Francois Labreque wrote:

> Tom Melly wrote:
> >
> > IIRC, re-using ideas is not against the rules.
>
> I certainly hope so as both my contrast entry and your nature entry -
> amongst others - would have been thrown out.  My beef in starting this
> thread is that it looks like he tried (IMHO of course) to make it look
> like it was his idea.

Surely there's nothing wrong with re-using good ideas. Not only there's a thin
line between paying a tribute to an artist and plagiarizing his/her work, but
sometimes it's exciting to use somebody's work as a basis to create something
different. Sometimes the influence is so unconscious that it's forgotten. And of
course there are not so many good ideas around, so things happen.

However, the IRTC image in question also contains a quote positioned in the same
way as the original image, so it is certainly no accident and much more than just
re-using an idea. I can't really say either that the copy is conceptually
different from the original. The whole concept has been redone with another
software and not altered significantly (a couple of stools and a bench instead of
a table and a chair). A mention of the original picture in the text file would
have been fine, to say the least... Particularly, the people who praised it for
its composition were misled. Note how some of the subtler effects (like the
reflection in the window pane, or the shadows of the slatted chairs) were lost, by
the way... Perhaps one should ask Amaan Akram, the author of the original picture,
what he thinks of this.
http://members.nbci.com/WarpedMinds/

I remember this happening to the "Old door" picture by Jaime Vives Piqueres.
Someone had taken his code, remade a few minor things in it and then posted it to
p.b.i as his own. The acknowledgement of Jaime's work in his came too much late
for my taste. I really don't understand why people do this.

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
Graphic experiments
Pov-ray gallery

Post a reply to this message