Home for Strider and Stock gripes
Not ImpressedNow below is a bit of a rant about something that really makes no sense to me. And I'm open to understanding, so feel free to try to explain... but here we go:
Sooo I was looking at a piece one of the photomanipulators I watch had done and a stock company posted how they couldn't sell prints of the image because it used their stock and she hadn't asked permission for this. The stock used was stars/cosmos... it was very faint in the top of the image and in all honesty looks like every other picture of stars you'd ever seen in your life... so this is my issue...
Stock artists make no sense to me. I get it from the starving photographer point of view. As you're working on your art work you sell some images to stock sites for companies to subscribe to and use for their ads. Okay, great... it makes money for you and that's awesome. Though likely you still have a day job that drives you nuts anyhow.
But with photo manipulation... there's a line to be drawn as with illustration. Especially for those who give it out for free use something so basic as.... stars... or... a field... okay... so you took a picture of some stars. It's not a dramatic one... it's not even a great one... but when put with other items it has a nice extra effect... on the whole no one will be able to tell it from any other picture of stars -ever-... so why get so up in arms about it?
Now when it comes to photo editing it's a different deal than illustration/reference use... But really, odds are if she never mentioned it no one would ever know. Now, if she didn't mentioned the horse in the image? that's far more identifiable.
It's less so with illustrative/reference pieces. You use a photo for reference, okay cool. So long as your piece doesn't copy the piece (like the horse is galloping and you need to draw a galloping horse... so you use the anatomy to draw a horse... galloping...) you have every right and don't have to mention the ref... However, it's great to. It's a nod to the photographer for inspiring/helping you. And still folks get up in arms about it when they, really, can't. Now if the horse looks identical? Have a bit more right as it's easier to identify... unless you're just a terrible artist, heh.
Do you see how this baffles me? I tried photography... and I honestly got bored. Yeah, I have fun taking pictures now and again now and do a decent job when I try. I wasn't bad at it... but it was too... simple for me. And I didn't feel like the photos were 'mine'... I was taking a picture of what was already there... Capturing an image all too simply to have any ownership to it... I think the ownership of such literally copied things belongs to the animals/people/places/things you take them of. (This changes, to me, when you add filters, or develop it yourself with interesting techniques... anything that doesn't make it an identical image... which is why while I do realism it's still obviously a painting/pastel etc... or what would the point be?)
** To add to this, when you're doing a painting/drawing there's so much more effort going into it -to- produce something close to a literal copy. There's a journey and a technique... when you snap a picture of a chair now in the digital age... yeah you paid for that equiptment... but apart from a good composition... that's kinda... it? And composition is valid... but in stock photography composition isn't important because people might be editing it anyway.
But yeah... That's my headshake about this stuff. And perhaps it's just my illustrative mind. I can -see- the arguments that might be made about it... but i think they're silly... *shrugs* I guess it kinda goes with that argument of what is viewed as art. What would you pay for... but thing is... I can appreciate even some of the weirdest modern art... wouldn't buy it but I can understand it... this one I can't past a certain extent. (like mediocre pictures of stars or grass, or a foot ball, or rocks)
hehe... the more I think about this... the more thoughts I want to add...
It's really a question, ultimately of... when is an image no longer your image? legally, publicly, morally, literally... it can go on and on from here... but I'd be interested to hear all your thoughts on that question... what defines the ownership of an image to you all? When is it no longer there's? How much legal right should there be over it and when, if ever, does it stop? To what point of manipulation/usage/size...etc?
Devious Comments
There is a line, though; some photography is, simply put, amazing. As I often browse through dA, I run into a lot of photography and after a while, you learn styles. There are certain artists here where I go, "Wow. That was /totally/ done by <insert name>." Sure enough, it is -- there is some photos that are done with true style and distinction, beyond what the photo is actually of, be it model, animal, plant, or object.
In general, I think it's always a good idea to reference -- I try to reference even when my drawing looks nothing like what I used to get inspiration. But, in general? If I found the image on Google, whatever. If I found it on dA, it's easy enough to pay respects to the poster of the original image and put a link down. Even if it's generic, dA's stock is still something I'd consider beyond the emotionless-grind of company posting or random photography... Art theft is an easy crime, and the best way to avoid it completely is to always, so, so easily, just copy-paste a link.
I think this particular example you talk about is retarded, though. It's freaking stars. GET OVER IT, STOCK PERSON. ;D
But yes, I agree... certain photography, sure... but usually it's a piece full of composition, lighting, color and mood... not just some picture of a horse someone took at random with no thought to these things but how the horse was moving. Unless you crop it in on the horse, it's not a fantastical photograph but a literal representation of a horse in motion...
The question is, tho, when is it art theft? When it no longer looks like the image it came from? When it looks like it could have come from anywhere? I'm of the opinion that if it doesn't look like the original image to the extent that unless you know the models/animals in it you can't tell the origination... it's not claimable anymore. *shrugs* but that's just me.
--
"Is this you not arguing? 'Cause you suck at it."
PW: T'eo, Lorena, Ae'ran, A'deo
Canterbury: Luna, Blackmail, various others
I do think there is a difference between just taking pictures and true photography. If you're doing things like snapping photos of your dog, or your friends doing crazy things, or a nice landscape you chanced upon, that's taking pictures. It's just documenting what's already there, like you said. There's pretty much no creative process involved. (And quite frankly, it annoys me when people put stuff like that up on DA as "art", especially in their main gallery. That sort of thing belongs on Facebook, or at the very most in one's Scraps.)
Photography, on the other hand, is making an art out of taking pictures; paying close attention to details like composition, angle, focus, and lighting to create an image that doesn't just document or portray, it expands; it creates a mood or invokes an emotion; it really stops and makes you think about everything the picture is expressing.
But yeah, "art" is such a subjective phrase these days...seems like everyone's using it as an excuse to spend as little time and effort possible to get the most attention possible (same with that other oft-abused term, "style").
Rants can be fun!
--
"Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, [than] because bad philosophy needs to be answered." - C. S. Lewis
But with 'real' photography, it's quite an effort. There's a lot of things you have to take into consideration- shutter speed, ISO, white balance, f-stop, on top of compositional elements. To get a good photograph you're content with, you end up shooting for hours, returning to the same spot at different times of day. Honestly, I think it's every bit as difficult as art, but I guess I could be biased in that I am a photographer? But I put as much effort into my art as my friend who does what people regard as more traditional art... So I suppose that's the mark of someone who actually gives a damn?
--
Art is always a journey into the unknown.
Yeah, mostly what drives me nuts is stock photography and the obsessive 'ownership' of it, lol.
--
"Is this you not arguing? 'Cause you suck at it."
PW: T'eo, Lorena, Ae'ran, A'deo
Canterbury: Luna, Blackmail, various others
--
"Is this you not arguing? 'Cause you suck at it."
PW: T'eo, Lorena, Ae'ran, A'deo
Canterbury: Luna, Blackmail, various others
--
Art is always a journey into the unknown.
--
"Is this you not arguing? 'Cause you suck at it."
PW: T'eo, Lorena, Ae'ran, A'deo
Canterbury: Luna, Blackmail, various others
I like the point the above deviant made - stock photography is after all images meant for public use, but ultimately those photographers still need some kind of pay for their images otherwise what's the point in them taking the time to take the photos? It's up to the individual photographer I guess, but most will want some kind of royalty if they are entitled to it. Again there are grey areas. It's a confusing issue...
--
~ artwork *moodymand // *moodycam photography ~
Previous Page12Next Page