Where Credit Is Due22

The “bad” gains respect through imitation;
the “good” loses it, especially in art.

—Friedrich Nietzsche

Discussing the value of originality in photography, a fellow photographer asked about a situation in which an original image is later “trumped” by another photographer, suggesting that the value of the original concept and composition may be diminished if someone else managed a technically superior version of it, or a version captured in more auspicious circumstances. The question highlights several issues facing photographic artists when it comes to recognition of their creative efforts, one of which is an apparent division among those who consider “getting the shot” a primarily technical or competitive endeavor, and those who consider creative expression—originality, subjectivity, intent, etc.—as more laudable than technical or fortuitous qualities.

Put in a different perspective, if someone produced an expertly rendered copy of van Gogh’s Starry Night and added a trace of the arc of the Milky Way to the sky, would anyone suggest that the resulting work trumped the original? How about a superb copy of the Mona Lisa with the addition of rainbows and butterflies above the enigmatic portrait? Would Da Vinci have been trumped by it? If such work is made with any seriousness, it may well possess some artistic value, but I doubt very much that anyone would suggest these derivative works in any way diminish, or surpass in importance, the originals. Not so with photography, it would seem.

Such an attitude also highlights photography’s growing pains as an accepted medium for expressive art, perhaps best illustrated by comparing photography to music. In music, there is a clear distinction between composers and performers, singers and songwriters, players and conductors, rewarding each for their individual contributions but not for things they had no hand in. Even the most celebrated performers still take great care to credit a score to its original composer. Whether performed by the London Philharmonic or the Utah Symphony, the Brandenburg Concertos will always be credited to Bach. In music, credit is given separately to acknowledge virtuoso violinists, pianists, conductors, etc., recognizing them for their individual contributions, rather than for the entire production. When was the last time you saw a photographer crediting the composition of an image to another, whom they know to be its original author?

When musicians render their own interpretations of previously published work, their performances are openly regarded as “covers,” and distinct from originals, taking nothing away from the creator and only claiming credit for what was added or changed. Similarly, when old movies are re-filmed, they are considered “remakes.” When a theater troupe performs a work by a known playwright, they never proclaim themselves the authors or owners of the script. When dancers perform a ballet, they might credit themselves for the choreography, but never for the musical score.

I long for the day when photographers show similar respect to the giants upon whose shoulders they stand; when derivative work is appropriately presented as covers or remakes, and original authors are appropriately credited. Until photography acknowledges the concept of plagiarism as other media do, it will continue to struggle as a creative art by failing to acknowledge the importance of creativity itself.