Tobias made an interesting point yesterday, when he commented on my entry:

"I mean a Banksy image (www.banksy.co.uk) is considered art but you wouldn’t post it as a photograph on your site because that would be considered plagerism"

And I assume that this can be applied more generally: graffiti is art, therefore its reproduction is a form of plagiarism – claiming somebody else's work as your own. Now, and this is an issue that's been raised before on chromasia, clearly I don't hold this view – if I did I wouldn't post this sort of stuff – but I thought it was probably something that we could discuss. Is it theft/plagiarism, is it simply a form of documentation, is it something else? I'll write more about my own views – either in the comments or on tomorrow's entry (another graffiti shot) – but I'd be grateful if you could let me know what you think.

captured
camera
lens
focal length
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
cropped?
3.42pm on 24/9/05
Canon 20D
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
37mm (59mm equiv.)
f/5.6
1/125
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
100
no
RAW
C1 Pro
no
<<< prev / latest / next >>> // 44 comments // archives + galleries + thumbs // RSS // about + blog // store + training and tutorials
AboutBlogCommissionsPhotoblogGalleriesPrintsStock imagesStoreTraining<<< hide these links 
chromasia.com
(re)presenting graffiti / 30 September, 2005 [click for previous image: the gatekeeper]
(re)presenting graffiti / 30 September, 2005 [click for next image: sore point]
Check out my initial review of the Fujifilm XT-1 here
© 2003–14 • all rights reserved