Taking Inspiration or Taking the Mick?
Over the last year or so I've heard the dreaded 'plagiarism' in landscape photography talk rear its ugly head yet again. I don't think it really went away or ever will in all honesty. It's a subject not with out controversy and I have no doubt there are plenty of strong opinions on the subject matter. I've thought long and hard about whether to write a blog about this as by my nature I'm not a person to like to ruffle feathers. However this is a subject that has cropped up two many times for me to ignore and with photography very much becoming a devalued pursuit I felt it only right to try and remove a further nail from the photography coffin. A little foreword that this isn't intended to offended and this certainly isn't aimed at any individual, but I will try and put across my thoughts on some of the counter arguments I've heard alongside my own thoughts and experiences. Before I do that the main question is when does taking inspiration from others go too far and becomes the intent to directly copy another photographers work for there own gain. Deep breath..here we go.....
Be Inspired - I always try to channel inspiration in the right way to create something new.
Taking Inspiration:
Inspiration is a mental stimulus often of a sudden nature which motivates us to create something new. We have all done it while scrolling through social media. We come across an image that makes us think 'WOW' what an amazing place and decide to vist. I've done it countless times, more than I care to remember. Whether it be locations, genre, gear or editing we will take inspiration from a plethora of sources. I like to think of it in musical terms. Many of my favourite musical artists have taken inspiration from other artists both old and new and this stimulation/inspiration has shaped there style. I'm one of these that takes inspiration from a myriad of others and from all this good stuff I try to form my own stylistic approach. I'd like to think if somebody looked at one of my images they would know its mine and has a personality of its own...thats the goal right? So I will take the inspiration but I will always try to put my own mark on it were possible. I will do my upmost to avoid shots that I know have been taken before, mainly for my artistic standpoint and a creative perspective. This isn't always possible but I try my best. This for me is the true definition of Inspiration and something we should all aspire to do.
Great Gable Gold - One of those views I just had to capture but its important to put my own creative mark on it.
Taking the Mick?
So inspiration is a good thing, I think most will agree and we all do it..hey its normal. However where does inspiration stop and become something else? This, for me, is where it becomes a little more tricky. So where does inspiration turn into plagiarism, I'll try and break it down as I understand it. Firstly I don't see the replication/copying of images as the major elephant in the room..far from it. I still see this as inspiration. Do I mind people replicating images? No, but it has to be managed in the correct way...more on that later. I think inspiration stops when people have the intent to go and find a specific composition at a location they have seen, replicate the shot and claim this as there own. Know longer are we inspired by the overall landscape, creative possibilities it brings or a desire to create something new. I think at this point we dip into the realms of plagiarism, when a person has knowingly replicated the image with no intention of disclosing where they sought the inspiration from. Replication isn't a problem on its own, indeed this is a fundamental element for how we learn as human beings. However things start to go south, for me, when we combine the replication and the creditation of the inspiration or, more pertinent, the lack of.
Its not Black and White:
There is a complexity to this subject and its light years away from being black and white. I think this, with giving the benefit of the doubt, is why people struggle with what is and what isn't plagiarism and indeed what is deemed acceptable. We all have differing views and tolerance levels to what we think is acceptable. Whats acceptable to me, is not necessarily to another and hence the added layer of confusion/complexity. I understand its a really tricky path to negotiate and the last thing I want is to do is fan the flames of the plagiarism fire without adding the caveat that there are many variables and permitations. My fear is people getting accused of plagiarism when they really haven't done anything wrong. I want people to enjoy there photography and not live in fear of being walloped with the plagiarism baton. So while we do have to be vigilant and guard against the big P, we also need to be aware and mindful that these things do happen and similar images will crop up from time to time and there could be good reason why its happened....sometimes we cannot see all ends. So we shouldn't jump to conclusions without all the necessary facts. I certainly don't want to discourage copying, its a integral part of development and shouldn't shy away from it. I just want people to understand it really isn't clear.
Counter Argument - Stepping on each others toes:
Is It completely feasible that two photographers can take the same image without knowledge of the other one? The answer is of course yes. Its happened to me before, on a few occasions. For clarity the example wasn't a 'honey pot' location and one that takes considerable effort to get too with it being roughly a 7 mile hike and of steep ascent. I always do my usual checks, before and after visit, to see if I had seen this image before and I certainly couldn't find anything close to my composition. Its not one of the most photographed views, so I'm fairly confident it was original in terms of the composition. About two years later a near Identical image comes out, as close to mine as you can possibly get, even the time of year and focal distance...its as good as identical. Before it is posted I'm contacted by the photographer and he says looks like we have taken the same image, wasn't intensional and gives me a bit of a shout out when he posts it. I have no hesitation in believing this is pure coincident and I'm happy that the photographer got in contact. So it can and does happen.
Great Minds Think a like - A perfect example that photographers cross paths from time to time and take the same image
Counter Argument - Its been shot a million times?
The Lake District is crammed to the fell tops with very well photographed locations. So when does copying images and the P word stop at these locations? One, two, three hundred, a thousand times? We don't credit the first person who took the picture of the Duke Of Portland or the Buttermere Lone Tree do we? Have these locations, because of how often they have been shot, just become accepted in the photography community as a classic...I think it has. These are often locations that are limited in compositional variation, very accessible and often involve little effort to get too but with high reward. I believe we can discount these locations from the argument on this basis. I'm not bothered about these hot spots and whether they have been shot millions of times. I have accepted, like many others, that they are what they are and who am I to question this. These are, after all, beautiful places to visit regardless of how many times they have been photographed. They are just great locations to be enjoyed by all levels of photographers. I think for me its more locations which are a little off the beaten track and require greater effort to find that are more subject to plagiarism and not the classics.....but I don't want people to assume because its the Lakes that all locations are classic and immune to plagiarism...because they are not.
Rydal Boathouse - A classic view point and utterly stunning but one with very little scope to be original.
Counter Argument - You Don't Own the View:
You don't own the landscape or view and others have as much right as you do to take pictures. Yes thats absolutely correct...of course they do. However I own my creative interpretation and thats mine to shape how I see it. Yes I don't own the view, like a singer songwriter doesn't own the notes, but they assemble them together using there artistic license and creativity to produce something new. Thats exactly what we do as landscape photographers, we make images from assembling the many elements in front of us to create something of our own...to the best of our knowledge. I have no issue with people visiting the same place but I want them to write and sing there own song and not copy mine.
Credit where Its due.....A lesser frequented location in the Western Lake District that I took inspiration from another photographer. I didn't take any similar images but I did give the photographer in question a shout out.
Counter Argument - Take it as a compliment:
Should we take people copying our images as a compliment? Are we being too precious about this? I will certainly take it as a compliment if somebody replicates my image..however they will need to show there intent by giving the credit deserved. If they don't, I don't think this is a compliment, as they don't want to disclose who inspired them, as if they have something to hide. If they did they would surely make the necessary credit. So are we being too precious? Well I don't think so, plagiarism is deemed unacceptable in many other circumstances and forms, so why shouldn't it be seen as anything but in Landscape Photography. I wouldn't dream of copying somebody else's blog and putting it on my website, because its wrong, Its assuming credit for something I've not produced and taking advantage of someones hard work for my own glory. We don't tolerate it in other forms, so why as photographers should it be allowed to be accepted.
Credit where its due - An image captured where on review was similar to another photographer, so I contacted him and gave the necessary credit.
The Solution - To Credit or Not to Credit....That is the question:
So whats the solution.... Well I believe its pretty simple and its all about being honest and the credit. When do I need to give credit then? Ok this is from my own personal perspective. Credit should definitely be given 100% when there has been a knowingly direct replication of an image in all aspects. If you've assembled all the different pieces to make something exactly the same...please give the credit. If you've seen a location that has given you inspiration to visit and you've gone and put your own mark on it then technically I don't think you need to credit, however a little shout out is definitely a nice touch if its a place that hasn't been visited often. You certainly don't need to credit at the photography hotspots in my opinion, they are just what they are and I'm happy enough as are many other photographers on this stand point. What if there is a genuine case of coincidence, do you need to credit? Well personally I would, as it absolutes you from any blame....whether for right or wrong. You could argue that you shouldn't need to but because of the general confusion on the subject, a quick heads up even if just to the other photographer in question will do the trick and alleviates any doubts. I think if we are honest with ourselves and others then this is definitely the right way to behave and move forward...in my eyes.
The Conclusion:
Its a really difficult subject with different layers of complexity. I think inspiration is a positive, thats for sure. Copying images isn't a bad thing and shouldn't be if considered in the right context. What doesn't sit well with me is the intent to not disclose where or whom inspiration was sort especially when an exact replication has occurred. This is the line that has to be crossed for us to fall in to the realms of plagiarism in my opinion. I believe this could all easily be resolved if we are true and honest to ourselves and others. We need not fall into the trap that its acceptable to take images and not give due credit and that its widely accepted in the landscape photography community...because I don't believe it is. Yes we will step on others toes, its happened to me and I've done it....handled correctly, again, its not a issue. We also need to not jump to conclusions and understand these things do happen and peoples intentions aren't always ill. Yes there are lots of classic locations in the Lake District, Peak District etc and these I think can be discounted from the argument, however this isn't to be misinterpreted that all locations are immune to plagiarism just because its the Lake District for example. I'm I being over sensitive.....I don't think so.....I just want people to get recognition there hard work deserves. Ultimately its about being honest...its as simple as that from my part. Just treat people in the right way and don't let the pursuit of praise and accolades cloud your views, as one day you may just be called out for it.
Comments
I think it is really difficult for landscape photographers to avoid standing in front of the same view as others have done before them, but as you say, we have to make the photographs we take to be our own interpretation of the scene. If two artists stand next to each other to paint a landscape, then the results will be very different. It is so much harder for us photographers isn't it?
But if one does see another’s photo that inspires them to visit the same location, and even use the same composition, then I see no real problem with that as it is a good way to learn. But yes, a tag on social media to say why you visited that location is the right thing to do. I did the same back in 2020 when I first visited Kelly Hall Tarn having never heard of it before. I saw a post from another photographer on Instagram and off I went. Have a look at my pinned post to see who that photographer was…!
Cheers, Dave.