Why Your Images Need Copyrights

Things that make you go hmmm….

file this one next to Why Photographers Need Insurance.

copyright.jpg

LEFT: photo by Jamie Nelson for Blink Magazine, 2006.

RIGHT: An advertisement for Dexim Shoes, 2008 (not shot by Jamie Nelson).


tsk tsk
! Get the lowdown on this debacle, here.

Next Post:
Previous Post:
This article was written by
There are 5 comments for this article
  1. Ronny at 9:02 pm

    this is pathetic. These art directors/”creatives” are the biggest rip off artists around. they make me sick. CJC makes a great point.

  2. dollyllama at 9:46 am

    My understanding though is that you cannot copyright an idea (concept). So regardless of copyright or watermark or whatever, anyone is free to re-shoot a similar image. Kinda sux.

  3. Jeff Singer at 8:48 pm

    You can’t copyright a concept. This is not a concept that was re-created though… the concept was realized and that is what was copied. Once the concept was realized (i.e. Jamie Nelson took the photo) then it became protected by copyright infringement. However, according to “The Law (in plain english) for Photographers”: “The copyright owner must prove that the infringer had access to the protected work. An independent creation of an identical work is not an infringement.” So, I’m sure it would be tough for Jamie to prove they had access to his original image… but we all know they didn’t just happen to come up with that EXACT idea.

  4. cstall at 7:42 pm

    This is no mere concept ripoff! They copied all but the fingernails! The copycat group used a new model, a slightly different hammer, skewed the background and painted the fingernails yellow– a nice touch by the way. All the colors and elements are otherwise the same, down to the angle of the face, the weird hair and the textured background.Seems like it would be a no-brainer to any judge. While it is a sort of a compliment to Nelson’s creative talent as an artist & photographer, it is also a statement of ethical ignorance on the part of the copycats. I’m not a lawsuit monger, but if Nelson sues them, I’d cheer. If this group of “artists” should not be allowed to skirt repercussions on this one!

  5. Mr Hertz at 1:45 pm

    Guys theres one thing you must understand. Creativity doesnt mean “going from start”. The art/creative directors of advertisement world need to find a way to promote their products. So if they think a concept that Picasso had in the past will blast sales, they do that. Its not lack of creativity itself, but the creativity to link an already used concept on a presumed target (public) that will potentially get the advertisement value, and link it somehow to the product. It happens with cover bands, and even a lot of ads you see on television show something that was built/developed in the past. When we think about marketing, we´re conducting ways to make a product feasible/attrative. At this point it doesnt relate to MAKING ART, like painters or plastic artists do. Another way to see this issue is to understand that a concept was so good in the past, that it is reproduced to blast sales of a today´s product. Sometimes they bring a fresh idea, sometimes they use an already built concept. Somehow it is like a compliment, sometimes its outrageous. Depends on each case, and its a personal choice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *