Blog Readers Catch Plagiarizing Photographer

Yesterday, art buyer and blogger Heather Morton published a link to a photographer's online photo portfolio she liked. It didn't take long for other photographers to notice that the work looked a little... derivative. How derivative?

The image on the left is an ad from a Giblin & James portfolio. On the right is a photo in the portfolio of the photographer in question.

At left is in photo from a Jonathan Kantor portfolio. On the right is a photo by the photographer in question.

Morton quickly pulled the post and published a followup that called the similarities "plagiarism" and "unacceptable." She wrote:

"As soon as I became aware of this issue, I fired off an email to the shooter, encouraging him to tell another side of the story; to respond. Thankfully, he certainly recognized his error and has since taken steps to make this right.

"In case you’re wondering (and I know you are) who this is, I’m not telling and I’d thank everyone who saw the post, to keep it to themselves. This shooter shows great promise so let’s treat this as a big ethical stumble in an otherwise solid sprint out of the gate."

Morton's grace is commendable. As of this morning, this photographer's "steps to make this right" have not included removing the duplicate work from his Web site.

It's a close call, but because this photographer is so obscure, and because this copycat work apparently hasn't been published anywhere except his own site, I don't think he deserves a public shaming. Following Morton's example, I too am omitting his name.

Comments

[Kurt]

It's a shame. I think the copycat's work is better.

[sinbad]

yes, prefer copycat's "work."

[Becca]

I work with one of these photographer's and when I contacted the photographer in question he responded, "I have reviewed the image in question and feel that your image is similar to mine but do not feel that it is plagiarism. Although there are similarities between the two images I also believe that there are a number of obvious distinctions as well. Namely the treatment of the lighting, colour, shadow and background have subtle but distinctive qualities." This is obviously untrue as anyone can see the images are practically identical. It's unfortunate that the difference between plagiarism and an inspired derivative is not quite clear to people. Since Ms. Morton contacted him however he has since agreed not to use the image and has removed it from his site. The photographer in question has other work that shows great potential so let us hope that he (and other photographers) can learn from this experience so that it does not become a habit that could potentially ruin an otherwise promising career.

[MarcW]

Bad artists copy: good artists steal.

This guy is a bad artist.

Next case.

M

[steve]

C'mon!!! Who are we kidding... this is pure theft, a shame one would spend so much time copying someone else whilst killing their own sense of creativity.

s.

[Lawrence]

Some like to copy:

http://www.andersonhopkins.com/giblinjames/GJ_PORTFOLIO1/15.jpg

[thomas toohey brown]

Fine lines not worth crossing...

[Melissa]

Another thought, if the artist in question is an aspiring, or learning artist, then he maybe trying to perfect techniques of those he finds interesting, with his own twist to the photos. While I don't believe he should attempt to get the photo published or take full credit for the artistic idea, he may not have had any under handed intent at all.

I've been in a position where I took a photo on a tour and didn't think anything of it. Bought some postcards to take back with me and when I got my prints, my photo and the postcard where almost identical (except for the set up they did for the professional). If you were to see them side by side, you would think I saw the postcard first and tried to recreate when in fact, I didn't see the postcard until after my photo was shot. So I guess I'm not as quick to judge without hearing how he came up with the idea for the photo and what his intent was.