Interesting, director caught "borrowing"

seanmcleod

seanmcleod

Well-known member
Check out this article on the director of Rihana's new video basically stealing David LaChapelles images and putting them in motion in her new video...

http://www.i-publicist.com/rihanna-rips-off-a-david-lachappelle-video/

It's funny because it shows a couple things, one in this day and age you can't copy anything cause someone will make the link and call BS, and two, a lot of people, myself included, use photography and art to inspire their artistic choices, especially music videos. Romaneks' imagery in Closer for NIN is almost all lifted from old fairly inconspicuous art and photographs but that seems to be more acceptable. I think the problem with this is that David LaChapelle is a living working artist and so the idea of homage (i doubt thats what she was trying to do) really just looks like plagiarism.

Anyway just thought it would be a good cautionary tale for anyone who's thinking they can borrow this shot or that shot... haha.
 
seanmcleod said:
Check out this article on the director of Rihana's new video basically stealing David LaChapelles images and putting them in motion in her new video...

http://www.i-publicist.com/rihanna-rips-off-a-david-lachappelle-video/

It's funny because it shows a couple things, one in this day and age you can't copy anything cause someone will make the link and call BS, and two, a lot of people, myself included, use photography and art to inspire their artistic choices, especially music videos. Romaneks' imagery in Closer for NIN is almost all lifted from old fairly inconspicuous art and photographs but that seems to be more acceptable. I think the problem with this is that David LaChapelle is a living working artist and so the idea of homage (i doubt thats what she was trying to do) really just looks like plagiarism.

Anyway just thought it would be a good cautionary tale for anyone who's thinking they can borrow this shot or that shot... haha.
Click to expand...


While the 'concepts' are very similar the stills that are used to compare are 'different'. There's no 'copyright' on the ideas presented in an artist's work.

This is only 'shocking' to people who think that every single 'music video' is a completely never been seen before in any shape or form collection of images...

Now if they had used actual LaChappelle photos... but the comparison images where pretty different in details.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
While the 'concepts' are very similar the stills that are used to compare are 'different'. There's no 'copyright' on the ideas presented in an artist's work.

This is only 'shocking' to people who think that every single 'music video' is a completely never been seen before in any shape or form collection of images...

Now if they had used actual LaChappelle photos... but the comparison images where pretty different in details.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're using technicalities to defend this... I think there is copyrights on ideas presented in artists works, thats all that an artist really has, there ideas. So even if it doesn't hold up in court the fact remains that the music video is unoriginal and lifted. I think the similarities are close enough, and then supported by the claim there were David LaChappelle photographs all over the set... So I think you are getting into the details but the problem is the use of the main ideas as a whole.

And John, maybe she meant it as such, but I kinda feel like you can't pay homage to someone who is living and working and also does music videos. If Rihanna wanted that she could have hired David, so I think that homage is a copout, and they were just copying.
 
seanmcleod said:
And John, maybe she meant it as such, but I kinda feel like you can't pay homage to someone who is living and working and also does music videos. If Rihanna wanted that she could have hired David, so I think that homage is a copout, and they were just copying.
Click to expand...

The guy probably liked what David did, so he tried to see what would happen if he copied him. So...? Even if he does copy him, it's difficult to do an exact copy, you always end up putting your own spin on it.

I don't know, people that think their art is completely "original" is a little silly. There's always something similar somewhere and the best things are blatantly copied.

Btw, really liking the everything is a remix link.
 
Last edited:
Rihanna (or any other hiphop/R&B artist, for that matter) lifted (er, "sampled") something from someone else? Must be the first time that's ever happened. :)
 
seanmcleod said:
It sounds like you're using technicalities to defend this...
Click to expand...

No I'm using a long standing principle in art.

Art:

monalisa.jpg


And more Art, using a 'postcard' of the above, with only a 'small modification'.

L.H.O.O.Q.jpg
 
I don't understand and did not anticipate everyone defending the copying here. Is that really how you feel? Yeah she lifted his concepts or ideas, but that's okay? I mean sure it's legally okay because lots of people copy others ideas, but you just accept that? I thought people valued creativity and individuality, especially in a forum for directors, but seems like everyone just cool with it. Legally it's fine, but morally I think it's wrong. And drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa is hardly comparable. That would probably even be considered satire.

KMR - Ideas cannot be copyrighted no, but ideas that have been put into practice should be, no?

And Bill, yeah Hype did lift those titles from Gaspar Noe, that's why I think that video was a HUGE yawn. Thanks for showing me something I've already seen done better by someone else Hype... way to bring your A game.
 
Everything's a copy of something else, Sean. And as I said, in an industry/genre built on the wholesale lifting of material from other works -- not just mimicking a style, but actually taking the material and incorporating it -- how can this be as shocking as you're making it out to be?
 
I'm not trying make it out as shocking, definitely there are tonnes of derivative works... I'm referring to the specific repackaged visuals of another famed photographer presented as ones own work. That to me isn't shocking and I don't think it's right or acceptable. What's shocking to me is everyone seemingly saying, yeah that's fine, everyone copies. Tarantino for example takes elements from all sorts of other movies, he blatantly steals some times, but he does so from lots and lots of source material in a way that's considered his own take. That to me is a remix. You take elements of many different things and put your own twist on it and it becomes something new. However this Rihana video isn't a remix of David LaChapelles work, it's a cover. It's the Karaoke version. Nothing is changed in a remarkable way, it's just a repackaged version of his work. That to me is unacceptable and should be treated as such.

David if you made a film, and a year later I just remade the film with the same storyline and closest approximations of sets I could get and just changed a few character names would you be cool with that and say "Yeah, everyone copies"... no I don't think you would.

But if you had one really cool shot, like the Pitt and Freeman walking into the house in Seven as the camera dollies along the chain link fence, and you saw that in my film you'd probably say "Yeah he copied that from me" but the rest of the film would differ.

Borrowing cool shots and sets and plot points and character names is all a part of video/film making, I agree and see that. But lifting replica shots, multiple shots, main shots of your video, from the SAME person, who is living and working currently, isn't just homage or how filmmaking is done. It's stealing.
 
seanmcleod said:
I don't understand and did not anticipate everyone defending the copying here.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of issues here. One is using material someone else produced... that is 'copyright infringement'. The videos presented are not 'copyright infringement' for several reasons. 1) They are not the media of the 'original maker', obtained by some means with out license. 2) They are not even 'close/identical' but have a 'flavor', perhaps a distinct flavor, but not 'copies'.


The other is the concept of 'originality', vs. 'knockoff'... That ends up being heavily dependent on one's aesthetics, and whether one 'liked' the result or found it 'lacking'...

I find quite a few 'music videos' to be pretty boring. Early on there was a lot of 'newness', 'originality'. But now that the genre has been going for about 25-30 years as a more 'structured' entity... things have become common place...

It's sort of like watching Busby Berkeley dance routines... the first one 'wow, they did that back then?'... after about 10 one's saying... 'gosh, is that all there is?'

I'm reminded of a comment I heard Fred Astaire give when asked about some of his films of the 30's and 40's (paraphrased...)... 'there were so many, I've forgotten most of them, they usually were boy meets girl...'...

The quesiton of whether it is 'ethical' to make so many offerings that pretty much offer The Same thing has been answered... in business what ever produces a profit, gets used to the point were it doesn't give profits...
 
seanmcleod said:
Borrowing cool shots and sets and plot points and character names is all a part of video/film making, I agree and see that. But lifting replica shots, multiple shots, main shots of your video, from the SAME person, who is living and working currently, isn't just homage or how filmmaking is done. It's stealing.
Click to expand...

But for me, the article you referenced that had a table of comparison images, they were not 'lifted' and 'duplicated' they were visible different.

Even the shot, by the famous Eisentaedt, of the sailor kissing the nurse at the end of WWII, and the 'Watchmen' version is 'different' even though the filmmakers attempted to reproduce it.

Legendary_kiss_V–J_day_in_Times_Square_Alfred_Eisenstaedt.jpg


Vs. the 'lifted' version in "Watchmen"(2005)

watchmen003.jpg
 
Sean, you misunderstand -- I'm not defending anything. I'm merely saying that is a peculiar thing to latch onto for objection when the entire genre is built on overt theft, which they give the cuddly name "sampling." Rihanna is hardly alone in having a long history of it.

Plus, having not seen the actual video, it's pretty difficult to call this copying and not "homage." The photographs share elements, but they're certainly not the same.
 
We should add this quote at the end of everything we work on:
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Newton.

BTW, I agree re: the Hype rip of Noe, be influenced but don't steal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top