On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 21:58, Naomi van der Lippe wrote: > Hi all > > Hope all the New Year's resolutions are holding up! > > I have seen a photo in a pamphlet on photography which I would like to > re-create and, if successful, to display on PUG sometime. Would this not be > seen as "photo-plagiarism"? I have seen zillions of beautiful photo's which > I would love to try however I am always concern about the consequences. > > How do you guys feel about this? > > Regards > > Naomi > > ************************************************************************************************************************** > Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of > MultiChoice Africa is proprietary to > the company. Any view or opinion expressed in this message may be the view of the > individual and should not automatically > be ascribed to the company. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not > peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or > copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the > sender immediately by email, facsimile > or telephone and destroy the original message. > ************************************************************************************************************************** >
Technically this is not plagarism (in the legal sense) as long as you don't try to pass off your work as being made by the original author. You are not strictly copying another's work, merely reproducing it. I also believe it is ok for a painter to make a copy of someone else's painting (i.e. the Mona Lisa) as long as said painter doesn't claim the painting is the original Mona Lisa by Leonardo Davinci. It is impossible to reproduce a photo exactly, so go ahead and make your best go at it. -Scott
