[PDL]

I can just imagine telling the cats "Hang on. we have to do that again."

The creation of that image is covered in the Time Life series on Photography.
Time Life series on Photography, copyright 1971, "The Studio" pages 28-29. Library of Congress card no.70-154544
It was taken with a 4x5 it took 26 attempts and used at least four assistants. There was cleanup in the studio in between each attempt.
The Four assistants: One (Mrs. Halsman) to hold the chair (the image displayed here you can still see and is not the one displayed on his site or in the Time Life book as the final image Dali | Philippe Halsman ), one to throw a bucket of water, three to throw the cats. Where the cats landed is not covered in the book.

The image was all timed by Dali getting ready to jump as all the parts and pieces were "in the air". In the image displayed here you can see the wires used to suspend the easels. All this before photoshop where "getting it done right in camera" was important, but even then (1948) it took a few hours to see the results. Then the dark room work began as the final image has no visible wires holding anything.

The final image is "Dali Atomicus" 1948

quote from the book showing 6 tries to get the shot.
1st. Dali does not get off the ground.
2nd. Cats barely in the picture.
3rd. Cats OK but water obscures Dali's face.
4th. One cat showing - two cats missing.
5th. Fine - except secretary in the shot walking by.
6th. Chair obscures Dali's face.
And on and on and on.

One maybe two "keepers" from 26 exposures does that ratio mean Halsman was a pray and spray photographer. ---- It's a joke ---- It is very hard to pray and spray with a 4x5.....

---

Last edited by PDL; 02-20-2019 at 06:52 PM.

[PJ1]

Halsman was a pray and spray photographer.

Thanks for the detail. Very interesting. I did not imagine that someone just threw a bucketful of cats and water and hoped for the best. But I wondered how it was all put together pre-photoshop. It qualifies as art in my book although it is not a path I would go down.

[MarkJerling]

Thanks for the detail. Very interesting. I did not imagine that someone just threw a bucketful of cats and water and hoped for the best. But I wondered how it was all put together pre-photoshop. It qualifies as art in my book although it is not a path I would go down.

I can't imagine the cats were very happy after 26 takes!

[clackers]

I can't imagine the cats were very happy after 26 takes!

Yeah, a photo of Mrs Halsman would have shown her sleeves ripped to shreds.

[clackers]

quote from the book showing 6 tries to get the shot.
1st. Dali does not get off the ground.
2nd. Cats barely in the picture.
3rd. Cats OK but water obscures Dali's face.
4th. One cat showing - two cats missing.
5th. Fine - except secretary in the shot walking by.
6th. Chair obscures Dali's face.
And on and on and on.

One maybe two "keepers" from 26 exposures does that ratio mean Halsman was a pray and spray photographer. ---- It's a joke ---- It is very hard to pray and spray with a 4x5.....

Thanks for the background, PDL, it just shows effort pays off.

And conceptual photography, like landscape and formal portraiture, sets the bar high in terms of preparation, other disciplines like Event, Journalism and Sports have more leeway in terms of focus, timing and composition because they're more ad hoc, often reactive rather than planned.

[PDL]

This image and its six "examples" were one of the first examples I ever studied in order to gain insight into photographic techniques. The books are large and the final image is full page. It is just beautiful as the book series is printed using a method that shows very little grain. I have spent many hours looking through them, reading them and learning technique and gaining insight from the masters.

[Rondec]

A broader question is the matter of appropriation in general. For example, photographers regularly appropriate sculpture, architecture, and landscape design as elements of composition and as props. The difference between that and copying another's photo is that the usual (and most often correct) assumption is that the photographer did not make both the photo and the statue.


Steve

I hesitate to call this work photography. It uses elements of photography, but with fairly significant manipulation. This feels more akin to graphic art that incorporates photographic elements into it.

[clackers]

I hesitate to call this work photography. It uses elements of photography, but with fairly significant manipulation. This feels more akin to graphic art that incorporates photographic elements into it.

The competition would say you can arrange your own photographs in whatever way you like to get a resulting image, but Lisa breached the 'your own' part.

[stevebrot]

The competition would say you can arrange your own photographs in whatever way you like to get a resulting image, but Lisa breached the 'your own' part.

Perhaps she subscribes to the notion that "possession is 9/10ths of the law".


Steve

[clackers]

Perhaps she subscribes to the notion that "possession is 9/10ths of the law".





Steve

(Laughs). Even if she'd paid the guy for the image, she couldn't have used it in the contest.

[kaseki]

Perhaps she subscribes to the notion that "possession is 9/10ths of the law".

Steve

This term originally meant that if one were caught with stolen property, the law weighted possession well above the excuse for the possession. That meaning is somewhat relevant here.

[Digitalis]

It is very hard to pray and spray with a 4x5.....

With deft and practiced hands, it gets easier.

[Merv-O]

Award-Winning Photographer Lisa Saad Accused of Stealing Photos

There is a related thread on how many Photographers, in part due to the saturated number of images have surrendered their copyrights, though I think if one has a image in "commerce" that should be enough to protect one's intellectual property....personally, I find it almost impossible to police.

Perhaps she subscribes to the notion that "possession is 9/10ths of the law". ...
Steve

Back when I was practicing law, I used to tell people that's not true: possession (which implies a presumption of lawful possession) is NOT nine-tenths of the law; it's one-tenth. How that possession is characterized is nine-tenths! Was the property stolen (as the prosecutor will maintain) or a bailment (holding it for the true owner, as the defense will argue). Theft? Gift? Inheritance?

It is possible to waive one's rights in property, particularly intellectual property. Keep in mind that copyright infringement suits sound in equity, not law. And the idea that a person has voluntarily waived his rights under the Berne Convention by publishing the picture in the public domain without any attempt to preserve his rights would be a valid equitable defense. (Which may or may not work, depending on the facts of the case and the identity of the parties.) Btw, the terms and conditions applied by website owners don't apply as to third parties unless the author has voluntarily and knowingly (1) granted an exclusive license to the website owner, or (2) agreed to a nonexclusive license that explicitly extends the right to make copies and use them to third parties.

As to U.S. law, there's an important statute that can be used in cases of rampant plagiarism, though: RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), which is both criminal and civil in scope. There is a number of "predicate offenses" that give rise to a civil action for violation of RICO, including two or more copyright violations. RICO provides for nationwide service of process, so the defendant can be sued where the plaintiff lives (the opposite of the general rule), which makes it even more convenient. Plus, there's no jurisdictional hurdle regarding registration with the Register of Copyrights at the Library of Congress.

This term originally meant that if one were caught with stolen property, the law weighted possession well above the excuse for the possession. That meaning is somewhat relevant here.

That's close; I'd add that this is a feature of the English common law. The principle is that a person who acquires possession of personal property as an innocent purchaser for value (i.e., paid good money for something not knowing that it was stolen) acquires title to the property to the disparagement of the original owner's title. What the original owner has a right to get back is compensation from the thief, not the property. This is still good law in Virginia (which holds that whatever the law was in England prior to the fourth year of the reign of James I, i.e., 1607, the founding of Jamestown, is the law of Virginia today).

That quip, that "possession is 9/10 of the law" is the launching pad of one of my favorite things to tell clients about the practical aspects of litigation. Here's the canned bit: "You've heard it said that possession is nine-tenths of the law, right? Well, that's dead wrong. The reality is that possession is one-tenth of the law. The other nine-tenths is how you CHARACTERIZE that possession: for example, whether the property had been acquired by theft, fraud, robbery, gift, purchase and sale, loan, trover, lien by possession, inheritance, etc. makes an enormous difference in the law that will be applied. How you characterize the facts of your case is the single most important aspect of your case. The really key thing is not to fall into the trap of adopting your opponent's characterizations (or mischaracterizations)."

For example, Nancy Pelosi says she was "set up". Her characterization of the hair-salon incident is entrapment. I suspect the opposition will have an entirely different way of talking about the same facts. It's all a matter of perspective, and your perspective is just as good as anyone else's.