Copycats and underdogs: the behaviour of online communities
The title of this blog post is rather academic, but I got so complacent after thinking of the cat and dog bit that I couldn’t think of anything more exciting for the bit after the colon.
This is a long one, but this is my blog, so I won’t apologise or demean it by calling it a ‘rant.’ You might find it interesting. Or you might just think it’s a rant. 
)
After this I’ll post more pics from my US trip and also from Focus On Imaging. I just wanted to post this first.
Press Ctrl and + to make the text bigger!
Recently an artist on Flickr, Rosie Hardy, was discovered to have plagiarised other artists in her work. A character called ‘Harry NY’ appeared on Flickr, posting the images in question side by side with the originals from the artists whose work Rosie Hardy had copied. The originals had been found in Rosie’s own favourites on DeviantArt, so her initial claims to have ‘never seen the images before’ were futile. After Harry had his account removed several times, he resorted to posting the images on a blog which you can view here.
People started discussion threads on Flickr such as here and here, in discussing whether they agreed that Rosie had plagiarised other artists or whether it was the age-old debate of artist originality at hand. In many people’s view, Rosie did plagiarise other artists in these pieces, and it is made even more serious by the fact that she sells her work.
People waited to hear what Rosie would do and whether she would apologise. And eventually she did, on an upload entitled rock bottom, where she said sorry for ‘not giving artist credit’, a little vaguely, before deviating to discussion on other areas of her present emotional disposition. She wrote that she was going to take a break from Flickr, which invited an inevitable stream of well-wishers, most of whom did not even recognise the issue at hand – that Rosie had plagiarised other people’s work, and that she had fooled them into thinking all her ideas were as ‘original’ as her website sales pitch says. On her return, as expected, she was inundated with ‘welcome back’ messages, from people professing they’d missed her, even though the time she’d been gone wasn’t different from the duration between her uploads anyway.
People on Flickr love a story, love drama, love having a god, especially if that god can also be an underdog. (Maybe we can coin the term ‘undergods’?) The apology itself was enough for most of Rosie’s fans, the word ‘sorry’ was enough for them to completely skirt over, well, whatever Rosie had done wrong. Naysayers were shunned by Rosie’s hardcore fans on the strength of the fact that ‘Rosie has apologised’. Nothing more need be said.
Surely the whole point of an apology is that you have aimed to correct what you’ve done wrong, and to be open about the faults so that you give the impression you won’t do it again? The reason why Rosie’s apology meant little to her more cynical viewers was because she didn’t actually put things right. Being in such a spotlight on Flickr unfortunately brings responsibilities with it. Yet Rosie has only made about half of the images in question ‘private’ on her Flickr stream, and left others just as they were, with no credit whatsoever. So, the ‘lesson’ she professed to have learnt was unclear. Surely it would be appropriate to turn off comments (and those notes) on her apology upload, and surely any apology should be aimed at the plagiarised artists she fobbed off, not a love-in mosh pit of teenyboppers?
Before I am in danger of sounding petty, I’ll explain what this boils down to, for me. This is not just about Rosie, this happening has merely raised an issue. What actually bothers me most of all is the significance of people’s reactions to plagiarism on Flickr – people’s ignorance of an important issue, by Rosie setting a sallow example. Rosie is indeed only young (18) qhich makes it more understandable that she should have the chance put it right for the future; but does not make her instantly forgivable – everyone who goes to school is taught not to cheat, and at college and university level, the rules against plagiarism are hammered home.
If people are not trying to claim that Rosie didn’t plagiarise, that she just took inspiration – “it’s hard thinking of an idea every day of a 365!” (as if being over-ambitious about one’s artistic resolutions is a valid excuse for ripping off other people’s work), they are almost backing plagiarism, which is even more disturbing. Laidback types appear mid-discussions to mystically guffaw out-of-content quotations as ‘good artists copy, great artists steal, said Picasso’. I was equally stunned by the sentiment of someone’s pro-Rosie image on Flickr called ‘copycat’, where the person emulated one of the offending images of Rosie’s, similarly using handprints on a wall. The person argued against Rosie being plagiaristic and insisted Rosie had put her own spin on the images, and that no-one could possibly patent handprints – which of course was never anyone’s point, Rosie had taken more than the handprint element of the original image, she had replicated the components around it, the standing person with the garment drawn over their face, etc. Although the woman’s ‘copycat’ image was hardly third-level plagiarism, it was strange to encounter her pleasure in copying the handprints to produce what seemed like a self-professed celebration of unoriginality.
It isn’t all too bad. The strong bustle of people who believe that Rosie plagiarised, and that plagiarism is wrong, haven’t been too shortcoming in their involvement in discussions, even on Rosie’s own photostream. Rosie thankfully doesn’t delete all critics’ input, so there’s a mixture of opinion going on. Some have said that the whole debacle has only served to further bolster Rosie’s popularity. However, it’s Rosie’s generally young fanbase who don’t see anything wrong, who are too enamoured by the ARF love story, who are suckered into some kind of American dream conjured up in the works of the transatlantic coupling. These are the people who, I say this in the nicest way, are never going to be Rosie’s clients, and whose opinions therefore, in a professional sense as a photographer wanting to make a living, are important only if you can make a quid from every fluffy comment you get from the Twilight-loving demographic. However, these are people who are might go on to plagiarise other artists in the future – me or you, even, whether in amateur or professional work. Not all ‘artists’ are intelligent and trustworthy enough to know the meaning of plagiarism, I guess there are many who just want to make a living under that title. I learnt a year or two ago of an ‘artist’ in San Francisco who was painting my photos stroke-for-stroke and claiming it to be all her own work. My confrontation of her came as no legal threat but I hopefully brought for her, and the gallery, alot of embarrassment.
One motive in speaking openly about someone else’s saga on my blog is to try and counteract the lax attitude towards plagiarism, that you can take what you want from anyone’s work, physically or conceptually. However, this essay wasn’t supposed to be all about Rosie Hardy, so where does this take me in my rambling? To the topic of Flickr itself. Flickr: a democracy. When I first discovered it, loved it. Upload what you want, when you want. (Of course, if you’ve got your tits out, make sure you slap a content filter onto it. If you get moderated, don’t expect a reply from staff until the next leap year.) What ensued was a love-hate relationship over three years as I started to become more aware of how and why I use it. Recently, started questioning the way I rely on it for self-esteem as an artist. The sight of all those buddy icons, even the ones on my own stream, waving superlatives, glitzy icons. The obsession with getting into ‘Explore’ when it’s full of kittens, sunsets, babies, and another fucking flower. A place accessible by anyone’s old tired clichés, a place where ideas get pilfered like apples off a cart and bounced around like milk bottles on recycling day, and in the case of Rosie Hardy, a place where you should question no-one, unless you want to be told ‘you are Hitler’ (yes, that really happened).
So, where does one go when one is cheesed off with Flickr? Well, there’s a site called Onexposure, that a friend told me about the other day over tea and scones. You sign up for an account, and submit a picture for ‘screening’ before it can appear on the site. So as opposed to free access as on sites like Flickr, on Onexposure you have a set of bespectacled experts on the door. My friend said his intrigue in first discovering the site was actually further sustained by the fact that his first submission had been rejected. On what grounds? Overprocessed. Uh-oh, probably no good for me then, but I checked it out when I got home, and selected a picture from my portfolio to submit. Even though there are categories for ‘Creative Edit’ and ‘Illustrative’, to start with I purposely chose one that wasn’t one of the more heavily-processed images (leaving the clones well alone). I decided to choose ‘Girl dreaming’, which I think is one of my strongest images – popular on Flickr, the frontispiece to my camara oscura exhibition in Madrid, and now framed large on sale in the window of Impure Art in Brighton. Importantly for this purpose, it’s one of my more natural pieces, at least, it doesn’t look as if too much unnecessary processing has been done:
It was rejected!
“Of those who voted against your image, three indicated that there is a problem with editing, three noted story as a weakness, and two selected composition as a reason for not publishing the image.”
“I think the window draws me too much away from the subject. A crop could help. Dreaming?”
“I think it could be better whith [sic] a softer and cooler attitude of your model. Here, she seems to be suffering. It’s a pity, light, composition and treatment are very good…”
I’ll give you “it’s a pity!”
The notion of being rejected was made even sourer on reading the lame feedback, comments that related to people’s own personal taste more than anything. Someone thinks the model should be ‘cooler’. Someone thinks she looks like she’s suffering. Someone doesn’t understand or like the title. Someone thinks it should be cropped.
Maybe I should have put the Balthus shpiel with it, so people had more of an idea what was going on with my intent, and the title.
But I don’t give two turds what these random ‘someones’ think. In the same vein, I don’t upload to Flickr, generally, for constructive feedback, mainly because I don’t want anonymous tutoring (unless I ask for it). If I want to learn, I’ll go to someone I know and can trust, preferably face to face. At the same time, I don’t believe that it’s only people who are artistically ‘qualified’, by profession, degree or otherwise, whose opinion is valid. I do like the fact that on Flickr, indeed all across the net, everyone CAN have a say. Maybe I’m not always comfortable with the fact that everyone DOES have a say! ) Yet this website with its screening process makes me sick. It makes me sick because I look at the pictures already on the site and most of them do nothing for me, but a panel of people assume the right to judge other people’s work and deem it suitable, or not, for others to view. The site admits to favouring less processed images. In the manner of the snobbiest gallery, the attitude that assumes that the processing age began with the Photoshop age, the site demands a particular style, leaning toward the photojournalistic, the dark, brooding, fine wine of photography. The stuff that bores me to tears, basically… my advice to my friend? Go somewhere else, don’t wait for this particular elite to like your work, to see it as their brand of ‘quality’.
I hate being judged. It’s mainly why I didn’t continue Art post A-level. It’s why I’m not massively inclined to enter competitions. It’s why I hated Picture This, with its panel of super-dooper experts. It’s why my passion for photography started when I buggered off behind locked doors and across A-roads to deserted places with a camera to snap pictures completely by myself, of myself. And it’s why I love Flickr, and hence why I wouldn’t want to use a site like Onexposure. I’ll probably submit another picture next week to see how it does, just out of interest. Or maybe not.
The values of a site like Onexposure to me reek of traditional routes into art, of art teachers, at the opposite end of the spectrum from the complete user-control offered by Flickr, but does it have to be so black and white? I’ve certainly noticed that there are different areas within Flickr, as if it were a marketplace with everything from organic cheeses to £1 bags of sweets. People of different types congregate in different areas, within the one vast site. You do have a vestige of control, as the uploading artist, in determining what kind of crowd you maintain, although everyone’s bound to get a troll or two passing by.
I once dropped into a manipulation-debate on Rosie’s stream, with a friendly comment, but one that undermined her audience. I got an email of appreciation from Rosie, but for fellow commenters, my words came like bird poo on a huddled ceremony of Year 7s at a school gate. I spent a good while extracting myself with the aid of some emoticons and gestures of goodwill, breathed a ‘phew’ and reflected interestingly on my own audience. By comparison a lot of them seem somewhat smarter, though I still have my share of sycophants. Another thing that reinforces my belief in the value of the Flickr community is that I have met good friends though the site, some still virtual, some I have had the pleasure of meeting in real life – Lara Jade, Ilina S, Reflecting truth (Katie Lee), and Haggis Chick to name a few. And the Female Self-Portrait Artists’ Group is the best thing since sliced bread.
Maybe I just need to try out a few more photo-sharing sites to discern their differences over one another, to satisfy the part of me that’s uncomfortable with the ego element of Flickr. I have a feeling however that Flickr will remain top of the bookmarks, especially with a cosy figurative treehouse like this blog, branching out from it as a private retreat.
Posted in Essays, musings on March 10th, 2009 | 56 Comments | Tweet This!
11:53 pm on March 10th, 2009
Can I give you two flowers and a smiling kitty for this blog entry? I do really enjoy seeing these posts from you. They speak volumes about your growth. Luckily you don’t ramble on like this all the time, so getting glimpses through time your personal and professional development gets put on exhibition.
Sycophants, copy-cats and snobs will never disappear. They can’t ever be expected to since they are traits of human nature. Well, at least for some of those humans. The same will always be true of ignorance, selfishness and greed. Your post is really more about the philosophy of human nature than you possibly realize. Just as seen through the eyes of a hard-working photographer.
The tasks of the scrupulous of society always follows the same path. Education, conviction and hard work. Standing up for truth and justice and the right way to live in society. [ I was really tempted to leave "and the American way" in there.
]
9:17 am on March 11th, 2009
Sycophants and fans of ‘Twilight’ are inevitable. The first are pathetic. But the second are simply young and at the very start of their learning curve.
My daughter was seventeen when I first started telling people your work is important. Then she found it of no particular interest. Three years later she’s recommending your clones to her contemporaries, probably using her social network presence to do this, too.
Social networking is so incredibly new… the rules of comportment are not yet written. But if you do ever feel obliged to leave Flickr, please let us know so that we can follow your images wherever they lead!
11:16 am on March 11th, 2009
Wow, this was a very compelling read, thank you.
After looking at the links you provided I could not help but be struck how Rosie Hardy’s work was so very ordinary. Not just derivative but fundamentally lacking any ambition in what she chose for “inspiration” then poorly executed as re-imaginings. It was all so depresseigly third rate.
One of the aspects of your photographs that I have enjoyed since discovering your work through Drew Gardner is the ceaseless inventiveness and experimentation.
You may have seen a recent programme on British TV where Rankin tried to re-create some of the influential fashion photography of the Twentieth Century. In every instance the pictures fell well short, not only of the original works but also of his own output.
It was an interesting insight into some great historical images but mostly into how even brilliant photographers do so much better with a blank canvass than a dot-to-dot.
As for flickr vs Onexposure: There too hangs a tale of boundaries and who administers them.
I find that the problem with flickr is that it presents too much that is not interesting rather like looking for “a grain of wheat in a bushel of chaff” (to quote Shakespeare) whereas Onexposure has the opposite problem, the “quality” filter has been set so firmly to COMPETENT that there are actually fewer chances of seeing GREAT images.
flickr may be “wild and woolly” but at least there is some Wild in it. Onexposure is filled with technical excellence and the faint whiff of camera club, visual laziness and insincerity. Even the few really meaningful images are sullied by those that surround them, like finding a James Nachtwey picture in Athena.
Having your picture rejected by them is actually a mark of originality and I think you should take it as a compliment.
2:49 pm on March 11th, 2009
English is not my first language so apologies if I don’t make myself very clear…I’ll try to do my best.
I liked the progression of your essay. At first I thought you were only going to ‘ramble’ about Rosie’s case. I’ve never been an admirer of her work. As Justin says just above me, I’ve always found her work very ordinary, full of clichés and lame concepts poorly and literally interpreted. I hope I don’t sound too rude, but honestly, I’ve always found her lack of ambition and originality linked to the whole ARF forever story really disturbing. Like a mediocre soap opera…
Regardless of my views on her work, I followed the whole scandal with interest, added some silly jokes here and there, and expressed my disapproval towards her behavior…but I knew nothing really was going to happen…that’s the way things work! Not only your comments on the matter but the whole Flickr reaction was ‘like bird poo on a huddled ceremony of Year 7s at a school gate’…
The ‘Twilight’/'Rosie’ fan phenomena is pathetic and perfectly human. Jestem clearly has a great point saying “Your post is really more about the philosophy of human nature than you possibly realize”.
I was happy to see how you directed your words to the whole image sharing site dilemma. At the moment I’m really pissed with Flickr’s absurd censorship policies -just realized that many of my images have been moderated-. I’m also wondering if I should stay there because of the emotional roller-coaster I’ve been experiencing since I strongly rely on it for self-esteem as an artist.
Let me know if you find an interesting site…
xx.
R
6:22 pm on March 11th, 2009
This is by far the best commentary I’ve read on said topics in quite some time. It’s wonderful to discover you express yourself equally well in word as you do in image.
8:31 pm on March 11th, 2009
I couldn’t wish for better comments. There are actually some wonderful minds surfing the internet! Joke – because as everyone knows, only wonderful people come to missaniela.com… (joke)
@ Jestem – Great points, thank you…
I was trying to think of an animalistic term for ’snobs’ to add to the ‘copycats, underdogs, and…’ but all I could think of were hawk eye or… wait, what about ‘cheeky monkeys’? Would that sum up the people at Onexposure?!
@ Malcolm – interesting. What sites does your daughter use, does she share photos?
I have to say though, I watched Twilight the other day, and I really enjoyed it. It would need a whole new essay to talk about why I liked it so much! When my boyfriend said it was a vampire film, I was going to give it a miss because I usually find vampires boring. This film, however, for me, is a vampire film with a twist – without all the obvious ‘this is what a vampire does – he/she bites someone’s neck and then his teeth glisten’ stuff. It was interesting for me to watch a narrative that seemed more to include vampires than be all about them… never going too far to show things explicitly (how the boy yearns for the girl’s blood but only is able to taste it slightly at the end when he sucks out the venom) in the same way that one would prefer an erotic film over a porn film. And of course, we (Matthew and I) found it great to watch a film set in a US location that we toured for 2 weeks last year!
@ Justin – thanks alot for your comment, I’m glad you enjoyed the writing. Not only do I find your views on the debate very stimulating but you also paid me some great compliments, so thanks.
“flickr may be “wild and woolly” but at least there is some Wild in it. Onexposure is filled with technical excellence and the faint whiff of camera club, visual laziness and insincerity.”
Great way to describe them!
@ Rossina
Thanks alot for your comment!
Yes, when you say you wanted to voice disapproval but “knew nothing really was going to happen…that’s the way things work!” I know what you mean, and I have felt that way too. However, although the reaction on Flickr was a little bit like a ‘lynch mob’ at times (thinking of a certain ladies’ group…) I do like the fact that some of them went directly onto Rosie’s stream and made their comments heard, it meant that people did not have to gape with annoyance in private, they could actually contribute, so that each seemingly insignificant opinion would add up to create a wave of antagonism. Maybe some people thought it was part of the public cruelty toward Rosie – I’m sure that if I were Rosie, I’d feel somewhat intimidated – but people with deeper insight would recognise that it was more a stance against plagiarism (particularly all the ‘I Love Harry’ stuff!) And so – this is the reason I decided to sit down yesterday with a cold pack on my back after having my chiropractic adjustment and type all of my feelings out till the cold pack had melted… and of course, interweaving the Onexposure side of it too, another thing that fit into the whole issue of online communities and their behaviour.
As for other sites (assuming – or hoping – you won’t leave Flickr too soon!) have you tried ‘artbreak’?
@ Kurt,
Wow, thank you so much, what a compliment!
9:14 pm on March 11th, 2009
“Cheeky Monkey” is one of my favorites, however I tend to use it as a term of endearment when somebody is particularly witty and clever. Somehow I don’t see that as a description for Onexposure.
I can’t seem to think of a proper animalist term neither.
11:20 pm on March 11th, 2009
I don’t have much on the Rosie thing other than it amazes me that people fail to credit their inspirations. In the same way that people with mobile phones can sit on trains and broadcast the whole carriage their most intimate problems without a care, so the Internet’s anonymity permissions people to dissociate basic human principles like morality and responsibility. Incidents like this have been reported so many times – the use of flickr images in advertising or commerce, piracy of music and film (Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir, one the superstars of Flickr had her images appropriated and sold by someone else). There is a sense of immunity and distance from surfers where common courtesy is not seen to be relevant when inside the web browser – “no-one will notice that this is plagiarized, the Internet is too big”. The trouble is that the Internet is also blessed with intelligent and community-minded souls who do notice and do care and are willing to speak out. @Jestem is right – the themes you write about show many facets of human nature – the positive I take from this is that the community rose up against the injustice.
@Justin is right about the Rankin episode. I loved watching him work, but you can never recreate a perfect moment.
(Re: Twilight. My partner has now read all of the books four times in a short period, the writing addictive and without the over-descriptive ramble so common in modern ‘adult’ literature. Basically, I lost her for a month! I went to see the film with her and genuinely enjoyed it, much to her surprise and mine. At 37, I’m not sure that I fit the Twlight-loving demographic mentioned above!)
5:51 am on March 12th, 2009
Well, I must confess I was one of those who wrote on rosie’s post, and I took the whole thing as something that “just happened”, like it was more of a personal issue rather than this.
Your point of view as a professional photographer/artist is very smart. I can’t do anything but to agree with you.
You left me thinking about this.
Great post.
8:11 am on March 12th, 2009
Thank you so much for this blog post.
I’m an avid Flickr user and follower of both you and Rosie (and her BF) there, but somehow I’m just learning about this whole controversy tonight. I saw her “I’m taking a break photo” but didn’t care to look into her reasons for it further when she posted it.
After reading through some of the threads, viewing the side by side images, and reading this post, I’m extremely frustrated. As someone who *wishes* she had an ounce the same sort of talent both you and Rosie exhibit in photography, I’m disappointed and put off by the whole thing. To think that I looked up to someone who was engaging in such blatant plagiarism and who has yet to truly apologize/make it right (I noticed some images are still on her portfolio site, etc), I’m completely disheartened. It makes me wonder if I really want to continue to grow at photography and try to enter it as something more than a hobby.
Thank you for your detailed analysis of the whole issue – I’m with you 100% on pretty much everything you said. It’s a shame that in this day and age and the exposure the internet can bring you, true artists like yourself run such a risk of being ripped off. Best of luck to you and keep up the wonderful original work. You really stand out from the crowd.
12:27 pm on March 12th, 2009
@ Richard
Thanks for your input.
(though I must admit I have not read Twilight, only seen ‘the film version’…, so I am judging it only by the film!)
@ Zim
Thanks very much, that is just the kind of response I could have hoped for.
@ S
Same for you as above comment to Zim – thanks very much for reading and for making a comment, as this inspires me to believe it can have some use to spend time on a blog post like this, and not to feel like I will be misunderstood as some kind of angry mob member.
Thank you for the kind words too!
However, don’t let this put you off pursuing your own photography! If anything, this episode has made me more determined to try and be as original ‘as possible’ when thinking of new ideas (with RH, the pictures in question were not only unoriginal, but didn’t even try to be original). Going to one’s dreams, or to one’s own life experiences/subconscious, I have found to be the best way to conceive images that might not even be truly original, but lack cliches, and come genuinely from the artist’s soul and heart…. often with a message for others.
———–
In my article I didn’t go into too much detail about the ‘all art is unoriginal’ argument people are making in defense of Rosie’s plagiarism, but I want to just point out a thread on ClubSnap.com in which all of those attitudes appear.
I might post the following on there:
I am exhausted by the misunderstandings. It is not ‘copying’ to take an aspect or component that is in someone else’s picture: a sunset, the snow, a handprint. No-one is trying to imply that a picture of a child by a waterfall should reference all pictures that featured a child and a waterfall, which came before it. It’s the replication of several components, taken directly from an identical composition. It’s not just ‘a person in the snow’, it’s when the entire visual make-up, or blueprint of an image has clearly been duplicated: more than one component, a whole collection of them. Moreoever, when we have ostensible proof that the original work has been viewed by that person (ie. those pics being in Rosie’s DeviantArt favourites, not some obscure images that someone has dug up from bygone times and randomly thrown in her face), it can no longer be attributed to mere coincidence.
I do agree that some of the images are more plagiaristic than others. I would probably rule out the image with the overhead plane, as Rosie has introduced different elements into it. However, it would have been nice to have a reference from her, given that the two are still very similar, and she had obviously admired the image enough to put it into her DA faves.
12:28 pm on March 12th, 2009
On that thread I linked to above:
“whoever said that a winner of a competition had to be original?
“a photograph should be judged on its merit, if originality is part of the equation demanded by the competition, then fine and dandy. otherwise, there is zero issue.”
Aaargh!
5:05 pm on March 12th, 2009
Although I understand your rant, in this digital age its often difficult to be original. I would be ticked if someone was taking my images and not giving me credit for the original, the fact of the matter is not many people in this world have the time or money to fight plagiarism.
Its easier to say that someone took words from a book and copied it, but if someone took the words and changed them with other words… would that be plagiarism… I guess it depends on the person.
I understand your point and its valid, but one can’t copyright a look or how things are placed in a photograph. If someone went and created a image using my actual image I would be upset but if one went to the place i photographed and tried recreating it, I wouldn’t mind.
On your image being rejected… first don’t get upset with that, its not worth it. I once had a image that was very solid in all aspects, but people said the ice was to blue… some wanted me to change the the color of a ice to a natural color… I sent a email to art Wolfe on this matter cause I honestly didn’t know what to think. He said not to let it bother me to just follow your vision. so I did and never looked back.
The site that rejected you probably follows certain rules of composition and light… I say screw them cause from what I see of your work your compositions are solid and very little needs to be changed.
5:06 pm on March 12th, 2009
Very interesting article.
Thank god for Ctrl +
Well written and not too ranty.
Too many points for me to comment on them all….but the Onexposure left me reeling.
Who are these people?!?…are they fools who spead millions of pounds on “Works of Art” most of us sane people laugh at.
“Story as a weakness”…god I feel like hitting someone….mmm…when is Rosie’s boyfriend back in the UK? ;¬b
5:17 pm on March 12th, 2009
I run into this philosophical/professional issue all the time in architecture. So much architecture is built on what happened before. We learn from everything we see. We learn from all the smart and bad decisions that come before. We get inspired by the work of other architects. And there are architectural homages all around us – both intentional and unintentional. And, with any art, trying your hand at copying a master helps one learn multitudes about themselves. Especially a young learner.
There is no shame in me sitting down and trying to copy Renoir’s stokes exactly and trying to create as exact a copy as I can. Similarly, there is no shame in me trying to exactly copy the composition of a Saudek photograph and duplicate his coloration and textures. Assuming that I am trying to learn technique. Trying to enhance my skill by “seeing what the master sees”. Or even if I am just playing for fun or to have a piece of art to hang on my wall. Heck, I could even sell my knockoffs because people actually enjoy buying replicas.
But all of this is acceptable because I never claim to be the originator. If I were to replicate “Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette”, and postured by, explicitly or implicitly, claiming it was my composition, my original idea, a very stark line has been crossed. Even more so if I attempted to make money. Of course, nobody would believe me
but that’s only because of the subject matter. If I chose some unknown Bulgarian artist, I might not get caught for awhile.
7:46 pm on March 12th, 2009
Thanks for pointing me to this, N. I would have found it in due course, since I visit your blog regularly, but not necessarily today.
Well, you know well enough that I’m bamboozled by the reaction (or rather lack of one) to RH’s straightforward confession and very ambivalent making amends. And it’s _not_ only her “generally young fanbase” who seem unfazed – it’s also more established flickr-photographers.
I was bamboozled myself ahead of the confession, too willing to give RH the benefit of the doubt – and though I agree by and large with Rossina’s assessment of the work on her stream I did think it showed an admirable industry and level of technical competence for a 17 yr old (I now wonder how much of a hand the American boyfriend has had in ‘finishing’ RH’s ‘work’). But once she announced she’d removed ‘copies’ from her stream I thought it would be all over for her on flickr for quite a considerable period of time. Months rather than days.
I’ve been on Flickr nearly four years and still _love_ it. But perhaps that’s because I only get a modest number of views and comments, nearly all from regularly appreciative contacts and friends.
I’d hate a site that was solely for ‘art’ photos, or moderated in the manner you describe.
I do like the fact that there are all types, ages and tastes of photographer on Flickr, and although my achukapick collections favour a particular style and mood of photography, I comment on many many different types of photo and different streams.
10:54 pm on March 12th, 2009
I broadly agree with your feelings vis a vis Rosie Hardy.
I was never a massive fan of her pictures – I can live without layers of texture thank you very much – but I did used to think she was quite a creative person. To find out she’d effectively stolen all her ideas was a nasty surprise. There was one image which featured some interesting text on her body. I originally credited her with the words and the idea of “tattooing” them on to herself. It turned out that she’d stolen the words AND the concept from one photo! As you’ve said, it’s perfectly acceptable to be inspired by other people’s work (even Picasso did “versions” of Velasquez, which he credited in the titles) but it is NOT OK to upload images that are “cover versions” in which the original author is not credited.
It’s illuminating to find that during her time “away” form Flickr, Rosie’s discovered the “manual” function on her camera. Maybe she’ll actually learn how to use it instead of just compositing someone else’s work on to hers.
Your rant about that “other” photo website just sounds like sour grapes to me. I wonder WHY you (and Rossina) need people on websites to massage your ego by telling you how great your stuff is. A true artist doesn’t create work to please other people. They do it solely from themselves. As soon as you place the “market” before your own creative needs/desires, you’ve sold out. Rosie Hardy uploads stuff (with her face “improved”) in order to get “love” from her Team ARF fans. You shouldn’t do things to please flickrites or the Onexposure people. If you create truly original work that pleases YOU, you’ll get INVITED to join particular websites/galleries. That’s what happened in regards to El Pais and Microsoft, isn’t it? Don’t prostitute yourself and your work.
“You should never go to them. Let them come to you”.
The “urbex” shot with the blue nightie is a good one, by the way.
11:31 pm on March 12th, 2009
Arty, I must admit I was highly surprised to hear Rossina (for whom I have the very highest regard) say “I strongly rely on [Flickr] for self-esteem as an artist.”
I’m not entirely sure she meant it as directly as it’s stated here.
[After all, she appended her comment with "English is not my first language so apologies if I don’t make myself very clear…I’ll try to do my best."]
I kind of hope she didn’t, because I broadly agree with you when you say, “A true artist doesn’t create work to please other people. They do it solely from themselves.”
Your next sentence: “As soon as you place the “market” before your own creative needs/desires, you’ve sold out…” presents rather than dismisses the dilemma creative people are placed in.
Of _course_ they have to pay regard to the market, unless they are only interested in posthumous glory, which, to my mind, is a pretty warped ambition.
11:31 pm on March 12th, 2009
Thanks Miss Aniela for giving a coherent analysis of the topic (and thanks Michael for linking to this from your stream). I’m still bothered by it, and in fact I’m going out for dinner with a friend tonight who wants to talk to me about it after reading about the issue on Quizz’s stream.
I didn’t realize Rosie had come back as if nothing had happened, with work still not credited/removed. I’m also confused by Harry’s motivation for posting on his blog that this was all a publicity stunt to sell more photos. It clearly isn’t, so why bother stating that? Some visitors to his blog might read that statement and ignore the whole issue, thinking that it indeed was a stunt.
It became very irritating to read Rosie’s defenders try to compare her transgressions to that of photographing a sunset or a baby. Couldn’t believe the lack of thought or analysis of the issues. It just shows that there is not enough critical thinking taught in school these days.
As for the flickr vs onexposure vs other sharing sites, I too have thought about their usefulness for getting feedback. Do I want a lot of praise, or do I want criticism? Is one better than the other? Is constructive criticism useful when the commentator has a totally different taste than I do? Art is so subjective, so is there a right or wrong point of view?
Everyone has different reasons for coming on flickr and sharing their work. It’s interesting how some people use it for “self-esteem”. More often than not I’m surprised at how talented and beautiful most of these artists are, and yet they still need to feel better about themselves and their work, and look to anonymous souls on the internet for that boost. After all, who can put a price on feeling good about oneself? I guess maybe $150/hour is the going rate these days to undo the damage done by overly critical people. Flickr is a bargain at $25/year
I’ve also noticed that some people need to give their critical opinion, even unrequested, because “this is the internet and everyone is entitled to give their opinion”. The more popular the artist in the community is, the more they feel like they have a right to express their opinion, even if it contradicts what the artist thinks or the large group of admirers thinks.
So it seems like the two groups of people get secluded into different camps/communities. One where people come to feel good about themselves and their work, and one for people who come to learn something at the risk of getting bad critiques from strangers who have completely different tastes or backgrounds.
Neither community is a true measure of talent, nor a sign of future potential artistic/financial success. One can be on flickr and receive thousands of “beautiful” comments, and make pennies because fans don’t translate to paying jobs or sold photos/books (although I’m glad to see that in your case, Natalie, this is not the case. And one can be accepted into a community of more discerning critics and still not make it anywhere because the critics are probably only interested in pimping their own works.
In the end a mix of both uses is ideal, and I find that flickr being such a large community, with people of all backgrounds and talents, is the best for reaching out to both types of people, and why I’m still there and haven’t gone back to photo.net.
oops…sorry for wasting so much space
12:31 am on March 13th, 2009
“I hate being judged.”
Thank you. I’m relatively new to all this, but have gotten the impression that if I don’t post, and don’t submit to contests and all the rest, that I’m not really into it. I’ve got some microstock out there, have learned from my rejects, and generally seem to be getting along without the advice of strangers with invisible backgrounds. I have feared that I would either have to be bullet proof or a masochist to get anywhere, but perhaps, being neither, that is not the case.
I realize that this was not the heart of your post, but its the part that spoke to me.
S.
12:41 am on March 13th, 2009
S.Kuss, the thing about stock is that they normally take what sells not what is considered great. I once gave my stock site link to a friend and she was surprised not to see my best images but others that she never seen before. I posted some images to another stock site and all of them were rejected, I thought they would be cause alot of the images on the site were not wall hangers. You don’t have to become bullet proof or have a ego to become a photographer when you show your images show confidence in what you produce and they will follow. Rejection is part of it all, don’t let that change what you shoot or how you shoot it.
11:55 am on March 13th, 2009
Thanks @ Achuka and Tym for your comments.
@ Tym
It’s very interesting to analyse different motives for sharing one’s work online, it certainly feels as if we are discussing new grounds.
@ S.Kuss
Maybe the line ‘I hate being judged’ was misleading in a way, because even in uploading my pictures to Flickr, the images are ‘judged’ in the sense that some will get more views and comments than others, and sometimes it will surprise me which ones people like more than others. Not so much in the sense of ‘rejection’ but a journey of discovery nonetheless.
However, the difference between submitting one’s work to a competition/a site like Onexposure, and submitting it to a stock site, is that the stock site are looking for, as Markos says, something that sells. They are looking for appropriate products for their shop. I have not used a stock site, but I have been approached by two, who each gave me a list of images from my work that they would be interested in (being different from the act of submitting one’s pics, and therefore avoid me having to feel like anything was ‘rejected’ – instead they were pitching their services to me). If I were to approach one though, and they rejected all or part of my work, I would not feel as if some artistic judgement was placed upon my work in the manner of a judging panel, I would just assume my work was not a suitable product for their particular arena of business. With sites like Onexposure however, the judgement determines whether your work is good enough only to be seen. I know they want to operate in their own way, which is completely up to them, being their site – and I accept that (but of course we’re all free to comment on their approach).
It is not that I am against any form of ‘judgement’ – it’s impossible to avoid that as an artist unless you lock your works away and never show them to anyone.
However, in context with what I was saying in my article, where ‘I hate being judged’ appears, it comes in direct reference to the Onexposure site, and to competitions. It was meant to refer to when the so-called ‘expert’ opinion of an ostensible judging panel is applied to one’s work in order to gauge whether it’s good enough to go onto the next stage of the process – the competition or website, etc. My remark alluded to what I said in my Picture This blog article, of the often biased nature of a judge where they seem to make decisions based too strongly on their personal taste, and that they choose to conveniently accept or reject diversity in art whenever it can appeal to their own interests.
However, I trusted that readers would pick up on the jokingly self-indulgent taint to the blunt statement. It’s not like I could never handle rejection and therefore will never dare to enter a competition. However, most of my photography career so far (I emphasise ’so far’) has been based on getting things offered to me, from people who do like my work, and generally (not always) those who haven’t had to be coerced or convinced. I haven’t done a degree in Art or Photography where my work was marked to certain criteria. I haven’t won any competitions or got past any formal panels as such. As I said in the article, those things don’t appeal to me as much as just doing what I want and putting it out there on a more informal basis.
@ Arty –
The above would satisfy your advice to ‘let them come to me’. However, I don’t expect all of my career to be handed to me on a plate, in a way that seems more ‘indirectly’ rewarding from the work I do put in. I am finding an interesting binary opposition in the scene of art/photography of (a) working hard and pleasing other people (b) doing what I want and letting people think what they want. I don’t think I am convinced that either by itself is the way to go.
It may be that “a true artist doesn’t create work to please other people… They do it solely from themselves” but it is difficult to make a solid living from this, unless we just create the art we want, sell as fine art prints and hope to become so notorious as to sell them for 1000s or even millions… but meanwhile there has to be some sense of considering the “market” – not necessarily placing them before our creativity, but definitely bearing factors in mind that might mean I create something that does not just have the sole purpose of “pleasing ME”. I suppose it’s the difference between traditional ‘art’ and the scene of the photography industry – getting your personal work in galleries, versus fulfilling services as a ‘photographer’ (I am doing both at the moment, and stuff in between – no idea which direction I’m heading in, no idea if I HAVE to pick one).
There are other people besides yourself encouraging me to have a bit more of an ego as an ‘artist’ – as in, create my art, and aim for jobs that allow me to be as artistic as possible (don’t do other people’s donkey work, go straight to the top etc) but realistically, people like me do need to make a living right now, we have rent to be paid that won’t wait until our reputation is at a certain level. So, even doing so much as submitting our work to another site, whether it’s “prostitution” or just trying to promote our livelihood a little bit, is necessary.
Thanks for all your comments!
3:28 pm on March 13th, 2009
Miss A. I like very much your style of writing – smart and flowing. There was enough said in the female support group even though I noticed you didnt participate there as much as in other flickr threads on the topic.
For me what happened in the group was worse than the plagiarism issue. And the group was also one of the best things that happened to me on flickr. So I still have a little bit of a bitter taste from it…
Plagiarism is sure a serious issue. But making someone an example of it is really lacking grace. Recently one famous woman on flickr copied quite straight one of my images (right down to the props). I didnt feel good about it. But I wont even bother to write her an email. So I let everyone to their concious concerning their own creativity and the merit of their work. There for me in life are things much worse than plagiarism. Being the cause of anybody’s grief is worse to me. I dislike the pressure imposed by a crowd in order to put a deviating individual back in line. And with this of course I don’t mean an individual who is doing criminal things (as I still do believe plagiarism is not a real crime or at least not such that will result in punishment with prison). And even if it does – its the law that should deal with it and find Rosie guilty or not. Its the artists she copied that have any right to seek compensation.
Back to the group – its one thing people to make an image inspired with agenda against plagiarism and its another thing to set it up against a particular person.
I still respect your opinion and I love this photo with the blue dress. Hope you are not angry with me for writing here again.
10:43 pm on March 13th, 2009
@ Sabina
Thanks for your comment!
There may have been ‘enough’ discussion in the FSPASG, but although the group has over 1500 members, it’s still a space confined to a certain few. I wished to draw attention to this issue on my blog, and whilst plagiarism is not the worst crime in the world, it’s something that I believe it is relatively important to act against as an artist. Unfortunately RH has become the case study in all of this, but we make sense of life from case studies, and I would not have chosen to talk about her had she sorted the matter out in the way that was expected.
The way I see it, plagiarism IS our problem – exactly because Rosie’s very viewers might go on to plagiarise you or I one day; symbolically it is important for me to take a stance against this kind of treatment of artists’ work. Some people may choose to leave it ignored but I do not… as much as picking out recyclable goods from someone’s rubbish won’t make much impact on the nation’s landfill problem, but I contribute because I can, and because if I set a good example it might slowly make a bigger difference…
As much as RH is a human being I still think she has an internet ‘veneer’ to safely hide behind like everyone else here.
4:34 am on March 14th, 2009
Thanks, Miss Aniela for the essay. I too learned about the RH issues from Quizz’s stream link (“I love you Harry”) but by the time I’d finished reading the discussion at Flickr central the string had just been closed down by admin.
Damn… I thought to myself, just when I’ve got my juices going and ready to write! As you’ve already noted – several Flickr respondents (ARF’s included) seemed to miss the point regarding plagiarism. You defined it best here in your blog, “…it’s the replication of several components, taken directly from an identical composition… it’s when the entire visual make-up, or blueprint of an image has clearly been duplicated”. Given that context, it’s more like theft than mere copying. Furthermore, they seemed to forget that RH had been known to sell “her” photographic work.
It bothers me when people take something that isn’t their’s and sells or claims it as their own. That is deemed theft in any culture, and that is why we need enforcement of copyright protection. Anyone who sells a photo (for example), misrepresenting it as their own original work when it clearly has been replicated from someone else, is also committing fraud.
If caught, not only is the original artist eligible to seek compensation, but also the gallery, and the final purchaser of the art. Hypothetically speaking of course. So, in such an example it IS a criminal act, but the root of the problem is that people are overlooking or even ignoring that: ethically, and morally it is wrong.
I should add that, there will always be examples borrowed ideas – in which the influence(s) SHOULD be accredited or recognized. That is what the spirit of productive collaboration can be.
Copyright infringement is merely our terminology to encompass plagiarism, but it has become one of the largest socio-commercial problems of this modern era. As visual artists, as consumers, as citizens, we need more eyes to report the occurrences. We also need more public education to reinforce the concepts of right & wrong.
Thanks again for your time!
4:34 am on March 14th, 2009
Thanks, Miss Aniela for the essay. I too learned about the RH issues from Quizz’s stream link (“I love you Harry”) but by the time I’d finished reading the discussion at Flickr central the string had just been closed down by admin.
Damn… I thought to myself, just when I’ve got my juices going and ready to write! As you’ve already noted – several Flickr respondents (ARF’s included) seemed to miss the point regarding plagiarism. You defined it best here in your blog, “…it’s the replication of several components, taken directly from an identical composition… it’s when the entire visual make-up, or blueprint of an image has clearly been duplicated”. Given that context, it’s more like theft than mere copying. Furthermore, they seemed to forget that RH had been known to sell “her” photographic work.
It bothers me when people take something that isn’t their’s and sells or claims it as their own. That is deemed theft in any culture, and that is why we need enforcement of copyright protection. Anyone who sells a photo (for example), misrepresenting it as their own original work when it clearly has been replicated from someone else, is also committing fraud.
If caught, not only is the original artist eligible to seek compensation, but also the gallery, and the final purchaser of the art. Hypothetically speaking of course. So, in such an example it IS a criminal act, but the root of the problem is that people are overlooking or even ignoring that: ethically, and morally it is wrong.
I should add that, there will always be examples borrowed ideas – in which the influence(s) SHOULD be accredited or recognized. That is what the spirit of productive collaboration can be.
Copyright infringement is merely our terminology to encompass plagiarism, but it has become one of the largest socio-commercial problems of this modern era. As visual artists, as consumers, as citizens, we need more eyes to report the occurrences. We also need more public education to reinforce the concepts of right & wrong.
Thanks again for your time!
8:58 am on March 14th, 2009
@Arty:
I honestly don’t understand why you are saying that I need people on websites to massage my ego by telling me how great my stuff is. I think you’re over inducing things I didn’t say at all (nor Miss Aniela).
How do you imply from my comment that I’m only interested in placing the “market” before my own creative needs/desires, and prostitute myself and my work?
I don’t think I have to explain the sentence “I strongly rely on [Flickr] for self-esteem as an artist.” that surprised Achuka and I suppose gave you the motif to say what you said. I’ve been very honest on my stream, sharing with you and other Flickerites my doubts about my own work; I invited you to join the project Dialogue With the Radio which encourages people to give critical feedback and not just praise my ego. And I just posted an image of a semi-naked girl with a mustache that -as I knew it was bound to happen- many considered a slap in the face or a nightmare…that certainly wasn’t putting people’s taste before my own creativity…
More over, I very much agree with Miss. A when she says: “I don’t think I am convinced that either -(a) working hard and pleasing other people (b) doing what I want and letting people think what they want- by itself is the way to go.”
Doing artwork for only myself is something I consider overly idealistic…it would only work if I were, for example, a waitress who does artsy stuff on Sundays as a hobby. No…I’m trying to make a living of my work. So there has to be some sense of considering the “market”…in other words, if no body likes what I do, I’m screwed. Besides, doing my artwork takes hell of an effort and hey! I want people to see it an appreciate it!! Luckily I’ve found some people who like it…I of course don’t have Rosie’s huge fan base and I certainly don’t expect such thing, since I’m not just doing things for people to love me. I’m just promoting my work.
12:23 pm on March 14th, 2009
very well said, Rossina
3:55 pm on March 15th, 2009
Firstly, this has been an excellent debate that’s forced me to question (if not necessarily change) some of my own views.
I’m sorry that Rossina in particular has taken some of my comments in a way that was not intended. I’m a huge fan of her work precisely because it doesn’t place the mass-market first.
I understand perfectly that some of you want to make money from your photographic talents. That’s fine and I wish you luck in doing so. The subtle point hidden in this ramble is that you WILL make money (and achieve fame or infamy) by coming up with original ideas if they touch a nerve with the people in power.
If you want to shoot stock photos of animals and plants, by all means go ahead, but that would be just as tough a way of making a living as being accepted in artistic circles, since there is so much competition and the licensing pays a pittance. Anyone who thinks a popular stream on flickr will automatically lead to riches is living in cloud-cuckoo land, but you can be commissioned to do mass-market work (e.g. Toyota adverts, book covers, record sleeves, Heat magazine retouching etc) by staying true to your artistic sensibilities in your “free time”.
People like Miss Aniela, Rebekka, Vanessa Ho, Joanne (Haggis), Bogna and MadeinSheffield have been head-hunted for commercial work not by aiming to please the mass market, but by creating art.
It’s my firm belief that if they started trying to be commercial, they would lose their artistic edge. Today’s fine art is tomorrow’s commercial art. Be the starter of a trend, not a follower of fashion!
While it’s true that many photographers (and artists as a whole) are only revered after they have died, a good many have made an excellent living while straddling the art/commerce divide. You don’t have to stay on one particular side of the fence. It’s up to each individual to find their own happy medium. I’ll congratulate anyone that makes interesting images no matter who they are aimed at.
12:37 am on March 17th, 2009
At first I was being more understanding of how someone so young could make the mistake that Rosie H did. As disapproving as I was of her actions, my feeling quite contrasted with the outright hatred and cruelty that came from so many people on FSPASG and FlickrCentral. All of a sudden the threads were full of conspiracy theories and bullying remarks, and for a whole week while Rosie had stopped posting, hardly anyone else posted anything either… people were too busy with the refresh button on the threads!
I too was a bit turned off by Rosie’s “apology”. But I was also turned off by people’s over-the-top involvement.
The funny thing is that none of the copies Rosie created were as good as the originals. People who plagiarize hurt mostly themselves and they put a ceiling on their own progress. Sooner or later it backfires and stains their reputation as an artist, but first and foremost it reveals some severe stains on their own self-esteem and self-perception.
Plagiarizing is an infinitely silly thing to do to yourself and in the long-term it’s a punishment enough on its own… Rosie H will not get rich from selling $1 prints to some random “Twilight” fans, neither will she ever start working with big brands by presenting herself with inauthentic work.
So, while I love reading anything you write Nat, because I just love your writing style
I really think that plagiarism always basically takes care of itself… sooner or later.
Now I am quite a bit more interested in the topic of people judging someone’s artwork!
Personally, I have reached this conclusion… There are commercial photography rules, and there are art photography rules. All of them are nothing but snobbery. HEART is the only way artwork can be judged. And anyone is qualified to judge art because everyone has a HEART. Every person knows when something touches them emotionally.
Well, except those unfortunate few who call themselves Pros, and are suffering from Professional Distortion
These poor people have too many rigid technical rules getting in the way of perceiving an emotion or a message from the artist.
For this reason, I think non-professionals are much better suited to judging art. They will respond intuitively to the “heart” of the photo instead of critically, to its characteristics.
I think this is why Flickr is so important in our moment of time. Unprecedented, it gives voice to the PEOPLE, the ones who appreciate visual art but are not mind-twisted by too much art education.
There is only one rule to classify real art away from mindless commercial work or stuffy self-important art-gallery type of work, and that is its emotional and mental contribution to a viewer’s experience of life.
8:17 pm on March 17th, 2009
Thank you for laying this all out… I had no idea the Rosie Hardy issue went so deep. I was a big fan of her photo manipulation and what I thought were her concepts, and was surprised when those originals started springing up. I didn’t know at the time most of her work was like that.
One thing that confuses me about the plagiarism blog is the most recent entry with the text “This was a marketing strategy to create more buzz around Rosie Hardy. We created the fictional character HarryNY too boost Rosie’s popularity.” So was this a scam on top of a scam?
9:40 pm on March 17th, 2009
@ Arty – I agree! Thanks for the follow-up comment.
@ Ilina – thanks for your input. I sincerely hope that plagiarism can sort itself out, as you say.
I like your thoughts on the art judgement issue. I think in the same vein it would be a better idea for judging panels to not be made up entirely of ‘experts’ as such but a range of creatives… or voted for by members of the public (as I guess alot of online competitions are – like JPG magazine!)
@ Tanya – I am confused about that too! Though I’m appreciative that this ‘Harry’ character came online with the necessary info, I think he went too far, by starting accusations that ARF were fake. Now, with the weird comment about everything being a ‘marketing strategy’, he doesn’t make sense to me at all. I expect it’s a way to aggravate people and turn them against Rosie and Aaron, which just further undermines the whole thing. As a result I have tried to ignore the Harry character completely and just focus on the facts.
10:58 pm on March 17th, 2009
Onexposure… Oh what to say regarding this one. I was there in the beginning, it was nice… didn’t really have any issues with uploading my NUDES and all my nudes were always accepted and published. But, since there are more people there now, NUDES get attacked and rejected one by one. I shoot nudes.
One of the comments I received on an image there, a solarized Polaroid with no edits in photoshop, all work was done on the negative and printed as such… they also said they didn’t like the “heavy editing” when I had done NO editing at all. I tried explaining this once the photo was published (it wasn’t rejected) and was accused of bashing digital photography! ha!
They open this critique thing and rejection of images to anyone who is a member of the website, and let’s face it, not everyone knows about photography.
I think your image is beautiful. Ignore the small… be tall!
Zoe Wiseman
5:21 am on March 18th, 2009
I’m really happy to see you post about this. Before all of this came about, I would look at Rosie’s pictures close to daily and think “holy crap this girl has the most creativity ever.” I was SO jealous, I would actually go to school [photography student] and show people in my classes her work. [I've done this with yours as well
] So, I was very disappointed to hear that the ideas weren’t originally hers for some of my favorite photos. I was happy to see someone like you, a “famous flickrite” for a lack of better words, touch on this subject. I think all of those little Twilight teenyboppers need to have a look at this. And I’m just waiting for this Harry character to come back and do it all again. Seems like he/she loved that attention.
7:16 am on March 18th, 2009
Photography and plagiarism. Take a walk down your local Wal-Mart or other grocery and for every single food item you will see the “off-brand” copies. Many go so far as to say such as compare to X.
Photography is a very REPEATABLE artistic craft that should just own up to its non-unique nature.
9:33 pm on March 19th, 2009
There isn’t much I can say that hasn’t already been said regarding the plagiarism, as I entirely agree with what Miss Aniela has posted.
I would like to point out, however, that there are a lot of young Flickr photographers like myself that don’t think the sun shines out of Miss Hardy’s behind. In fact, i recently discussed with people in my class at college about the fact that Rosie seems to have decided to apparently ignore a lot of the comments she’s been getting on this issue(or apparently delete them?). I do have a few of her photos in my favourites, and I do absolutely love Twilight (both film and books!), but I just wanted to make sure everyone realised that these traits do not immediatly make us (us being the younger generation of Flickr users) obsessed with ARF, or obsessed with using “<3s” on empty comments to their photos to illustrate our undying love for them. I realise that people writing here probably weren’t intentionally making a sweeping generalisation, but i thought i would write this anyway.
I was wondering whether any of the ‘victims’ of the plagiarism in this particular situation have taken any action of their own? They seem to have a huge ammount of people defending them, but have they made a comment?
10:03 pm on March 19th, 2009
I was so glad to see your blog and your write up on the whole Rosie Hardy situation. I personally needed to read some kind of conclusion to it, from a like minded source!
I was just amazed at the whole RH saga – I found her stream interesting from the perspective of her age but always found it hard to figure how her style changed so fast, and still think her partner must have helped her processing a lot. I liked and favourited a few of her images, and commented on some along the way. When the cat was out of the bag however, I was totally stunned at the gall of Rosie; to have been so brazen, cold and heartless in her forgery – and then her arrogant, self interested and vain apology. She seems so heartless for such a young ‘artist’ that I have doubted she even exists as a person, as she seems to have no feelings for other people or for the ownership of their work. As you say Miss A, Rosie still has the sometimes almost mirror images of other artists in her stream – surely she should comment on this, and address the issue properly. It makes me wonder who she is trying to impress, and who she thinks her audience is; as surely anyone who views her from a professional standpoint could not possibly take her seriously after her theft and continued theft (in still having the copied works on her stream, and still selling them on another site). Her stream is now full of sycophantic commentators – which again makes me wonder, as now she has posted her newest image with a request that we help her and Aaron with their new found ‘worthy cause’ – by voting for them to win $50k to follow their dream assignment of photographing images of water misuse (across the world, no less). Never heard of this before from either of them as being something they were interested in. Yet seemingly overnight, they are championing it, for a $50k prize to help them travel the world photographing it.
Now the hundreds of people who regularly comment on RH’s stream are being asked by her to vote for ARF in such a cynical and blatant way that I am again stunned that people can be so sheep like in their following. I am sorry but I think Rosie is a user, and a totally self absorbed one at that.
3:57 pm on March 20th, 2009
An excellently written and very informative post.
Onexposure and sites like it. I have only one rule as far as my art goes and that is don’t tell me what to do. Oh I have no problem with people offering suggestion’s that they feel would help improve one of my images or even a bunch of them. Hell I don’t even have an issue with people telling me that my work sucks and I’m a no talent hack. What I have problem with is people who think their way is the only way.
Mike
3:45 am on March 21st, 2009
Thank you so much for writing this here. I, like you, was a huge fan of Rosie’s work – in fact, I still am generally a fan of the work that is actually hers (the fairy tale series, for example). I don’t think that I’ve read anything as insightful or to the point as your post here. All of the streams that I’ve read regarding this “Rosiegate” (as I saw somewhere) seemed to be just one-off statements calling her either a “poor girl” or a devil so it’s refreshing to read about what it really means in a coherent way. I think what you are saying about Rosie’s behavior and the consequences to our profession are so important and it’s something that hasn’t really been discussed. Yes, she is young but she is old enough to know better. Being online with our work is a necessity but it’s always a thought in the back of my mind that someone will rip-off my work or take it and use it without asking (this happened to me and it is not fun to deal with).
I will not address every point you make bc I sincerely agree with all of it and if I did I’d be leaving you a comment as long as your post. But, in general, the bottom line is that at 18 I think we all knew that being dishonest (to put it mildly) is wrong. You have so much exposure and it’s wonderful that you use it not to “rant” as you say
but to bring these relevant issues up and make them known to people in a thoughtful way.
I am a huge fan of your art and your writing. Oh, and I too think that the FSPASG is the greatest thing since sliced bread:) Can’t wait for our second book to come out!
5:52 pm on March 21st, 2009
@ Zoe – Yes, my post implied that Onexposure only judges with a panel of experts – but as you say, anyone who is a member can critique people’s photos. It makes the unanimous decisions to reject certain pictures more interesting, and more of an exploration of the behaviour of different ‘online communities’…
@ Shellie
Thanks for your comment!
@ Curtis
Yes, there will always be copies of everything that has proved to have a successful formula.
I’m not sure I agree that there is something intrinsically ‘repeatable’ in the craft of photography, that would necessarily condone acts of plagiarism, or at least, to explain why some people don’t even try to be original.
@ Ellie
Absolutely! I do see a variety of commenters in RH’s comment streams, but when I was writing the article, my mind was focused on certain young people whose pro-Rosie words on Flickr rang out in my mind. Thanks for your comment, proving as Chessa says above, that people of Rosie’s generation may be young but they are ‘old enough to know better’. Age was just one factor to help simplify a much more complex analysis of online communities, I guess (and like I said earlier, I thoroughly enjoyed the Twilight film, heh.)
I have no idea if the plagiarised artists have been involved in any way. It must be possible to ask them through DeviantArt…
@ Fallen Light
Whilst I have remained extremely wary of the more elaborate, and often malicious, claims of ARF being fake or having help with their processing from each other (or even from a ‘team’ of photographers!) I do understand your confusion or exasperation with RH’s ‘heartlessness’, leading you to doubt her integrity.
I completely agree with you on your point that “it makes me wonder who she is trying to impress, and who she thinks her audience is; as surely anyone who views her from a professional standpoint could not possibly take her seriously after her theft and continued theft”. RH clearly has ambitions and goals for her future, and yet channels her thoughts and hopes solely toward an audience who won’t have any direct bearing on her professional career, seeming not to care, at least for the moment, about the reality outside.
It also bothers me that she she focuses on the comments by the ‘haters’, and how she can be a ‘better person’, as if missing the point completely. The only points valid enough for her to regard are those with concerned with her actions, not the more childish comments or accusations about her person/self.
However, if I am purporting that this discussion is about plagiarism and not about the person Rosie, I would add the comment that this is an interesting dimension to the whole online photo-sharing world: of people (myself included) sometimes confining ourselves to a site like Flickr, within a comfort zone that is healthy to step out from more regularly.
Also, the Name Your Dream Assignment competition – I too am dazed by ARF’s forward nature in asking for people’s support to help them win – I guess for their audience it it fits perfectly into their perceived American-Dream-ideal in ARF, of love solving all of the world’s troubles…
@ Mike Cary
yes I agree completely, great way to sum it up.
@ Chessa
No words in reply, your comment says it all! Thanks x
1:36 am on March 22nd, 2009
The Meaning Behind Integrity in the Arts
Prologue:
In Fine Art there exists a pact between artist and audience. This pact is really a “public trust” that the artist is presenting art that is completely integrity based and authentic to his or her audience.
This agreement or bond is silent as it is based on good faith and it is always there or omnipresent. This trust comes with an agreement that the audience will believe in no certain or definable terms that what they are witnessing is authentic. There’s an old saying that you probably heard before and it goes like this, “I will believe and trust you in all that you do and say, but on the condition that you don’t break that trust”
When somebody blatantly breaks this public trust without giving due credit to the originator there can be huge consequences to pay. Cataclysmic, disastrous and irreparable ruin are words that can describe it, but even those words can’t do justice to the blatant actions of theft and stealing (I won’t use plagiarism because that word sounds hollow to me).
The old adage applies here: Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. When we know and feel we’ve been swindled, deceived, and conned there can become bitterness or unpleasant feelings that will arise. Some people may feel anger and resentment … other’s may feel let down or disappointed and who knows … others may feel heartbroken … while other may feel repulsiveness … and others will question that person’s value system and never believe in their sincerity.
The bottom line is that the “faith” and “belief” in Rosie Hardy’s word has been torn asunder and that is what everyone will remember.
The Big Messy Problem:
“What a big huge web we weave when we practice to deceive”.
I had found her work through a photo that Elle Moss had made and where she mentioned Rosie Hardy as her inspiration for the photo (it’s kind of a symbolic irony and when I see the mention of her credit on the posting by Elle I can only laugh at it).
The discovery I made when visiting her photostream for the first time was that this person had an incredible imagination and boundless creativity. Rosie also had a huge fan base as there were many visitors and many comments found on her photostream. Not many people on Flickr get this much attention.
What happened on February 22nd, 2009 was a shock to me when I read that the Flickr member known as Rosie Hardy had pulled off a major scam and crime on the Arts Community. Rosie’s, “word”, “bond”, integrity, and character were destroyed when she was “found out”.
Rosie Hardy had become in a single moment a FRAUD.
Suspicion entered where integrity exits.
This is one of the worst things that can happen to any human being (especially one that is involved in the Arts Community where trust is a must and your word and integrity speak volumes).
There was intense coverage on this story when it broke out. I won’t get into the commentaries and opinions expressed, but I will talk about her adoring fans who defended her actions on a posting she made on February 23rd 2009. Based on what her adoring fans usually write (usually one simple word of 4 letters or less … or a smiley face) it’s easy to say that most of these people are kids probably between the ages of 13 to 15 years of age.
Her adoring fans did not feel any remorse or contrition to what she did. In fact, they acted and behaved as “enablers” and said it wasn’t a crime of what she did and “it’s okay” and “don’t feel too bad” and on and on. All of these non-contemptuous ramblings they made were after they read her guilt message and confession … it really makes me wonder if they actually have a conscience or are these people unconscious.
I would really love to see if her adoring fans would have a change of heart if someday they personally invented something that could cure cancer or make cars operate on electricity … only to have Rosie Hardy come from out of nowhere in the middle of the night to steal their ideas and make a fortune off of them and be honoured for her act. Would they have the same sentiments towards her? I don’t think so.
It’s important to note that Rosie is making money on these prints. On her website, for example, you can purchase her inauthentic and fraudulent work. This is not an amateur here. If she was an amateur her actions could be more forgivable and I could make some sense out of something that makes no sense.
The Importance of Being Rosie:
There was something very revealing about her confession on the photo she titled, “Rock Bottom” (on a side note I must confess that this photo was actually a good one—I actually “faved” it, but not for it’s artistic merit…i “faved” it to make it a “bookmark” for something I can read again because there were some very well written and deep intelligent thoughts shared).
There was something in her writing—her confession–that revealed and spoke to me about what kind of person she just might be (although I have never met her and she just might be a very good person who made a very bad mistake).
I found it quite interesting that she would all of a sudden shift the focus on her confession to herself by saying stuff like, “I’m going to take up swimming, gymming and having fun in the “real world” some more.”
Hmmm. I never heard a public apology going quite like this in this particular direction…
… And then some strange little thing she had to make mention of about her boyfriend … to distract us perhaps? In her words, “Second of all, Aaron went home yesterday. I’ve pretty much been a nervous wreck, its the worst parting yet. Like any relationship we have so so much to work on and this week its all come out in the open, and now more than ever I need a hug, and now he’s back home.”
I like the sympathy she pours on here (very dramatically written). Nothing like missing a loved one … yeah, we get it.
And then to make it family oriented she talks about her mum, “My mum has been doing a good job, though”.
Huh? The problem here is that this is not the time or place to be stating this personal stuff. It’s all fine and dandy when you write that personal stuff on other postings, but here it’s a bit inappropriate especially after a serious confession. The tone of it was wrong and felt like it was meant to distract. It would have been far more considerate to state her apology and make that the central issue rather than to deflect it.
What came to me while reading this was this person is quite self-absorbed, self-centered, and “it’s all about me, me, me”. I was amazed how seriously she took herself and then there was this selfish display where she ends it by saying, “’l’ll keep on taking photos, but I won’t be posting for a while. I’ll make up these 365-missing days after my year is up.”
Gee thanks.
There was a strong hint of defiance and victim role-playing when she says,
“The people who don’t like me and/or my work who never felt the need to say anything – thank you. The people who have said things that were blunt and sometimes kind of cruel – thank you. I’ve been SO wrapped up in myself lately, it was destroying my relationships and turning me into someone who wasn’t nice or good.”
The above comment oozes with sarcasm for the first two sentences, but she does admit in a very candid way to her self-absorption, self-centeredness, and self-indulgence. This has to be one of the more odd paragraphs I’ve read in quite some time. In some ways it’s fascinating to look at her thought processes.
The problem here in this past paragraph that she wrote is a lack of clarity and understanding on a very deep issue. When I first read this it sounded like she was upset that she was “found out” and I questioned the sincerity of the text.
I would love to be working for any photography magazine as a journalist or interviewer for just one day and to really have an opportunity to interview her about the crime (“What Digital Photography” would be nice).
I would show respect to her and actually take time out to praise some of her works. It’s important to note that this would not be an interrogation or grilling. This would NOT “be” to add further insult to injury.
I would just want clarification and understanding so not only can I learn, but the audience as well.
The questions I would ask would be to follow up on her confession. Her mincing of words, the lack of clarity and meaning in her rhetoric (this is someone who loves to write as she writes with a lot of detail in her postings).
The important questions for me to ask would be:
1. When you spoke of your “pride getting in the way” can you please give me more clarification on what meant exactly by that? That was quite a revealing thing you said.
2. Why is it so important to you to have this pride (or ego)?
3. When you did what you did and we know that what you did was wrong based on your apology … did you ever once think that you might be hurting other people—the artists’ that you stole from—and that you might be causing them undue suffering?
4. When you stole other people’s (artists) intellectual property or creative ideas, did it ever once occur to you that you were also cheating yourself on the development of your own creative ideas and imagination?
5. Did you ever think you would ever get caught or “found out”?
6. When you were in the act of blatant theft … how did this make you feel? Were you at anytime feeling uneasy, tense, and nervous about all of this? Did you every try to rationalise your actions?
7. Was the act of stealing some kind inner insecurity or shortcoming’s you might have felt about your own creative and artistic talents? Were you trying to cover up what might have been perceived thoughts inside your mind about your inadequacy in creating?
8. The ego is a powerful thing … by it’s nature it can make us do things or act in ways that can be harmful to ourselves and other people. My question to you is that with this enormous amount of attention you receive on Flickr was there some grandiose, attention seeking issues of celebrity that carried you on to the criminal acts that you engaged in? To well, impress your adoring fans and to boost your ego even higher?
9. Are you addicted to excessive attention and does your mind have cravings and hunger for this? If so, do you see that this could actually be extremely harmful to you if you’re not “grounded” in reality because this addiction can never be fulfilled and met because your ego will always want more and more which produces a never-ending cycle? Do you see that your playing a game that you can never win and that you will never ever seek real fulfillment in the arts if that—attention seeking and ego boosting—is your main objective?
10. Did you ever feel any internal pressures produced by your mind to put more and more work out there so you could make a very good impression? Why did you feel that you needed to do this act of plagiarism?
I think these questions would be fair (there is no intent to embarrass or belittle). The revealing aspect of some of these questions would be to come to a better understanding of her inexcusable behaviour and compulsions because there are many people out there like Rosie. Let’s not be naïve and think not. I’ve seen some “Rosie’s” in my lifetime…fortunately, not too many.
The only thing worse that Rosie could have done is to get the original files of the artists’ she plagiarized from Deviant Art and sell them on her website—all this, without ever snapping one picture and taking full credit for something she had no part of. That would be horrific and evil, but let’s use common sense here … what Rosie did is not that far removed from the example I just used of her selling artwork that she never even participated or planned.
A Community Like No Other:
The Arts Community (film, writings, paintings, music, photography etc.) is one of the most forgiving, benevolent, caring, and sharing communities in the world. No other industry can say that. Especially in the business industry (banking included) with it’s cutthroat ways and take all prisoners approach.
In the industries that I mentioned (especially music) artist’s share with other artists’ all the time and are glad to do so (I think that it has something to do with a common bond of being in the arts and knowing the challenges artists are faced with every day). We see many renditions of original works all the time and sometimes the renditions in the eyes of the audience may appear to be better than the original art.
If Rosie would have done the right thing and asked these artists whom she stole from if she could use their idea and concepts to produce a rendition … I am quite sure these artists’ would have no problem with that. All it would take from her is an email asking them for a favour and to give proper credit where it is due. Nothing more, nothing less.
I would also have to say without doubt that many of the artist’s she would have requested from would be flattered by her appreciation towards their works. They might even say more often than not, that it’s okay for her to do it and it’s not necessary to credit their originality and intellectual property.
Rosie did not go that route because her “pride” and ego got in the way. She wanted to take all the glory for herself. I can’t express how selfish this really is. There’s something sociopathic about this behaviour and thought process.
When she spelled out her apology “we knew” that “she knew” that she did wrong. She does have a conscious and I’m glad she admitted to that, but the act itself still raises questions. And one of the main questions is compulsion and how the ego plays a huge role in doing wrong and bad things.
Rosie did not come fully clean on this confession or apology or whatever we want to call it. She never once told us who she victimized or who she stole from. Those are the people who deserve the apologies first.
The Victims:
I don’t have a personal investment in this as I am not a victim in this scandal. And yet to me this whole scandal is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn’t about what should happen next. This is all about what happened in the past to the victims who just happen to be artists. This is about the human heart of the victims, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
Rosie, nobody is asking you to embrace what the victims or artists’ have lost. But don’t you, as a human being, have to care about what these artists have lost and what was taken from them?
The world is barren enough. It is stacked against hope, and against those very few and precious moments of joy where an artist can create something that means something to them.
And here these artists’ who are overjoyed at the prospect of creating and sharing their creations just for the hope of having that feeling that makes them feel they matter in this world. And to have that stolen from them?
Who grieves for Jashackh, who for all we know may live in a homeless shelter? Or who grieves for ArhcamtIlnaad? Who for all we know may be working 3 jobs to make ends meet and to pay the bills.
Or xequemate, who might have a terminal illness and the only joy out of life is to create and share. Or Dennis Olivier, who may have worked long and hard with blood, sweat, and tears to create the work that was stolen from him.
Or Przypadek? Who might have shared his works to everyone he or she knows, but goes home starving every night because he or she can’t afford to put food on the table. Or Shapovalov? Whom for all we know might be living in his nineties and has given all he can to the Arts Community?
These people are human and are artists’ whose works should have never been taken from them. And these names that I mentioned are the artists that we know have been ripped off…who’s to say there isn’t more of this and that her whole portfolio might be this huge fraud.
The Hero:
There is a hero in all of this. “Harry” (probably and alias to protect his or her innocent identity) was the person or persons that did the honourable work of getting the truth out there. This must have been time consuming and difficult work to do … and then to post it on a separate site in a professionally looking way speaks volumes for this person’s dedication and integrity.
It also took some bravery by the hero to expose Rosie’s crime of stealing. Whoever this person is, did a good Samaritan deed without ever once trying to take personal credit or having his or her name put on bright neon lights. . There was nothing in it for the hero. Nothing. Nothing to gain and certainly a lot to lose. This person could have been harassed or even confronted by Rosie’s adoring fans and the abuse could have gone on for weeks or months. For all we know this person may be under attack right now as I speak and that would be a huge shame.
Sometimes, the best deeds people do go largely unnoticed and this is one such occasion. When we see the self-less act and genuine sacrifice of what this hero did … it makes us aware of the decency and goodness still left in the world.
Someday, someone out there in college is going stumble across this story about Rosie Hardy and write a thought provoking and meaningful thesis on this. I’m serious. There’s plenty of subject matter and the story to an outsider would provoke a lot of interest. Unfortunately, the story told will be a tale of deceit, defeat, deception, duplicity, and dishonesty.
Good night and good luck.
1:31 am on March 23rd, 2009
The website you linked to, showing the original works vs. Rosie’s version, had a very interesting post at the very top of the page:
“This was a marketing strategy to create more buzz around Rosie Hardy.
We created the fictional character HarryNY too boost Rosie’s popularity.
You can buy Rosie’s prints here :
http://www.shutterfly.com/progal/gallery.jsp?gid=768a5498ce7e1a8”
Seems like everyone was had.
And actually I don’t agree that her work is plagiarism. She did not steal the photo. If anything she borrowed an idea, which to some degree, is what everyone does. No one is truly original anymore. It’s inspiring to view the work of more prolific, experienced photographers, and try to emulate it. Rosie is very clearly a wonderful photographer and very good with her post processing skills. The only thing she lacks is some creative spirit. For that, I cannot fault her.
10:40 am on March 23rd, 2009
But Jillian, Rosie is actually selling the plagiarised photographs, it is theft – there is a reason people copyright their art and copyright exists for a reason. Copyright is something that people can be taken to court for, fined for and prosecuted for breaching. She has admitted she was wrong plagiarising them. She did not ‘borrow’ the idea – if she had just done that – and been forthright about it, then she would not be in this position. She pretended the heavily copied work was her OWN. Their is a major difference. And there is also a major difference is being ‘inspired’ and totally ripping off someone else’s image making on almost all levels and then also selling it. This website may help you: http://www.bipp.com/copyright.html
And originality in art does exist as much as it ever has, what a pity you cannot see it!
3:45 pm on March 23rd, 2009
Quote: “I’m not sure I agree that there is something intrinsically ‘repeatable’ in the craft of photography”.
The fact you call it a craft (and it is one, to a certain extent, for all photographers) would indicate that (in most cases) photography is repeatable. Just like with painting, some people are skilled enough to make perfect copies. With a crew (including a post-processor called Kylie) like Crewdson uses, you could recreate ANY photo. Even a natural phenomenon such as a volcanic eruption could be forged in photography. The repeatability of photography along with digital manipulation are two reasons why photos have lagged behind paintings in terms of auction prices. Sotherby’s even uses carbon dating to check prints are “genuine”. Kind of tough to do that with digital pixels. I’ve got away from the plagiarism debate with this ramble, so I’ll just quickly add that I saw Picasso’s 44 versions of Velasquez’s “Las Meninas” a couple of days ago. Not only were his paintings completely different in style to the original (cubist, rather than classical) but Pablo obviously made no attempt to hide the inspiration. You can buy a cheap print of “Las Meninas” in any country in the world. In certain places, you can probably buy an oil-painted copy that matches the original stroke for stroke. But who knows the name of the artisan that makes that copy in a crappy studio in Hong Kong? Rosie Hardy is that copyist. Skilled, for sure, but not worth anyone’s time. I want more Picassos, not back-street copyists.
I was surprised to find I agreed with everything Illina wrote.
Bradford’s essay had some interesting points too. I found “Rosiegate” fascinating from a psychological viewpoint. I think she’s actually quite a mentalist, suffering delusions of grandeur. And I mean suffering. I feel sorry for her, as some of the stuff written about her has seemed spiteful, and if she doesn’t alter her behaviour, she’s heading for an even bigger fall. But she keeps making things worse. (The “Vote for us” thing is intensely sickmaking). I thought for a while that it would be fascinating to find out what she really thinks about the whole sordid business (to find out answers to some of the question Bradford posed, for example) but now I think she’s beyond help – a trainwreck waiting to happen, and one I don’t want to watch.
Someone responsible and caring (her mum perhaps) should physically disconnect her from Team ARF (and the internet) before she completely disappears up her own arse. For her own good, she needs to stop believing her own hype.
6:23 pm on March 23rd, 2009
Hopefully my final word on the Rosie Hardy debacle.
On http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosie_hardy/3373315350 she writes “I’ve come to accept that some people will hate me and I’m OK with that now – as long as I try to be a better person and not try to hurt anyone, I will be OK with it and OK with myself.”
I replied thusly:
“People don’t hate you, nor are they jealous. They hate what you did and they hated the half-arsed apology. You may think you came out of “Rosiegate” smelling of roses, and to most of the Team ARF, you probably did. But you lost a great deal of respect from serious photographers and critics. I don’t think you can make a career of appealing to teenagers who value prettiness over integrity. Certainly, you’ll never be taken seriously in the art world if you continue to chase the flickr-youth demographic. If you want to remain a flickr celebrity (which is fine) then continue along your merry way, but I have a feeling you’d rather be associated with Tim Walker and Annie Leibowitz (people I fear most of your fans have never heard of).
Growing up is hard to do, but I say as a concerned party that I’ll cheer once you’ve comprehensively moved on from the delusional behaviour you’ve been exhibiting lately. Do you really want to be known as the girl that has thousands of idiots as fans? While comments like “great pic” no doubt help your ego, they won’t pay the bills. Creativity and thought-provoking work just might.
Best wishes in following your dream.”
I perhaps ruined any sense of goodwill by leaving a bitchy comment on her reservoir picture ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosie_hardy/3355774023 ), quoting Aaron’s appeal for votes.
“My name is Aaron. I am 25 years old. By the time I am 45, half of the world may be dying of thirst.
The other half will be poncing about in reservoirs.
My dream assignment is to prevent this from happening.
Cynical? Moi?”
Perhaps I was foolish to waste my time leaving such comments, but I genuinely wanted her to stop and think for a second. The comments have gone. She blocked me. I wasn’t a hater before. I am now. As far as I’m concerned the girl is an idiot. I wish she didn’t exist. She’s an embarrassment to my favourite website.
12:00 am on March 24th, 2009
@ Bradford – great analysis, I enjoyed reading your exploration of the issues at hand, thanks for posting.
@ Jillian – How was everyone ‘had’, when the links are real? The ‘marketing strategy’ line is nothing more than proof that Harry’s screws aren’t all as tight as they should be.
@ Fallen Light – well put.
@ Arty – extremely well put.
As Rosie can’t face your comment, thanks for immortalising it here. Interesting that she has the time to meticulously prise out comments like yours from her stream, and yet leave the strange spam-like, single-lettered comments from iconless surfers; and nonsense like ‘Cantik and beautiful’, ‘So emotions’, and ‘Vengwezi@yahoo.com’.
Oh, and about my reply to Curtis, I do agree with what you say. I meant to put – I’m not sure I agree that there is something intrinsically ‘repeatable’ in the craft of photography – as in, photography in particular, any more so than other crafts.
1:23 am on March 24th, 2009
Your welcome … you may call me Brad (I only use Bradford professionally … uh, so maybe i should take it off my Flickr name
)
My only question to you are the questions that I wrote about to ask Rosie in an interview setting ( i think ten altogether, but a lot of follow up).
I was afraid the questions might be too straightforward, too brash, and a bit too outspoken. What do you think? Was it over the top or spot on (on the spot) or somewhere in the middle?
Talk me down if you wish.
Thanks and have a great day!
12:14 pm on March 24th, 2009
Arty. Crikey she deleted it?! Wow, I am shocked – it would have done her image a lot of good to show that she had the guts to leave it (and many of the other comments that have been deleted, no doubt)….
3:27 pm on March 26th, 2009
Thank you for posting this. I am dipping my toes into the photomanipulation/art world and flickr. Your opinion and advice has been very helpful. Learning from other peoples mistakes can sometimes allow you to sidestep your own potential pitfalls.
4:28 pm on March 28th, 2009
I just stumbled across this post inadvertently but wanted to comment because it’s a particularly interesting debate but also because it is nice to come across such well articulated thoughts – which, unfortunately, is a rarity. I know nothing about the particular situation other than what is written here but I do agree that there is something profoundly dishonest about the degree of mimicry in the works in question. I want to recommend the following article (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/11/22/041122fa_fact) regarding the larger issue, as it raises some very interesting questions about the idea of plagiarism. Of particular relevance, I think, is the idea that there is a big difference “between borrowing that is transformative and borrowing that is merely derivative.”
Thanks for a well written post, LH.
1:51 am on April 18th, 2009
Very clearly articulated thoughts on this subject. Almost the new sub-culture, isn’t it? I belong to an artists web-site that may be of interest to you. RedBubble. http:www.redbubble.com
Very professional, with groups being created by the community to accept art which falls into certain categories. I also create digital art so I can post both my photography and digital creations to this site. The only criticism I have (and it sounds strange I know) is that everyone is too friendly. Even when I ask for a critique my responses are ALWAYS positive. Perhaps (and I can see this myself, not always deserved.)Honest feedbackis what I want-give me some critical pointers or guidance to make my images better! Any way, perhaps worth taking a look at RedBubble.
8:23 pm on April 20th, 2009
Hi Aniela, thanks for your post, I’ve noticed this through your blog. It was an interesting thread!
10:25 pm on May 7th, 2009
Dear all,
First, let me issue the caveat that I am not a lawyer, so these are strictly my opinions. Also, my viewpoint is United States jurisprudence, and the UK situation may be different. That said, IDEAS CAN NOT BE COPYRIGHTED. Only the form and representation of a work of art can be copyrighted.
Where does that leave us? From the discussions and review of Mr. Harry’s website, it seems that Miss Rosie is perilously close to copyright infringement, but perhaps falls short. Indeed, if the idea is all that’s infringed, it is not an infringement at all. If she does replicate the form and representation of a work of art, it may constitute an infringement. My overall (amateur) assessment is that no copyright infringement did occur.
That said, I’ll leave it to you all to debate the ethical merits of her works. I tend to agree with your assessments.
For your consideration,
John (flickr jl-lb.ms)
9:08 am on May 8th, 2009
Thanks.
I never said that ideas can be copyrighted, if that’s the impression you get from my article then either you didn’t read it properly or I’m just a shit writer.
My opinion is also that Rosie’s pics are ‘perilously close to copyright infringement’. I’m no lawyer either, which is why this article isn’t about law, and about who should sue Rosie; it’s about ethics, morals, responsibilities, and artists’ rights… my article aims to raise awareness of plagiarism even just in a simply moral (rather than legal) light, and to reflect on ‘online communities’, as titled.
That said, any lawyers’ input is welcome.
11:27 pm on May 10th, 2009
A bit more for your interest. Quoting in part (fair use ) from http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html
“Q. If I change a few things in a copyrighted work by adding or taking something away, am I guilty of copyright infringement?
A. Yes. The right to make derivative copies is reserved exclusively to the copyright owner. While the idea for a work of art can be copied, the expression of the idea is fully protected. Sometimes, it is difficult to differentiate between an idea and an expression because the idea can sometimes get lost in the expression.
For example, one court had to decide if a pin made in the shape of a bumblebee was protected by copyright. The court said that the bumblebee was taken from nature and there was only one way to express this idea. Consequently, when there is only one way to express an idea, copyright will not prevent the copying of the expression. Furthermore, even though the pin was decorated with colored jewels, the placement of the jewels had to follow the form of the insect. Therefore, the jeweled bumblebee pin was not a expression that would be protected by copyrighted. The court held that it was an idea that could only be express in one way. ”
Although not completely unambiguous, the above appears to argue for infringement, in the case of Rosie Hardy’s work. Understood that your emphasis is on moral/ethical, but thought it useful to dig a bit deeper in the legal framework.
Regards,
John
2:26 pm on August 5th, 2009
Have you clicked the link above to the Harry NY blog recently?
The posting says that Harry NY is a fictional character made up to promote Rosie Hardy.
I’m puzzled!