What do YOU think? You can even vote on it in the article.
Plagiarism! I can understand being inspired by someone’s shot and hoping to compose a similar perspective in your own work, but to have the lighting conditions so exact in most of them seems like the original photo was just edited or they went out and made a very intentional copy of someone’s work.
I don’t know, I’m torn. You do see a lot of similar landscape shots out there especially in National Parks, for example the Delicate Arch in Utah, El Capitan in Yosemite, and many spots in Glacier. Thousands of people are taking the same shot but that doesn’t mean they can’t make it their own or try to recreate. I think this person is a master of Photoshop and maybe it was his intent to make the shot so close to identical, to show what can be done in Photoshop and to make the viewer question what’s actually real. Artists copy other artists all the time but I do think this person has gone too far and is being disrespectful to the original, unless he credited him in some way when the photo was published.
Yeah, at first I thought it was just coincidence. But as I scrolled down and saw that this kept repeating, it seems Mr. Rossi was deliberately copying the other images, from time-of-day, perspective, focal length, d.o.f., and similar lighting characteristics. They are not exact - but they are close enough to make a case for plagiarism. It’s been said that when emulating another concept, it can skirt past copyright infringement if the image could be argued to be 20% different. Would you say Mr. Rossi’s are 20% different? If you were Mr Rossi’s attorney, could you argue that they are 20% different than the others? That’s something to consider when you are inspired by a shot on Insta, and you see the geotag, and you want to go there to get the shot, too. How can you make yours different? Think of Horseshoe Bend, AZ or - for a real treat - Google: “Havasu Falls” in Images and think about if you were a photographer looking to have your image stand out of all of those images!
From a music point of view this is like covering a tune without acknowledging it. Brazen.
I voted plagiarism. If one was similar, I’d say coincidence, but with so many, I felt he was copying.
Finally getting around to reading this. Definitely looks too similar to be coincidental, but like Jeff said, maybe different enough to skirt around copyright legislation. I always wonder what someone’s motivation is for closely replicating another artist’s work in this way. Admiration? Paying homage? Lack of personal vision? Who knows…