not using them and then using them to sue people who had similar ideas reached with or without knowledge of our vague patent? We could get rich.
Intellectual property laws need reform in this country, move outside of the weird place law makers live and look at a real life example of regular people being screwed.
A grandmother had died. The daughter wanted to make a poster out of a photo to put up at the wake for people to remember grandma. The fear of the corporation running the store being liable for copyright infringement meant they "trained" employees to be able to tell a copyrighted photo from a noncopyrighted photo in 1 second and stop these evil scofflaws. And this has happened multiple times with family photos or "professional" family portraits. Now in a perfect world this is just to keep people from ripping off a professional photographer by just copying their wedding album rather than purchasing overpriced prints. But when the law causes more distress to someone suffering a tragic loss one is left to wonder if it is not time to review the laws. Maybe it is time to change the model professional photographers use, and assign the copyright to the families.
These cases are just the newest symptoms of a broken system, and if these 4 photos are the damning evidence... its much more broken than any one of us "freetards" ever imagined.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Y'know, cuz it's not just enough that they are a unique snowflake (Or artist, or photographer, or whatever) like everyone else, they've gotta be an *especially* unique snowflake with special privileges to their *especially* unique snowflake-y business, anyone else is just a brainless un-creative scum of the earth copycat freetard riding off their *especially* unique uniquenss
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Without the Consent of the King.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
then it's OK, your intellect suddenly increases by leaps and bounds, creativity and originality shoots forth from the sky like a rainbow down on your head, holy flowers pop outta the ground your feet and you suddenly rise to the level of "chosen of the special snowflake"
and they say that these people are "cool" when you get their permission, hehehe... Well, even bitter old misanthropic hermits like me can be pretty cool too, if you jump through the hoops i want you too, it's not rocket science
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1) one of the morons that keep voting new stuff into law or keeps extending the present laws needs to experience what it is like to be accused of infringement, whether guilty or not
2) the story needs to be leaked, not kept under wraps of any kind, so the public have the opportunity of saying 'told you so. now you know what it's like. now you know how we feel. hope life as you know it is taken away. all for the sake of a photo or music track etc. serve your rights and up your arse!! no sympathy from us!'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/02490115124/is-there-difference-between-inspiration-copyin g.shtml
I guess that depends on the judge you are in front of.
That matter is so subjective that there is no wrong answer.
With the understanding we have today is impossible to make out a distinct line between inspiration and copy when there is no direct copy involved and to make things worst there is the "derivative" thing, so you can't be inspired by anything, your only defense is to say it is original.
Those laws lead to absurd situations, because they are absurd rules that were stitched together along the way and not thought through, is like trying to build a straight fence at night, you could try but in the morning it won't look so straight.
The law is a jack-hammer is not a surgical instrument even though some claim otherwise, so it should only be used to regulate things that are really, really necessary or else we go back to medieval times where there was such laws government how you should kill others in duels, where and when you could fornicate and so on. We laugh at those laws today and people probably laughed at them too at the time, the same will happen to IP laws, they are so incongruent, so unrealistic that nobody in their right minds would take them seriously and trying to force people to abide by those set of rules can only result in one outcome, revolution.
People will loose respect for the law and that is bad, because we need some laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.rockandrollconfidential.com/hall/hall_detail.php?dd_keyid=89
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Place: USA
There .. fixed that for you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The above seems absolutely fair to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is There A Difference
The whole problem is some judge may have just got out of the wrong side of the bed, or his wife gave him hell last night for leaving his cigar ashes on the carpet and he is hell bent on terror to rips somebody apart the next day in court. To really piss everyone off because he is so mad...he sides with Gordon.
That's really all Gordon is hoping for, to get a judge with an axe to grind and maybe side with him. Sounds crazy, but judges are human and some of them are crazy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
For some reason, one phrase leaps to mind......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btw it's *she*....
http://www.egradioonline.com/2007/07/mc-jah-jah-vs-fergie-blackeyed-sleaze.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Without the Consent of the King.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gallery's response
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/corbett/team-gallery-responds-to-gordon-vs-mcginley.asp
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Speaking of intellectual property........
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The law is not "broken", though I am not sure I can say the same for the animosity between the two persons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As with patent cases, and even more literally, I'm sure there's plenty of "prior art" that would blow this suit out of the water at first glance. She's trying to skirt it, but her pictures aren't anything we haven't seen before in other people's work.
She's full of shit, but has an indulgent lawyer I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So lame
#2, her work is kind of mediocre and I would guess her only chance of making a living from photography is by trying to claim a genuinely good photographer is copying her and suing them.
Her name is definitely one I will remember to mention to EVERY editor I know. The simple reality, is the less talented photographer is trying to shake-down the better photographer, instead of producing better work. After all, creating good images takes time and effort, why do all that work when you can just pick a better artist, and try to claim they are infringing because a limb is poised at an angle similar to that in one of her shots. This is one of the lamest things I have ever seen. I am just appalled!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So lame
I know it's subjective in the end, but the subtleties of composition can make all the difference sometimes.
Ha! I love the description on the last pic up there: Three boys fill the frame...All three boys are bending their arms.
That is just precious! She should be penalized for this nonsense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Make them pay
If she were at risk for paying the defendant's legal fees (and perhaps a stiff fine, as with some anti-SLAPP laws), maybe we'd see less crap like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
She's cost the defendant ~$100,000 so far. I'd say that the law is broken.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How could you distinguish between leg positions? Well, the angle of the V would be the angle of the legs. In one picture the legs are at an acute angle, and in the other it is obtuse. In fact, you could probably describe the man in one picture as doing the splits. Another way to describe leg position would be the angle at the knees, and knee positions are clearly different.
Of course, the whole thing is meaningless. It looks like the general methodology for "proving" copying is to draw colored lines on each image and then say that the lines are the same, even if they aren't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copies???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Infringing photos
I am inclined to think we should completely abolish copyright, and do some serious limiting on patents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Make them pay
The burden of proof needs to be on the copyright holder and they should be required to explain why the use of their work does not fall under fair use.
If they cannot meet their burden they should be made to pay ALL attorneys fees plus ALL expenses incurred by the victim as well as punitive damages. Filing a frivolous copyright claim should carry just as high a penalty as copyright infringement itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Infringing photos
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Make them pay
Earlier in my carrier, I was browsing through a gallery of digital art, photos that several people had compiled, which was what they thought was the best digital art and photography on the web. As I browsed the amazing images laid out before me, I kept thinking to myself, "this is amazing stuff. At some point, I want my work to be good enough so people I don't know are saying this kind of stuff about my art, and displaying simply because the viewer thinks the art is great." Two pages later, I cam across an image that I thought was really cool, and looked oddly familiar. I realized it was lifted from my portfolio page on highend3d.com. I was stunned, flattered and simply blown away. As I read the comments, and looked at variations of my original other artists had created, I was almost moved to tears. The work that other artists developed from my original was simply stunning. In many cases, it was hands down better than what I had created.
Sadly, this website disappeared about 5 or 6 mos. later after a number of ass-hats freaked-out over their work being displayed and used with-out permission.
There is an old adage in the art world. "Good artists copy, GREAT artists steal" What this means, is that an artist who is incapable of building on what comes before and making it even better, is in many ways just a technician. It has all been done, what really good artists do, is, do it again, but with their own spin on the idea.
Any artist with the balls to actually try and say they have never been inspired by the work of another artist, or created something after looking at a magnificent image, is just not being honest. They are also missing out on the opportunity to truly develop as a creative person and as an artist. This is the kind of development that will ultimately allow the artist to take their work to the next level and is a powerful catalyst for creative growth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Without the Consent of the King.
Not really surprising - since that is exactly what they evolved from!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
-Subject is centered in the frame
-Clouds slowly thin near the top
OMG INFRINGEMENT
WAIT, THERE'S MORE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginevra_de%27_Benci
-Light is mostly bouncing off the girl's face
OH MAN, HOW DEEP DOES THIS RABBIT HOLE GO?
http://worldsfamousphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/745px-ww2_iwo_jima_flag_raising.jpg
-Subjects are centered in frame
-Clouds start thick near the bottom and thin near the top
WE MUST GET TIME LAWYERS TO SUE BACKWARDS IN TIME TO STOP THIS PRE-INFRINGEMENT.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
someone isn't making money with their work...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We'd all better watch out ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Take whatever family picture and claim that she copied it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Speaking of intellectual property........
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mistakes by Gordon
The photo of the 3 men vs 3 men... McGinley is in the picture and was photographed by a photographer for the New York magazine...Nice research!
I could continue but I am quite bored with Janine Gordon.
I am a photographer and she is giving our industry a bad name in her quest for 15 minutes!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-e_uN3LbK-HI/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAjwI/ussJnA1_Rys/phot o.jpg
https://plus.google.com/109813896768294978296/posts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WTF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Make them pay
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copying
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seriously?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Art
Claiming it is a better version
[ link to this | view in thread ]