Copying Other Photographers Images; Good, Bad, Legal?

Copying Other Photographers Images; Good, Bad, Legal?

I recently read with great interest Guy Tal’s post about copying others images and some points he emphasized about photographers and photography. As Guy points out, copies and forgeries of art have existed forever, often dismissed as forgeries or fakes by some authority.

It’s possible those who dismissed the authenticity of certain art forgeries were authorities whose knowledge and experience allowed them to authenticate the art in question. Does such an authority exists in photography? Probably for the those most famous of photographs.

Guy alludes to the simple idea that most photographers can’t identify who may have taken a historically significant image. Even fewer may be able to identify who was the first to shoot a landscape image that is now well known and widely published.

Imagine if painters took only to painting what they saw in galleries, done by another painter, because they were beautifully done. Would it be good for their fine art business? Or a blatant copyright violation?

Photographers do this regularly. They spend a lot of energy trying to find a location to get a shot they saw published. I have done this myself and more than once.

Where does this urge to ‘go get that shot’ come from? Are some photographers unable to venture out into unknown (to them) locations and explore, discover, and photograph their own vision and create work in which they may be the first to capture?

Is a beautifully done calendar or coffee table book simply a ‘to do’ list for those who want to be guided to great shots? This video on YouTube suggest exactly that: if you want to shoot marketable images just copy the ones you see published.

By all indications that I have seen, that is exactly the problem with the state of the stock image industry, to much duplication. That image glut we hear about.

Simple market economics will tell you that over supply of any product forces prices down and today’s prices for stock photography now challenge photographer’s ability to pay the bills.

Last month I wrote my business column for the summer issue of NANPA’S magazine Currents, where I readily admitted as a Brooks Institute student that I copied, or tried real hard to, an image by my photo hero, David Muench.

This attempt to copy is considered acceptable when done by a student and although I would like to think it is not for working pros, the practice is quite common.

Is copying others photographs copyright infringement?

As I researched the story I got in touch with a NY copyright attorney to ask about the legal issues surrounding the copying of another photographer’s image. Her answer was pretty simple: if a photographer sets out to intentionally copy another photographer’s photograph it is copyright violation.

I have a friend and colleague who roughly 15 years ago was commissioned by an ad agency to photograph a studio shot and one quite complicated at that. The ad agency had tried to license a specific image from a photographer and when negotiations failed they hired my friend to shoot the shot in the studio.

When the copyright holder discovered the infringement he sued and the ad agency and my friend lost, big time! This situation is a ‘no brainer.’ It was a blatant attempt at copying someone else’s unique image so the result was predicatable.

How does that play for the outdoor photographer? It would be pretty hard to prove is my best guess.

Simply visiting the places you have seen published and making your best attempt to get the same shot would in my opinion not be infringement anymore than two photographers standing side by side and capturing the same shot in the same light on the same day and sharing stories while they shoot.

What would be missing and in my opinion hard to prove, is ‘willful intent to infringe.’

Is copying others images good for business?

More importantly is copying others images or attempting to go ‘get that shot’ seen published good business practice? Yes and no.

If it published then there was a need for that image. Does that guarantee a future need for the same image?

Was it published because it was pretty and the photo editor loved it or was it the subject that led to the reason it was published, such as newsworthy?

In today’s crowded markets and glut of imagery, photographing locations in demand is good business, but copying what has been published may be less so.

Instead the goal to create unique imagery, unique enough to make you stand out from the crowd, seems much better for your bottom line and business.

If you have an opinion please leave a comment.

Upcoming posts: Determining the Value of an Image Usage

Related Posts: Outdoor and Nature Photography is a Business, The Future of Outdoor and Nature Photography

Good Book: