Techdirt: We've been covering the lawsuit filed by photographer Dave LaChapelle because the video for Rihanna's song S&M appeared to mimic some of the ideas found in some of his photographs
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Homage Is Expensive: Rihanna Pays Up To Settle Photographer's Lawsuit
Techdirt: We've been covering the lawsuit filed by photographer Dave LaChapelle because the video for Rihanna's song S&M appeared to mimic some of the ideas found in some of his photographs
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I have heard about this case before, and I completely side with the photographer. It is true that all art mimics other art and you can find similar ideas in many things, but The S&M video is different then that it is blatant copying.Rhianna's video feels very different from the photographs, it has a different aesthetic vibe but it is the same situations, set ups and the same general idea as the photography. She should have named the artist somewhere in her music video, or at least credited him, it is clearly his artistic and intellectual property.
I wonder where exactly something stops being an "homage" and starts just being "copying." As designers, we are encouraged to look for inspiration everywhere; research is a huge part of the design process. I think part of the problem with Rihanna's video is that it all seems to be sampling from the same artist. She, and her creative team, didn't draw from many resources. Mr. LaChapelle's photography is the only inspiration.
Beyoncé has been facing similar, albiet less formal, accusations that her new music video for
Love On Top is a rip-off of New Edition’s If It Isn't Love music vide. According to The Fader, Beyoncé released a statement defending her work, saying, "I had an idea for the video based on some of my favorite male groups. I remember seeing videos from New Edition, The Jackson 5 and the Temptations, bands I love for their beautiful harmonies, and precise choreography and I always wanted to make a video and be part of a boy group myself." Is her video plagiarism as well?
I agree with a lot of what Pia says. It is hard to find the line between what is actually plagiarism and what is inspiration although it seems in this instance that the video takes more liberty than most. It is obvious that they took ideas from many of David LaChapelle's photos. One might be able to look past this if they used one as an jumping off point for something else but they used several specific recognizable images which is where they got themselves into trouble. I do think people often get inspired by the work of their peers but it is how one uses that inspiration as a spring board to other ideas which makes a Designer unique.
There is a fine line between inspiration and copyrighting. As artist we are suppose to find other people's work and get inspired by them. So we don't really know the back story of Rihanna's video but maybe she was just really inspired by the photographers work and wanted to her video to have the same vide. But unfortunately it comes off a little strong and looks like plagiarism. They just both look so similar its hard to say who is right.
Some of the pairs of pictures that they show seem like a stretch to call a copy, even if you follow the decision that the idea rather than the expression is able to be copyrighted the idea isn't all that close either. Yes, there are similarities between the three pairs of pictures shown, but I wonder how many other pictures you could find that looked like an even closer match? I haven't followed the case from the beginning, but if those are the main reason for the suit I'm very surprised that the case is moving forward. Settling the suit doesn't say much other than that paying what he asked may be less of a hassle and expense than defending the lawsuit would be.
I agree with Pia. This relates to designers in theater because they look at research images all the time and pull things from them. What's to stop a photographer or clothing designer from suing a costume designer who has a garment that looks too similar to their design. Like Pia said, Its important to know where the line is between creating and stealing. Thats why its important to have multiple images from a variety of places as research images. Its a vary grey area.
I have always wondered exactly what the rules were regarding inspiration from others work, and while this does not spell it out exactly, it makes me wonder as to exactly how fast and loose theater folk, especially designers play with inspirational ideas. I get that there's a bit of an argument that nothing is really original anymore since many would claim that almost anything has been done before, better, and by someone else. I am now curious to see if this successful lawsuit will inevitably lead to more of a similar nature.
Regardless of their out of court settlement, this is great publicity for the photographer and I'm sure he'd be happy regardless of the amount. That said, there are a lot of photographs out there, and probably a lot in this vein, so it'd be unlikely that the photographer would win were this to actually go to trial; I imagine that would involve proving that the creative team for Rihanna's video had seen these images and that their ideas had been informed by them. It's good that the judge didn't throw the case out initially, though, since these matters do deserve discussion.
I agree that credit is due to the original artist, but at the end of the day, I'm sure that Rihanna is no more worse for the wear. This settlement isn't exactly destroying Rihanna's career and S&M as a song, and her album, have taken off.
Also Pia's comment is really interesting. I agree that the beyonce video and new edition video are very similar. I recall last year the debacle between SNL and a few Carnegie Mellon students. At a certain point, the most it seems you can do is fuss about it.
I feel like this conversation is incredibly relative. Unless something is blatantly copied verbatim, there isn't really much justification for saying that your ideas have been stolen. Granted, the pictures are similar, but is walking an S&M man like a dog really an original enough concept to claim ownership over the idea? I've seen countless images of the same thing. Even if this was intended to be an homage, she probably could have gotten away with saying she didn't know any better.
Every time I see artists getting sued for infringement themselves, I hope that maybe eventually the message will get through that this system is antiquated and falls apart too often. It seems though, that they have the legal and financial resources that the settlements they reach don't really impact them in a serious way. Instead of suffering in proportion to the people they regularly sue, they are relatively unphased by the consequences of their actions. If the consequences were more substantial with respect to their resources, I think that maybe they would have a greater incentive to clarify concepts of fair use and reasonable punishments.
The other day in Beth's class we were talking about how it is a rare find to see designers actually coming up with their own designs, they are more so taking from other pictures and piecing them together. Our assignment was to create a texture out from a picture you find on the internet. Beth made it very clear that she wanted us to make our own interpretations of the pictures and not simply copy them as they are shown. This is something that more designers need to learn how to do better. There is a difference in getting inspiration from a picture versus copying it.
I DO NOT side with the photographer. Based of the photos shown in the articles, there was clearly a lot of similarity between the images. However, both were indicative a a certain kind of... aesthetic. I don't think the photographer had the right to claim those ideas as his uniquely, because they reflect how the S&M trend is executed and perceived overall. If a woman is wearing a plastic mask, or a woman is "dominating" the scene, can he claim that he originating that aesthetic from his photos? I disagree
Post a Comment