World Famous Photographer Accuses Artist Of Ripping Off Her Work, Is Shocked By His Response
InterviewThey say that imitation is the biggest form of flattery there is, but there’s no excuse for outright ripping off someone’s work and then reaping the financial rewards that come with that. There’s a pretty thin line between inspiration and copying. And though the line can get a bit blurred in some cases, it’s usually pretty clear when someone oversteps the bounds of polite ‘inspiration’ for commercial gain.
Well-known photographer Jingna Zhang has stated on Twitter that artist Jeff Dieschburg ripped off her photograph to make his oil painting. The painting went on to win a cash prize, was exhibited at the Strassen Stroossen Culture Center in Luxembourg, and was even presented to Princess Stéphanie. The painting is almost identical to the photograph, and apparently, this isn’t the first time that Dieschburg has pulled something like this. Photographer Bekka Björke has also had her work plagiarized.
The authorities are trying to defuse the tense situation, and the internet is absolutely outraged at what has happened. Scroll down to learn more about what happened, dear Pandas, and be sure to share your thoughts about it all in the comments. Do we have any artists reading this who have had their work plagiarized by others before? Tell us what happened and how you responded.
Bored Panda reached out to photographer Zhang and she was kind enough to answer our questions about why some people plagiarize the work of others and why educating students about copyrights is important. “Oftentimes, plagiarism and unauthorized use of photos are done mainly by those who are very young, students who don’t know better, people who think they can get away with it, or people who misunderstand fair use/transformative use and think it’s within their right to use anything found on the internet,” Zhang told us.
We also got in touch with photographer Björke, who also had her work copied. She was kind enough to tell us more about what happened with Dieschburg. “I was tagged in the comments on Zhang’s original Instagram post after someone had looked at the offending painter’s own Instagram and recognized my work. By the time I was able to look, his Instagram was already deleted, but a little digging on Facebook found 2 of my own photographs that he had painted and exhibited. I wasn’t sure how to contact Dieschburg at this point as it had already escalated to mass internet outrage and he had already refuted Zhang’s claims, so I reached out to the organizations that the paintings were exhibited through, though only one responded,” she told Bored Panda.
More info: Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | ZhangJingna.com
Jingna Zhang is a world-famous photographer who creates stunning compositions. Recently, she had her work blatantly ripped off
Image credits: zemotion
The artist copied her photograph for his oil painting and then went on to reap the rewards
Image credits: zemotion
Image credits: zemotion
Artist Jeff Dieschburg’s knock-off painting was featured in an exhibition, and he won a cash prize
Image credits: zemotion
Image credits: zemotion
The artist has a very peculiar understanding of where the line between inspiration and copying lies
Image credits: zemotion
Image credits: artfinder
Image credits: zemotion
Image credits: zemotion
In fact, this isn’t the first time that Dieschburg has copied the work of other professionals with only minor alterations
Image credits: zemotion
Dieschburg even lawyered up
Image credits: zemotion
The artist is clearly getting commercial gain from what he did
Image credits: zemotion
Image credits: zemotion
Image credits: zemotion
Image credits: zemotion
Image credits: zemotion
Zhang’s photo has been seen around the world and is easily recognizable
Image credits: zemotion
Image credits: zemotion
Image credits: zemotion
According to photographer Zhang, there are some things that can be done to ensure that fewer people rip off the work of professionals. It all starts with good education in schools and universities.
“To prevent this from happening, any schools with programs intersecting with intellectual property rights should implement copyright seminar days. If people are more exposed to the subject, it can help everyone be more informed and aware,” she told Bored Panda that raising awareness can help prevent similar situations in the future.
“Separately, people experienced in handling copyright infringement cases can also discuss such matters to help improve people’s understanding of the issues that artists face. These can be learning opportunities and reference points for both the public and for artists who undergo similar situations.”
Photographer Björke told us that the copying of Zhang’s work is “definitely upsetting.” What’s more, it’s “impressive” that someone had “the audacity to copy someone so internationally renowned.”
“Her photographs are well-loved and recognizable, not to mention shot for well-known publications, so it’s no surprise someone called it out. The fact that this particular copy was awarded prize money and esteem, I think, makes it much messier than my own tiny part in this story, so I hope credit can be given to Zhang where it is due, and arts organizations and exhibitions can take greater steps to vet their contestants,” she explained.
“I don’t know what can be done to fully stop this happening in the future aside from more push to educate artists about what inspiration actually is and to empower them to explore their own ideas. Of course, there are legal ramifications depending on the who/what/where/when of a situation, but I think the larger question is an ethical one, and even begs the question of why does one make art in the first place? Where is the satisfaction in being praised for someone else’s work?” Björke said that ripping off someone else’s work for gain is unethical.
The photographer also shared her thoughts about why some creators copy other professionals. “I’d hope artists who copy other artists just don’t know any better and thus have the capacity to learn and grow beyond that to realize their own vision, though, of course, that’s not always the case. Personally, I view inspiration as the feeling a work of art elicits in you, and as an artist trying to recreate that feeling through your own work—maybe the theme, the story, the visual rhythm, the color palette, etc.—but when recreating someone else’s work entirely you’re not telling your own story, you’re using someone else’s personal visual language entirely,” she said.
“Master studies can be a fantastic learning tool for artists, and doing so for personal use, or basing something on work by living artists and asking them permission first, is all absolutely fine. I even think there is room in the world for art that depicts or alludes to other art to make an intentional statement about an original, or to explore things like context and societal importance, but in situations like this the work isn’t doing that: it’s benefiting purely off the merit of and skill put into the original photograph and trying to pass it off as its own,” she explained the difference between inspiration and copying.
The long and short of it is that Dieschburg’s painting is clearly derivative of Zhang’s work and she was not credited.
Photographer Zhang believes it’s perfectly fine that art students use her work for inspiration. However, she draws the line at her photos being plagiarized. Worse still, Dieschburg clearly has financial motives in mind. He won a 1.5k euro prize, has been raking in the glory, and has even put his painting up for sale for 6.5k euros.
Obviously, the situation’s pretty tense right now. Dieschburg has a very peculiar understanding of how copyright infringement works and tried to mansplain this to Zhang. Meanwhile, his lawyer believes that he’s being persecuted unfairly. The Luxembourgish municipality of Strassen is trying to solve the issue and defuse the tension.
“There are lots of legally free images and tools online people can use for references. Just because I or other creators share our work online, it doesn’t mean that our work is suddenly free for all to exploit,” Zhang explained on social media that just because creators share their work online doesn’t mean that they’re ripe for exploitation.
“To see someone praised, awarded, winning prize money, and shamelessly doing interviews while claiming credit despite copying so much of another person’s work… the audacity and utter disrespect. I don’t know how someone begins to think that this is ok and is something they can be proud of. I’m so speechless I can’t even begin to process what to do. Just insane,” she writes.
The work that Dieschburg copied is one of five covers that Zhang did for Harper’s Bazaar Vietnam in November 2017. The photographer said that she has been overwhelmed by the support and offers of help she’s received from people all around the world in the wake of the plagiarism scandal. “Your warmth makes going through these dark days a little more possible, I wish I can visit Luxembourg and enjoy this beautiful country under better circumstances one day,” she wrote on Instagram.
Zhang, born in Beijing and raised in Singapore, currently works in New York, Los Angeles, and Seattle. She was named on the Forbes 30 Under 30 Asia list in 2018, and her work has appeared on the covers and pages of Vogue China, Vogue Japan, Harper’s Bazaar China, and Elle Singapore, and elsewhere.
Here’s how some Twitter users reacted to the plagiarism of Zhang’s photo
Image credits: AzahCrypto
Image credits: itsbanhmi
Image credits: kexmoment
Image credits: emanshiu
Image credits: sa_sh_26
Image credits: njed_todd
Image credits: tdmigs_
Image credits: danekez
Image credits: MG124c41
Image credits: PipSqueakMouse
Image credits: zaleraxii
He really needs to learn how to take his own photos to base his work off, like I used to do when I painted/drew professionally. Or else buy the rights or get permission like a proper adult. It's fine for a fan to copy a work as practice, but to SELL that copy as fine art disgusts me on a personal level. The photographer copied has arranging those photos as their job and income. Don't infringe.
You are 100% correct! He could use a camera on a cell phone for a reference picture!
Load More Replies...What a c**t. He has all the technical knowledge I could ever ask for and this is how he's using it?
Him being called out in the newspaper is sweet justice. Maybe not the entirety that the photographer deserves but it's a start.
Load More Replies...Not certain if I can post links, but the petition to revoke this guy's prize can be found here: https://chng.it/v8wcqX4StQ
Artist here: Using photos for reference is a legitimate practice. However. Copying it exactly and maybe putting a flower in the subject's hair to make it "different" is not, unless it is your own photo that you took and are using for reference. Especially when you plan on making money from it. All artists should know this.
Also artist here: I make a big deal of either acquiring royalty free references or else getting the photographer's permission at the very least. When I copied an old master's painting, I even put that it was "after Batoni" on it even though the guy's been dead for quite a long while. My only exception is if I just reference to understand something before going hog wild with my own composition. I can't stand unethical artists like the guy in this article. It just makes the rest of us look like thieves.
Load More Replies...Jeff Dieschburg's tendency to closely copy others' photographs (see https://twitter.com/bekka/status/1532097291330281472) suggests that he is simply a highly skilled copyist with good taste. "I need references" my a*s. He exploits others' skills and imagination to avoid doing his own photography. That would require actual thinking, sketching out ideas, finding (and perhaps paying) a model, renting costumes, lighting, posing, etc.
This makes me mad. As an artist who agonizes over a blank canvas before I start, the gall he has to appropriate the image, and culture, and to copy it so completely with minimal effort to even leave his own mark…. Im glad he’s been named and shamed
Painfing photographs is an art form. He is a student. He can paint any photo he wishes to understand fair use law.
Load More Replies...Dieschburg? More like Doucheburg.. It's ok to be inspired by other art, not to outright f*****g copy it. Sounds like Jeff here has absolutely no creativity whatsoever. Technique, yea, maybe. But creativity? nada. And you can have all the good techniques in the world, but you need the creativity to be a real artist. (take hitler for example. and yes, I'm that pissed at this pos that I'm using this comparison) Also.. blatant racism "japan or wherever she's from".. WTF DUDE
As a portrait artist myself, I always ask or get permission to use another’s photograph for my work. Most photographers will be glad to give it if you simply ask. Or I would get my inspiration from free photo sharing sites where the photographers have kindly submitted their photos for anyone to use as they choose such as unsplash or the portrait artists app Sktchy. Don’t take liberties and don’t use famous photographers work. This man should have his award rescinded and he should be disqualified and the art competitions should make it absolutely clear that these types of practices should be disallowed. It’s unacceptable.
My high school art teacher, knowing half of us were taking the course for fun, would have failed us for something like this, if she didn't already stop it during a planning discussion. And if it was intentional, I'm pretty sure she would have invoked the full plagiarism procedures. This was (and is) a tiny private school, but I'm glad everyone who graduated from that class learnt integrity and how to build on ideas, if nothing else
Load More Replies...I paint and draw for fun and sometimes use other artists as inspiration for my creations, but I don't sell the items (I sometimes give them as presents). If I'm asked about the artwork, I will always say that I was inspired by 'so and so' artist. I certainly wouldn't enter a competition with something that wasn't completely my work.
He did not sell. This was a contest that he entered his student art into.
Load More Replies...Speaking of similarities: The name „Dieschburg“ has a lot of similarity in pronunciation and meaning with the American English derogatory term „douche bag“. 😉
Yeah I'm not feeling like the universe would call that a coincidence at all! 😆
Load More Replies..."I defend the principle of mimicry". Literally sickened by how anyone could take any credit away from the photographer of this absolutely flawless and moving photography. Grrrr! Delusional arrogant fraud brat needs to go down. How can I help? 💁
Had he an original idea that someone else copied I'd bet a $100 that he'd get his knickers in a twist and want recognition! You summed it perfectly "delusional fraud brat"!
Load More Replies...Inspiration is one thing. Copying every line, fabric fold, strand of hair with zero credit to the original artist is just plagiarism. And just because he lays his eyes on something, doesn’t make it legal to claim it as his own work. If he’s profiting from plagiarism, it’s a crime. And even if he gets away with the theft legally, it’s still unethical and shameful. I would say he’d understand when it happens to him, but apparently he has no original ideas of his own to rip off
Copying another's work in this way would be fine if it were simply to refine technique. The moment he put it on display, took credit and profited from it, he became a simple thief.
If she can't make any headway, she should be able to get the magazine that she had it covered for involved as they likely also have a license/copyright to defend and the $ to back it.
I don't know the specifics in this case but copyright laws regarding images are quite loose in some countries, not sure it would work..
Load More Replies...How pathetic and sad. You are so unimaginative that you have to copy every detail just sad…
The people who comment stuff like "This is not art theft, the photographer should feel flattered"... did you ever look into copyright law? Seriously, the WORST thing you can do is stealing/copying images from an established photographer. Not only does he have the rights to the image, the magazine that commissioned him also holds rights. This image was not some random photograph he took, it was a commissioned work!! I am amazed by the ignorance of the "painter". He clearly expected to fly under the radar and not have anyone notice. Also his statement to "leave him out" of any discussion concerning copyright infringement is like the rolls royce of stupidity. I've already posted this here: You can use mimicry, put a grid on an image and copy it by the brushstroke or simply be lazy and paint over a print of it - its all well and good if you do it for your own amusement or practice. But the MOMENT you sell it for money, you are an art thief. Plain and simple.
100% dude flipped her photo and traced it on there before he painted it. It's too dead on, but after an article I read I'm sure he would say tracing is the norm for artists too. I'm more disgusted in the museum continuing to sell it. I'm only able to recreate what I see but I accept I will never be able to sell my things because of it. Such an ahole. Edit: Maybe a petition needs to be put on the museum for selling clearly plagiarized work?
Not just plagiarism, outright mockery of certain photos. I'm pretty much disgusted by how he took that other photo, the woman with the flowers, put tattoos on it and a cigarette in her hand. It's like twisting the original intent of the original creator. Like, taking Mona Lisa, put a mustache on her and then sell as your own stuff.
This is the definition of the "can I copy your homework" meme. I am a graphic design student and we had multiple discussions with multiple profs. On the difference between inspiration interpretation and plagiarism. You can use " pieces" for interpretation but not chunks is how my profs put it. If someone can not spot the difference you plagiarized.
People don't respect photographers work as art nearly enough- if this dude copied another painting it would be considered a way bigger deal but bc it's "just a picture" he feels entitled to just steal it and people are willing to sweep it under the rug,,,, what a dickhole. First rule of art: if you copy off of a picture for practice, cool, just don't profit off of it you selfish twat
as someone that uses photos for real inspiration in art but not final pieces, he DID try using everything to trick "reverse lookup" on his "art" Just cause you Recolor something or "Franken doll" it {taking muti pictures and mash together} Does not make it OC, You are still stealing and copying!
It's obvious he has no imagination, or he would do his own compositions. I perfectly understand the concept of copying other people's work as practice pieces, but you don't claim them as original works and make money off of them. It sounds like this man was just way too impatient. He has the technical skills. Now he just needs to learn composition and broaden his imagination. But now that he is exposed as a fraud, he is going to have a hard time moving forward with that. What he *should* be doing is apologizing profusely and give up the award and any profits he made, not doubling down on excuses.
The point of a portrait is to paint an image realistically, not imaginatively. How can you not understand this?
Load More Replies...Beside the point but the model in the photograph is unbelievably beautiful
I agree. It's a gorgeous picture and I think the painting is pretty too. It sucks that the painter didn't ask for permission. I wonder what's happened since the article came out about him.
Load More Replies...He's obviously very talented, why not "be inspired" by other's artwork rather than just copying them?
Is he talented? I'm a mediocre artist and we learned early on how to grid any image and recreate it. Yeah there's some technique involved but mostly it just gives you a big fat ego until you wake up and remember you did nothing but copy it and you're still no better artist 😅
Load More Replies...Like when websites take content from elsewhere and monetize it, all the while censoring basic words to avoid being demonetized. Wild, huh?
BP credits the source material and adds their own editorial. This guy did neither.
Load More Replies...I would be surprised if it is even real paint and not just a filter he had printed on canvas and then glossed over a top coat. Disgusting!!!!
He is a technical genius...a master craftsman. But not an artist. He has none of the creative fire...the originality. He is a master copiest. He could paint the Annunciation a thousand times, but that would not make him comparable to Da Vinci. He is a skillful Xerox machine in oil. Nothing more.
It is certainly strange that he has gotten a lawyer, when she hasn't even threatened legal action. It just sounds to me like she wants an apology and the return of the prize, plus taking his painting off the market for sale. His lawyer must not be a good one because he most certainly would lose any court case.
"Cite your sources" is the most basic rule of thumb to follow. This guy is a thief, a liar, unethical, unprofessional, and is throwing some big piles of sexism and racism in there, too.
Sign this petition please In order to help Jingna getting her work respected https://chng.it/wkj2Jfxg
Plagiarists make my goddamn blood boil. Even more so when they try to hide behind pathetic excuses instead of owning up to what they did.
I signed the petition, I hope that helps to deter this kind of fraud! That being said, what a beautiful photo, wow! ❤️
Is he majoring in art forgery? He could make a killing in that market...
This young man is talented, there is not denying that. But he has no integrity.
Sorry that she can't sue him. I paint often from my friend's posted pictures: they are usually flattered, but if it is a professional photographer I pay if I can find them. If not, I don't copy. Maybe she needs to put some kind of international lawsuit warning?
'Douchebag' has no shame, obviously. To accept a prize and then profit from another artists work is a dirty, unscrupulous thing to do. Also brings disrepute to the prize committee and gallery!
Under US law this is unquestionably copyright infringement. A derivative work is based on a preexisting work. The owner of the preexisting copyright must authorize a derivative work. Transformative fair use can apply as a defense in some cases but I seriously doubt it would apply here - the copying is so substantial of a creative work with virtually nothing new added. I can't imagine the law in Luxembourg is that different.
I once did a painting based on a Christy Lee Rogers photo (her work is AMAZING and absolutely beautiful.and moving), however it was a study. No plans to sell or do anything of that nature. I did post it on IG, but also tagged her in it and explicitly said I used her photo for reference. That's how it should be done. I'm self taught and know very, very little and even I know better than that lol
https://chng.it/wkj2Jfxg Dear all please sign this petition to help Jingna. Let’s help revoking Dieschburgs price. Let’s stand together for respected intelectual property laws. Sven from Luxembourg
This kid is an idiot and his work shouldn't be praised because he is dishonest. They should take back his prize and maybe even make him give the paintings to the photographers.
Yet another white man appropriating a Woman of Color's work and parading it around as his.
Hi, so I make art and you can "copy" ppls work if u give credit to who u used for the art, and if it's not being used to get money. U can't sell it or win cash. U see ppl on red bubble and etsy selling marvel stuff right? Well it's actually illegal to use Marvel's characters to accumulate currency, it just happens so often they can't stop it. When someone has an OC (Original Character) it means u cannot copy their character. U can't use it except for fanart and cannot make money from it. When a photographer or artist signs their name on their work, then put it online, they don't lose ownership. If you signed it, that means YOU own the rights to that image, and whoever that modeled the work owns the image asw UNLESS they were paid. If you pay the photographer/artist THEY own the rights, but are basically selling it to you, if they pay you YOU OWN THE RIGHTS, but you're selling it to them.
As an artist I do not copy, or use as inspiration another's work, either photography or painting. And I expect the same (legal) respect) in return. (I did once use a forest scene, but kept it as my own, refused to show or sell it, even when asked, because, as I would tell people "I copied someone's work, it's not my own.)
A historian with a good reputation plagarized all my work, made it into an exhibition, printed a little catalogue that is an almost exact mini copy of my book. Of course it made me insanely mad, but on the other hand, it only shows me how untalented some people can be that they need to copy someone else's work to justify their sad, unimaginative existence.
A copy right lawyer needs to donate his/her services to these artists to sue this guy. As the child of a known artist I can tell you how often style is copied that is too close to the original. But this isn't just using part of an image or borrowing the style or even putting another face in there and borrowing scene as an hommage. This is out and our copying. I can't imagine having all that technical ability and absolutely no creativity of my own. Seriously. I'd give him a 98 for rendering and a 1 for creativity. That makes for a mediocre artist. I can't believe he couldn't think of anything at all on his own or at least change more to make it his own like putting her in a field of flowers and changing her garment, or a thousand other obvious changes. The smallish earring added is nothing. To say this is different is gaslighting and many of us have had our fill of gaslighting!
Greedy bastard is what this fella is. If you're going to use other people's work. Share the spoils.
remind me in france there was something called polygate where a women took fanart on deviant art put a polygon filter and call it her own
This is really interesting. Is it possible to paint something that you have seen a picture of without breaching copyright? I know Jack Vettriano was criticised after one of his paintings was found to be inspired by a picture in an artists' training book ie another painting. If this was a photo of a photo then it would be wrong for sure. This feels wrong, but is it??
Are you talking about seeing another work, forgetting you saw it, and then recreating it by accident? Because unless this guy has photographic memory, he copied it so closely that it couldn't have been an accident. Aside from that, I gathered from his statement that he acknowledges he copied it, but he just doesn't consider it plagiarism.
Load More Replies...The only people that can support the shameful position of this two so-called artists are those that are ignorant about art, as themselves. I have been an artist for over 25 years. Never cited, because it is not my approach, but have been cited and gladly. The painter painted an image out of your photos. The paintings are not your art work. Period. Grow up and try to do relevant work.
He should be arrested for that man bun. He looks like he hasn't showered in months and smells like sweaty balls that he calls, "style".
I kinda see both sides here. I'm actually on my way to getting a BFA and so we learn all about Art history and how previous work affects newer peices. And neither side is exactly wrong. The painter is definately in poor taste but it's really not that uncommon for artists to rip off one annother. True, usually they do it more creatively but there's literally an artist out there who takes other people's paintings and images and edits them, sometimes in barely noticeable ways. Photo studies are legitimate peices, and if the guy had just cited her she would have no leg to stand on. Buy on the other hand, most artists when using other works as a base don't pull the WHOLE image; but then again I'm also an abstract expressionist style painter so realism is not something I tangle with so who knows how they operate. Regardless, unless the photographer got the correct copyright she's going to have a hard time proving anything to the court.
Is this really so Bad? I dont know anything about this since i only draw for fun. I would think that him drawing after a Photograph would totally be enough, since the drawing part is already difficult enough. And where does this start? I mostly draw cars, and stuff live that and so when i want to draw a Lamborghini i search for pictures of it online. Or do i have to find one and take a picture myself. And would that even be enough or is that copyright of the Designer of the car?
Copyright laws are a bit murky and some lawyers can try to find loopholes. However, part of the issue here is that he really didn't change it up much he essentially took it to photo editor flipped it and adjusted the filter. If you take your own photo and recreated it you should be good, but if you take someone's photo that they did the work of getting the lighting and the props just right and just copied it and take try to take credit is another thing. Edit: He tried to act like he made this by referencing multiple photos when it's clear he only used one.
Load More Replies...So, if he PAINTED a copy of Micheal Angelo's DAVID, would this confected outrage still simmer. HE PAINTED THE PHOTOGRAPH and produced a likeness. She should be flattered.
When people copy a master, everyone knows it is a copy. He claimed this as an original, and profited off of it.
Load More Replies...Bro his job is to literally practice by taking paintings of things he sees its how you learn. If i took an image and he used it i wouldnt even care bc its basically free advertising. Im not justifying anyone here all of them are fools its all just a huge example of them all gatekeeping eachother this is why i, an artist, hate the artist community with a passion. Anyone who needs reference material is immediately labeled an idiot, untalented, and a copycat and its gotten to the point that things like NFTs and Adopts exist and its honestly terrible. This man can learn how to learn the age of the images he uses and take his own and when he gets further painting he wont need them, when he has an ounce of independence, and this other pic person can learn that theyre putting a very cliche picture in a sea of more and less impressive things, and they learn some damn humility. The art community is far too easily offended.
It's not 'free advertising' when the original artist isn't credited... I think it would have been a world of difference if he had asked Zhang for permission first, or at least if he had credited Zhang in his work, or if he had not entered his painting for a competition/commercial gain, or if he had not written to Zhang in a lecturing tone...
Load More Replies...What's funny to me, both artists are irrelevant. The true work of art, in both cases (the female model), doesn't get any credit. We care about the photograph or the canvas, but not the beauty it attempts to capture. And of course, it would never be the subject's decision, right? Those who are beautiful don't have an eye for it. That's what they would have you believe. If your art is a human, your medium does not matter. They both copied the model, and both did so poorly.
The female model did get credited by Zhang, her name is Ji Hye Park: https://www.facebook.com/zemotion/photos/my-new-cover-for-harpers-bazaar-vn-with-the-most-graceful-ji-hye-park-%EF%B8%8Fphotograp/10155780961366303/
Load More Replies...I don't get where "mansplaining" comes into this, but other than that, this is not what inspiration looks like. It's just a copy.
The "mansplaining" is him, a student, telling a professional woman artist that she is wrong about calling it plagiarism under the law.
Load More Replies...The difference is that Warhol wasn't claiming he invented or designed the Campbell's soup can. His point was not to copy or steal and pass off work as his own, but to make a point about art: if I copy this commercially-designed logo with artistic supplies in an artistic medium, does it become art? This artist who had her work ripped off is in no way a company like Campbell's, being parodied. It's pretty clear which is the side of both art AND integrity.
Load More Replies...If that is true, I am quite sure they are still required to give credit to the original artist.
Load More Replies...This is akin to taking a book and translating it to another language. The copyright for the book *and* the "derivative work" is owned by the original creator of the book (unless assigned to another; then they own the copyright to both works). As to your question, no, painting the Leaning Tower of Pisa would not be plagiarism. Copying another's photograph, including layout, lighting, and most details of the photograph *would* be plagiarism. Just as copying Mona Lisa and calling it your own would be plagiarism.
Load More Replies...What if this were music? Jeff hears a song on youtube or spotify, copies it exactly and changes only the key (analog to changing the color of the dress) and adds a small chime (analog to the earring) on one verse. Then Jeff wins €1500 in. Luxembourg radio song contest. The artist of the original song complains and says he violates copyright. Jeff gets lawyered up and now wants to sell his song for €6500. Do you still see nothing wrong with plagiarism?
Load More Replies...While it technically is legal to copy anything, I do indeed believe that it is illegal to either publicize, sell, or and publish an artwork unless you have first received prior permission from the creator. If you are caught plagiarizing any work of art you run the risk of getting caught and often paying severe consequences. While some artists may draw inspiration from other great works of art to help inspire their own, the young man in this article was committing blatant plagiarism. He crossed the line from drawing inspiration from another person's artwork to flat-out plagiarism by selling copies of this artist's work for financial profit. Many artists online will now watermark their artworks to prevent art-theft...unfortunately, these watermarks often don't deter art thieves.
Load More Replies...No you are wrong. It is not OK to plagiarize. We need to stop people from doing it. Just because it happens „all the time“ does not make it OK. In the music industry there are often trials over plagiarism involving much less overlap of content. All artists must be protected
Load More Replies...He really needs to learn how to take his own photos to base his work off, like I used to do when I painted/drew professionally. Or else buy the rights or get permission like a proper adult. It's fine for a fan to copy a work as practice, but to SELL that copy as fine art disgusts me on a personal level. The photographer copied has arranging those photos as their job and income. Don't infringe.
You are 100% correct! He could use a camera on a cell phone for a reference picture!
Load More Replies...What a c**t. He has all the technical knowledge I could ever ask for and this is how he's using it?
Him being called out in the newspaper is sweet justice. Maybe not the entirety that the photographer deserves but it's a start.
Load More Replies...Not certain if I can post links, but the petition to revoke this guy's prize can be found here: https://chng.it/v8wcqX4StQ
Artist here: Using photos for reference is a legitimate practice. However. Copying it exactly and maybe putting a flower in the subject's hair to make it "different" is not, unless it is your own photo that you took and are using for reference. Especially when you plan on making money from it. All artists should know this.
Also artist here: I make a big deal of either acquiring royalty free references or else getting the photographer's permission at the very least. When I copied an old master's painting, I even put that it was "after Batoni" on it even though the guy's been dead for quite a long while. My only exception is if I just reference to understand something before going hog wild with my own composition. I can't stand unethical artists like the guy in this article. It just makes the rest of us look like thieves.
Load More Replies...Jeff Dieschburg's tendency to closely copy others' photographs (see https://twitter.com/bekka/status/1532097291330281472) suggests that he is simply a highly skilled copyist with good taste. "I need references" my a*s. He exploits others' skills and imagination to avoid doing his own photography. That would require actual thinking, sketching out ideas, finding (and perhaps paying) a model, renting costumes, lighting, posing, etc.
This makes me mad. As an artist who agonizes over a blank canvas before I start, the gall he has to appropriate the image, and culture, and to copy it so completely with minimal effort to even leave his own mark…. Im glad he’s been named and shamed
Painfing photographs is an art form. He is a student. He can paint any photo he wishes to understand fair use law.
Load More Replies...Dieschburg? More like Doucheburg.. It's ok to be inspired by other art, not to outright f*****g copy it. Sounds like Jeff here has absolutely no creativity whatsoever. Technique, yea, maybe. But creativity? nada. And you can have all the good techniques in the world, but you need the creativity to be a real artist. (take hitler for example. and yes, I'm that pissed at this pos that I'm using this comparison) Also.. blatant racism "japan or wherever she's from".. WTF DUDE
As a portrait artist myself, I always ask or get permission to use another’s photograph for my work. Most photographers will be glad to give it if you simply ask. Or I would get my inspiration from free photo sharing sites where the photographers have kindly submitted their photos for anyone to use as they choose such as unsplash or the portrait artists app Sktchy. Don’t take liberties and don’t use famous photographers work. This man should have his award rescinded and he should be disqualified and the art competitions should make it absolutely clear that these types of practices should be disallowed. It’s unacceptable.
My high school art teacher, knowing half of us were taking the course for fun, would have failed us for something like this, if she didn't already stop it during a planning discussion. And if it was intentional, I'm pretty sure she would have invoked the full plagiarism procedures. This was (and is) a tiny private school, but I'm glad everyone who graduated from that class learnt integrity and how to build on ideas, if nothing else
Load More Replies...I paint and draw for fun and sometimes use other artists as inspiration for my creations, but I don't sell the items (I sometimes give them as presents). If I'm asked about the artwork, I will always say that I was inspired by 'so and so' artist. I certainly wouldn't enter a competition with something that wasn't completely my work.
He did not sell. This was a contest that he entered his student art into.
Load More Replies...Speaking of similarities: The name „Dieschburg“ has a lot of similarity in pronunciation and meaning with the American English derogatory term „douche bag“. 😉
Yeah I'm not feeling like the universe would call that a coincidence at all! 😆
Load More Replies..."I defend the principle of mimicry". Literally sickened by how anyone could take any credit away from the photographer of this absolutely flawless and moving photography. Grrrr! Delusional arrogant fraud brat needs to go down. How can I help? 💁
Had he an original idea that someone else copied I'd bet a $100 that he'd get his knickers in a twist and want recognition! You summed it perfectly "delusional fraud brat"!
Load More Replies...Inspiration is one thing. Copying every line, fabric fold, strand of hair with zero credit to the original artist is just plagiarism. And just because he lays his eyes on something, doesn’t make it legal to claim it as his own work. If he’s profiting from plagiarism, it’s a crime. And even if he gets away with the theft legally, it’s still unethical and shameful. I would say he’d understand when it happens to him, but apparently he has no original ideas of his own to rip off
Copying another's work in this way would be fine if it were simply to refine technique. The moment he put it on display, took credit and profited from it, he became a simple thief.
If she can't make any headway, she should be able to get the magazine that she had it covered for involved as they likely also have a license/copyright to defend and the $ to back it.
I don't know the specifics in this case but copyright laws regarding images are quite loose in some countries, not sure it would work..
Load More Replies...How pathetic and sad. You are so unimaginative that you have to copy every detail just sad…
The people who comment stuff like "This is not art theft, the photographer should feel flattered"... did you ever look into copyright law? Seriously, the WORST thing you can do is stealing/copying images from an established photographer. Not only does he have the rights to the image, the magazine that commissioned him also holds rights. This image was not some random photograph he took, it was a commissioned work!! I am amazed by the ignorance of the "painter". He clearly expected to fly under the radar and not have anyone notice. Also his statement to "leave him out" of any discussion concerning copyright infringement is like the rolls royce of stupidity. I've already posted this here: You can use mimicry, put a grid on an image and copy it by the brushstroke or simply be lazy and paint over a print of it - its all well and good if you do it for your own amusement or practice. But the MOMENT you sell it for money, you are an art thief. Plain and simple.
100% dude flipped her photo and traced it on there before he painted it. It's too dead on, but after an article I read I'm sure he would say tracing is the norm for artists too. I'm more disgusted in the museum continuing to sell it. I'm only able to recreate what I see but I accept I will never be able to sell my things because of it. Such an ahole. Edit: Maybe a petition needs to be put on the museum for selling clearly plagiarized work?
Not just plagiarism, outright mockery of certain photos. I'm pretty much disgusted by how he took that other photo, the woman with the flowers, put tattoos on it and a cigarette in her hand. It's like twisting the original intent of the original creator. Like, taking Mona Lisa, put a mustache on her and then sell as your own stuff.
This is the definition of the "can I copy your homework" meme. I am a graphic design student and we had multiple discussions with multiple profs. On the difference between inspiration interpretation and plagiarism. You can use " pieces" for interpretation but not chunks is how my profs put it. If someone can not spot the difference you plagiarized.
People don't respect photographers work as art nearly enough- if this dude copied another painting it would be considered a way bigger deal but bc it's "just a picture" he feels entitled to just steal it and people are willing to sweep it under the rug,,,, what a dickhole. First rule of art: if you copy off of a picture for practice, cool, just don't profit off of it you selfish twat
as someone that uses photos for real inspiration in art but not final pieces, he DID try using everything to trick "reverse lookup" on his "art" Just cause you Recolor something or "Franken doll" it {taking muti pictures and mash together} Does not make it OC, You are still stealing and copying!
It's obvious he has no imagination, or he would do his own compositions. I perfectly understand the concept of copying other people's work as practice pieces, but you don't claim them as original works and make money off of them. It sounds like this man was just way too impatient. He has the technical skills. Now he just needs to learn composition and broaden his imagination. But now that he is exposed as a fraud, he is going to have a hard time moving forward with that. What he *should* be doing is apologizing profusely and give up the award and any profits he made, not doubling down on excuses.
The point of a portrait is to paint an image realistically, not imaginatively. How can you not understand this?
Load More Replies...Beside the point but the model in the photograph is unbelievably beautiful
I agree. It's a gorgeous picture and I think the painting is pretty too. It sucks that the painter didn't ask for permission. I wonder what's happened since the article came out about him.
Load More Replies...He's obviously very talented, why not "be inspired" by other's artwork rather than just copying them?
Is he talented? I'm a mediocre artist and we learned early on how to grid any image and recreate it. Yeah there's some technique involved but mostly it just gives you a big fat ego until you wake up and remember you did nothing but copy it and you're still no better artist 😅
Load More Replies...Like when websites take content from elsewhere and monetize it, all the while censoring basic words to avoid being demonetized. Wild, huh?
BP credits the source material and adds their own editorial. This guy did neither.
Load More Replies...I would be surprised if it is even real paint and not just a filter he had printed on canvas and then glossed over a top coat. Disgusting!!!!
He is a technical genius...a master craftsman. But not an artist. He has none of the creative fire...the originality. He is a master copiest. He could paint the Annunciation a thousand times, but that would not make him comparable to Da Vinci. He is a skillful Xerox machine in oil. Nothing more.
It is certainly strange that he has gotten a lawyer, when she hasn't even threatened legal action. It just sounds to me like she wants an apology and the return of the prize, plus taking his painting off the market for sale. His lawyer must not be a good one because he most certainly would lose any court case.
"Cite your sources" is the most basic rule of thumb to follow. This guy is a thief, a liar, unethical, unprofessional, and is throwing some big piles of sexism and racism in there, too.
Sign this petition please In order to help Jingna getting her work respected https://chng.it/wkj2Jfxg
Plagiarists make my goddamn blood boil. Even more so when they try to hide behind pathetic excuses instead of owning up to what they did.
I signed the petition, I hope that helps to deter this kind of fraud! That being said, what a beautiful photo, wow! ❤️
Is he majoring in art forgery? He could make a killing in that market...
This young man is talented, there is not denying that. But he has no integrity.
Sorry that she can't sue him. I paint often from my friend's posted pictures: they are usually flattered, but if it is a professional photographer I pay if I can find them. If not, I don't copy. Maybe she needs to put some kind of international lawsuit warning?
'Douchebag' has no shame, obviously. To accept a prize and then profit from another artists work is a dirty, unscrupulous thing to do. Also brings disrepute to the prize committee and gallery!
Under US law this is unquestionably copyright infringement. A derivative work is based on a preexisting work. The owner of the preexisting copyright must authorize a derivative work. Transformative fair use can apply as a defense in some cases but I seriously doubt it would apply here - the copying is so substantial of a creative work with virtually nothing new added. I can't imagine the law in Luxembourg is that different.
I once did a painting based on a Christy Lee Rogers photo (her work is AMAZING and absolutely beautiful.and moving), however it was a study. No plans to sell or do anything of that nature. I did post it on IG, but also tagged her in it and explicitly said I used her photo for reference. That's how it should be done. I'm self taught and know very, very little and even I know better than that lol
https://chng.it/wkj2Jfxg Dear all please sign this petition to help Jingna. Let’s help revoking Dieschburgs price. Let’s stand together for respected intelectual property laws. Sven from Luxembourg
This kid is an idiot and his work shouldn't be praised because he is dishonest. They should take back his prize and maybe even make him give the paintings to the photographers.
Yet another white man appropriating a Woman of Color's work and parading it around as his.
Hi, so I make art and you can "copy" ppls work if u give credit to who u used for the art, and if it's not being used to get money. U can't sell it or win cash. U see ppl on red bubble and etsy selling marvel stuff right? Well it's actually illegal to use Marvel's characters to accumulate currency, it just happens so often they can't stop it. When someone has an OC (Original Character) it means u cannot copy their character. U can't use it except for fanart and cannot make money from it. When a photographer or artist signs their name on their work, then put it online, they don't lose ownership. If you signed it, that means YOU own the rights to that image, and whoever that modeled the work owns the image asw UNLESS they were paid. If you pay the photographer/artist THEY own the rights, but are basically selling it to you, if they pay you YOU OWN THE RIGHTS, but you're selling it to them.
As an artist I do not copy, or use as inspiration another's work, either photography or painting. And I expect the same (legal) respect) in return. (I did once use a forest scene, but kept it as my own, refused to show or sell it, even when asked, because, as I would tell people "I copied someone's work, it's not my own.)
A historian with a good reputation plagarized all my work, made it into an exhibition, printed a little catalogue that is an almost exact mini copy of my book. Of course it made me insanely mad, but on the other hand, it only shows me how untalented some people can be that they need to copy someone else's work to justify their sad, unimaginative existence.
A copy right lawyer needs to donate his/her services to these artists to sue this guy. As the child of a known artist I can tell you how often style is copied that is too close to the original. But this isn't just using part of an image or borrowing the style or even putting another face in there and borrowing scene as an hommage. This is out and our copying. I can't imagine having all that technical ability and absolutely no creativity of my own. Seriously. I'd give him a 98 for rendering and a 1 for creativity. That makes for a mediocre artist. I can't believe he couldn't think of anything at all on his own or at least change more to make it his own like putting her in a field of flowers and changing her garment, or a thousand other obvious changes. The smallish earring added is nothing. To say this is different is gaslighting and many of us have had our fill of gaslighting!
Greedy bastard is what this fella is. If you're going to use other people's work. Share the spoils.
remind me in france there was something called polygate where a women took fanart on deviant art put a polygon filter and call it her own
This is really interesting. Is it possible to paint something that you have seen a picture of without breaching copyright? I know Jack Vettriano was criticised after one of his paintings was found to be inspired by a picture in an artists' training book ie another painting. If this was a photo of a photo then it would be wrong for sure. This feels wrong, but is it??
Are you talking about seeing another work, forgetting you saw it, and then recreating it by accident? Because unless this guy has photographic memory, he copied it so closely that it couldn't have been an accident. Aside from that, I gathered from his statement that he acknowledges he copied it, but he just doesn't consider it plagiarism.
Load More Replies...The only people that can support the shameful position of this two so-called artists are those that are ignorant about art, as themselves. I have been an artist for over 25 years. Never cited, because it is not my approach, but have been cited and gladly. The painter painted an image out of your photos. The paintings are not your art work. Period. Grow up and try to do relevant work.
He should be arrested for that man bun. He looks like he hasn't showered in months and smells like sweaty balls that he calls, "style".
I kinda see both sides here. I'm actually on my way to getting a BFA and so we learn all about Art history and how previous work affects newer peices. And neither side is exactly wrong. The painter is definately in poor taste but it's really not that uncommon for artists to rip off one annother. True, usually they do it more creatively but there's literally an artist out there who takes other people's paintings and images and edits them, sometimes in barely noticeable ways. Photo studies are legitimate peices, and if the guy had just cited her she would have no leg to stand on. Buy on the other hand, most artists when using other works as a base don't pull the WHOLE image; but then again I'm also an abstract expressionist style painter so realism is not something I tangle with so who knows how they operate. Regardless, unless the photographer got the correct copyright she's going to have a hard time proving anything to the court.
Is this really so Bad? I dont know anything about this since i only draw for fun. I would think that him drawing after a Photograph would totally be enough, since the drawing part is already difficult enough. And where does this start? I mostly draw cars, and stuff live that and so when i want to draw a Lamborghini i search for pictures of it online. Or do i have to find one and take a picture myself. And would that even be enough or is that copyright of the Designer of the car?
Copyright laws are a bit murky and some lawyers can try to find loopholes. However, part of the issue here is that he really didn't change it up much he essentially took it to photo editor flipped it and adjusted the filter. If you take your own photo and recreated it you should be good, but if you take someone's photo that they did the work of getting the lighting and the props just right and just copied it and take try to take credit is another thing. Edit: He tried to act like he made this by referencing multiple photos when it's clear he only used one.
Load More Replies...So, if he PAINTED a copy of Micheal Angelo's DAVID, would this confected outrage still simmer. HE PAINTED THE PHOTOGRAPH and produced a likeness. She should be flattered.
When people copy a master, everyone knows it is a copy. He claimed this as an original, and profited off of it.
Load More Replies...Bro his job is to literally practice by taking paintings of things he sees its how you learn. If i took an image and he used it i wouldnt even care bc its basically free advertising. Im not justifying anyone here all of them are fools its all just a huge example of them all gatekeeping eachother this is why i, an artist, hate the artist community with a passion. Anyone who needs reference material is immediately labeled an idiot, untalented, and a copycat and its gotten to the point that things like NFTs and Adopts exist and its honestly terrible. This man can learn how to learn the age of the images he uses and take his own and when he gets further painting he wont need them, when he has an ounce of independence, and this other pic person can learn that theyre putting a very cliche picture in a sea of more and less impressive things, and they learn some damn humility. The art community is far too easily offended.
It's not 'free advertising' when the original artist isn't credited... I think it would have been a world of difference if he had asked Zhang for permission first, or at least if he had credited Zhang in his work, or if he had not entered his painting for a competition/commercial gain, or if he had not written to Zhang in a lecturing tone...
Load More Replies...What's funny to me, both artists are irrelevant. The true work of art, in both cases (the female model), doesn't get any credit. We care about the photograph or the canvas, but not the beauty it attempts to capture. And of course, it would never be the subject's decision, right? Those who are beautiful don't have an eye for it. That's what they would have you believe. If your art is a human, your medium does not matter. They both copied the model, and both did so poorly.
The female model did get credited by Zhang, her name is Ji Hye Park: https://www.facebook.com/zemotion/photos/my-new-cover-for-harpers-bazaar-vn-with-the-most-graceful-ji-hye-park-%EF%B8%8Fphotograp/10155780961366303/
Load More Replies...I don't get where "mansplaining" comes into this, but other than that, this is not what inspiration looks like. It's just a copy.
The "mansplaining" is him, a student, telling a professional woman artist that she is wrong about calling it plagiarism under the law.
Load More Replies...The difference is that Warhol wasn't claiming he invented or designed the Campbell's soup can. His point was not to copy or steal and pass off work as his own, but to make a point about art: if I copy this commercially-designed logo with artistic supplies in an artistic medium, does it become art? This artist who had her work ripped off is in no way a company like Campbell's, being parodied. It's pretty clear which is the side of both art AND integrity.
Load More Replies...If that is true, I am quite sure they are still required to give credit to the original artist.
Load More Replies...This is akin to taking a book and translating it to another language. The copyright for the book *and* the "derivative work" is owned by the original creator of the book (unless assigned to another; then they own the copyright to both works). As to your question, no, painting the Leaning Tower of Pisa would not be plagiarism. Copying another's photograph, including layout, lighting, and most details of the photograph *would* be plagiarism. Just as copying Mona Lisa and calling it your own would be plagiarism.
Load More Replies...What if this were music? Jeff hears a song on youtube or spotify, copies it exactly and changes only the key (analog to changing the color of the dress) and adds a small chime (analog to the earring) on one verse. Then Jeff wins €1500 in. Luxembourg radio song contest. The artist of the original song complains and says he violates copyright. Jeff gets lawyered up and now wants to sell his song for €6500. Do you still see nothing wrong with plagiarism?
Load More Replies...While it technically is legal to copy anything, I do indeed believe that it is illegal to either publicize, sell, or and publish an artwork unless you have first received prior permission from the creator. If you are caught plagiarizing any work of art you run the risk of getting caught and often paying severe consequences. While some artists may draw inspiration from other great works of art to help inspire their own, the young man in this article was committing blatant plagiarism. He crossed the line from drawing inspiration from another person's artwork to flat-out plagiarism by selling copies of this artist's work for financial profit. Many artists online will now watermark their artworks to prevent art-theft...unfortunately, these watermarks often don't deter art thieves.
Load More Replies...No you are wrong. It is not OK to plagiarize. We need to stop people from doing it. Just because it happens „all the time“ does not make it OK. In the music industry there are often trials over plagiarism involving much less overlap of content. All artists must be protected
Load More Replies...
222
164