This saddens me so much. But wounded people who have no consciousness will always exist, no matter what. It was refreshing to see though how you handled this so calmly and how you looed at plagiarism as a form of appreciation, which of course it is. But to feed on someone else's creative fire is such a sick way to live your life. In the end, they are the ones who end up feeling empty because they can never access their heart. Which is why they have to steal from other's heart overflow.
To my mind, you can try to copy the style, light and manner of anyone's work. BUT, only if you give credit to the photograph and photographer that you have copied.
It is called a 'homage' and when done properly it is accompanied by a statement of admiration, a respect for work that was done before your work.
Those who steal with impunity are not artists. They are copy-cats. There is no excuse for it. I am not even sure I can accept the 'oh, I didn't know'. It may well be true, but should you not have a look around before you jump in? And even though your conscious self cannot recall seeing what it is you are emulating, it may well live in your subconscious. A conservative number, from what I have read online is that we are exposed to about 4,000 to 10,000 image impressions per day. While some of them register, we can only recall a few, but many are stored.... just below the surface. Excuses, excuses. A copy-cat is still a copy-cat.
I almost included at line or two about crediting other artists for an idea but I decided not to, because that still means they plagiarized, to an extent, haha. However, I do think letting others know when you’re inspired by an artist is a good thing — I’ve done that in the past and will continue to do so.
I hear you. Loud and clear. I am about to post a letter I sent to the Director of the MEP in Paris just before COVID. I think it explains how I feel about these things!
Speaking truth here, in agreement. They can try but can’t come close to years of honing a technique like yours. As well as interacting with models, staging, etc., all depends on the artist.
I want people to steal my ideas. Steal them all, I made them to share. It only really matters to people who have a chance of making money off them lol. No hope of that for me, so steal away, I think they're neat.
Hello Michael. Your distinction between inspiration and theft is absolutely necessary and important. If a photographer truly creates exact copies of lighting, model, pose, camera, film, etc., I completely agree with you—this is no longer a coincidence but deliberate theft. Your comment on this is therefore entirely understandable. However, if even one element is missing, it can no longer be a 1:1 copy. The “copying” photographer would have to practically work with your image as a reference directly on set to replicate every detail.
What I want to point out—and this is by no means a criticism, but rather an observation—is that a model in front of a black background, covered with a translucent cloth, isn’t inherently a new idea. What makes it special is how you have interpreted and refined this technique for yourself. Your version certainly has a unique signature that defines you. But if we look at other artists like Herman Försterling or Nikolai Makarov, we see that they, too, work intensively with cloth and nude models in their own way. Here, the question arises: where do you personally draw the line between inspiration and theft?
I also came across an unknown artist working with nudes and long exposure: Here’s the link. Perhaps their approach could also serve as inspiration, but it shows that similar themes can always be interpreted artistically in different ways.
I fully understand that it can feel like theft when someone replicates your work—and that can be frustrating. But I think your mindset to let it go and move forward is the right approach. Creativity always builds on what has come before. If we take a closer look at art history, we realize that “stealing”—whether consciously or unconsciously—has always been part of the process. At this point, we could even delve into a philosophical discussion about where our ideas originate, how art is socialized, and how perception shapes us. Ultimately, every idea is a product of its time, influences, and individual interpretation.
What I find exciting is this: in your wonderful photographs, I personally see connections to Francesca Woodman. She had an unparalleled ability to experiment with the interplay of body, space, and movement—often in black and white, with a fragile yet powerful aesthetic. Your work reminds me of how Woodman managed to translate emotions into something almost tangible while leaving room for interpretation. It’s a huge compliment when I say that I recognize this influence in your work—not as a copy, but as a kind of poetic resonance. Interestingly, Francesca also often worked with longer exposure times, which ties beautifully into this discussion.
In the end, I believe that no matter which art form we examine—photography, painting, music, or literature—it ultimately comes down to one’s ego to determine whether a person feels copied. All in all, it doesn’t really matter who does what or how. The main thing is that you create something that gives you a means of expression and makes you unique. Everything else will always be different anyway. Even if you put two photographers in front of the exact same object with the same setting, you’ll always end up with two different images. One might resonate more, the other less. And that’s precisely what makes art so special: the diversity of perspectives, the emotions it evokes, and the uniqueness that each artist brings to their work.
I couldn't agree more and yes, it is challenging to see where that line is. That's totally understandable. I know it's more nuanced than what I stated but at the same time I do feel like if you have to question it, it's probably not a good thing, haha. I'm incredibly inspired by Francesca Wooman's photographs but I've never once found an image and then copied it, which I think falls on the artist making that decision. But you are correct, there are artistic endevours that cross over. Some of my photographs may look like some of Ruth Bernhards... but I didn't intentionally do that and I know that to my core. What I'm speaking of is those artists that directly follow me, know what they are doing, and they deliberately take without even an acknowledgment. It's more of a piece intended to call out those that do this intentionally, and I believe they know who they are.
Yes, Francesca is/was incredibly inspiring, and so is Ruth. And I can see more of what I might call your “roots” there—if I may say so! A cheeky devil might even claim that your photographs bear a striking resemblance to Ruth’s 🤭
Honestly, I’d be really curious to see what these so-called copies look like. When I first discovered Francesca’s work, I was so inspired and moved by it that I grabbed a friend who’s a dancer, and we spent an entire morning locked inside an old, abandoned house, creating photos. Francesca’s images were definitely floating in the back of my mind at first, but as the session progressed, and we got caught up in the energy and process, they faded further into the background. We ended up finding our own very intimate path.
Was that stolen? I’d say no. Inspiration? Absolutely, 100%. I think the distinction lies in whether something is taken intentionally and reproduced without adding anything of your own or whether it’s a moment where inspiration ignites your creativity and leads you somewhere new. And from what you’ve said, your issue isn’t with inspiration—it’s with those who knowingly and deliberately take without acknowledgment. That distinction matters, and I think anyone who understands the artistic process knows the difference.
I allow others to steal and copy my work, I'm not jealous or self obsessed enough to care about those things. The knowledge and inspiration that I gain through my work is for the world to see. I'm a messenger, not a gatekeeper
Awesome, but it’s not gatekeeping. Gatekeeping would be me not telling anyone the film or camera or location or fabric or anything involved. I teach people in classes… I have no issue with telling people about my process. However if you take that process and go copy the same photos I made, that’s just copying. Not gatekeeping.
You know I’ve been thinking about this for years and I’m on the fence with this one. No thought or idea is truly original—they pass through the collective consciousness until someone claims them. Even then, I believe people should be free to take an idea and build upon it, potentially making it better. Take Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon—it drew heavily from African tribal art. While his work was transformative, it was rooted in pre-existing ideas. The difference? He acknowledged the influence and reinterpreted it in a way that sparked Cubism. It’s not the borrowing that’s the problem; it’s failing to recognize the origin or add anything meaningful to it.
That lack of credit, not the borrowing itself, is the true problem.
Also,not everyone is meant to be “original.” Some excel at executing ideas rather than creating them, and that’s a skill in itself. Dismissing their contributions because they aren’t groundbreaking undermines the value of their work. Creativity thrives when inspiration and innovation coexist, not when one is vilified.
I agree, read through the comments :). You’re speaking of the idea itself but I’m speaking of replicating an already conceived and constructed idea. Being inspired by and using a general idea is NOT what I’m referring to. Copying is not being inspired by. And yes, the lack of credit is definitely something I understand, and do myself. However that’s based around inspiration. I’m constantly inspired by photographers and painters and think of them often when I create. But the line here is when do you go from inspiration to copying? To me, there’s a distinct difference between being inspired by and flat out finding a photograph and mimicking it.
I’m actually speaking on both inspirations and coping. Copying, in itself, isn’t inherently bad—it’s often how artists learn and grow. The issue is lack of evolution or acknowledgement. I get your frustration but no one can accurately imitate your technique, composition or perspective. Forgive me, I know nothing about photography but two people could shoot the same subject at the same location with similar equipment, yet the results will differ slightly. Am I not allowed to paint the exact same painting as Picasso’s? Of course I can but must give credit where credit is due.
I’ve been plagiarized word for word in real life more than once, and had people copy sections out of my journals and post them as their own here on Substack. It’s infuriating. (But also a little funny because it comes through my feed and I get to call them on it.) It must be more difficult for an artist for the reasons you listed but I’m sure I’d be able to tell the difference between your work and a copycat.
The full quote fits even better with your rant "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery mediocrity can pay to greatness"
Perhaps I should update the post, haha. Thank you!
Is that Coco Chanel?
Lol no it's Oscar Wilde
Close…. sorry. Coco was: 'If you want to be original, be ready to be copied'.
This saddens me so much. But wounded people who have no consciousness will always exist, no matter what. It was refreshing to see though how you handled this so calmly and how you looed at plagiarism as a form of appreciation, which of course it is. But to feed on someone else's creative fire is such a sick way to live your life. In the end, they are the ones who end up feeling empty because they can never access their heart. Which is why they have to steal from other's heart overflow.
Very well said, Daniela. Thank you!
To my mind, you can try to copy the style, light and manner of anyone's work. BUT, only if you give credit to the photograph and photographer that you have copied.
It is called a 'homage' and when done properly it is accompanied by a statement of admiration, a respect for work that was done before your work.
Those who steal with impunity are not artists. They are copy-cats. There is no excuse for it. I am not even sure I can accept the 'oh, I didn't know'. It may well be true, but should you not have a look around before you jump in? And even though your conscious self cannot recall seeing what it is you are emulating, it may well live in your subconscious. A conservative number, from what I have read online is that we are exposed to about 4,000 to 10,000 image impressions per day. While some of them register, we can only recall a few, but many are stored.... just below the surface. Excuses, excuses. A copy-cat is still a copy-cat.
I almost included at line or two about crediting other artists for an idea but I decided not to, because that still means they plagiarized, to an extent, haha. However, I do think letting others know when you’re inspired by an artist is a good thing — I’ve done that in the past and will continue to do so.
I hear you. Loud and clear. I am about to post a letter I sent to the Director of the MEP in Paris just before COVID. I think it explains how I feel about these things!
Speaking truth here, in agreement. They can try but can’t come close to years of honing a technique like yours. As well as interacting with models, staging, etc., all depends on the artist.
I want people to steal my ideas. Steal them all, I made them to share. It only really matters to people who have a chance of making money off them lol. No hope of that for me, so steal away, I think they're neat.
haha, awesome! That's not a bad perspective.
Hello Michael. Your distinction between inspiration and theft is absolutely necessary and important. If a photographer truly creates exact copies of lighting, model, pose, camera, film, etc., I completely agree with you—this is no longer a coincidence but deliberate theft. Your comment on this is therefore entirely understandable. However, if even one element is missing, it can no longer be a 1:1 copy. The “copying” photographer would have to practically work with your image as a reference directly on set to replicate every detail.
What I want to point out—and this is by no means a criticism, but rather an observation—is that a model in front of a black background, covered with a translucent cloth, isn’t inherently a new idea. What makes it special is how you have interpreted and refined this technique for yourself. Your version certainly has a unique signature that defines you. But if we look at other artists like Herman Försterling or Nikolai Makarov, we see that they, too, work intensively with cloth and nude models in their own way. Here, the question arises: where do you personally draw the line between inspiration and theft?
I also came across an unknown artist working with nudes and long exposure: Here’s the link. Perhaps their approach could also serve as inspiration, but it shows that similar themes can always be interpreted artistically in different ways.
I fully understand that it can feel like theft when someone replicates your work—and that can be frustrating. But I think your mindset to let it go and move forward is the right approach. Creativity always builds on what has come before. If we take a closer look at art history, we realize that “stealing”—whether consciously or unconsciously—has always been part of the process. At this point, we could even delve into a philosophical discussion about where our ideas originate, how art is socialized, and how perception shapes us. Ultimately, every idea is a product of its time, influences, and individual interpretation.
What I find exciting is this: in your wonderful photographs, I personally see connections to Francesca Woodman. She had an unparalleled ability to experiment with the interplay of body, space, and movement—often in black and white, with a fragile yet powerful aesthetic. Your work reminds me of how Woodman managed to translate emotions into something almost tangible while leaving room for interpretation. It’s a huge compliment when I say that I recognize this influence in your work—not as a copy, but as a kind of poetic resonance. Interestingly, Francesca also often worked with longer exposure times, which ties beautifully into this discussion.
In the end, I believe that no matter which art form we examine—photography, painting, music, or literature—it ultimately comes down to one’s ego to determine whether a person feels copied. All in all, it doesn’t really matter who does what or how. The main thing is that you create something that gives you a means of expression and makes you unique. Everything else will always be different anyway. Even if you put two photographers in front of the exact same object with the same setting, you’ll always end up with two different images. One might resonate more, the other less. And that’s precisely what makes art so special: the diversity of perspectives, the emotions it evokes, and the uniqueness that each artist brings to their work.
Keep up the „inspiring“ work 😊
I couldn't agree more and yes, it is challenging to see where that line is. That's totally understandable. I know it's more nuanced than what I stated but at the same time I do feel like if you have to question it, it's probably not a good thing, haha. I'm incredibly inspired by Francesca Wooman's photographs but I've never once found an image and then copied it, which I think falls on the artist making that decision. But you are correct, there are artistic endevours that cross over. Some of my photographs may look like some of Ruth Bernhards... but I didn't intentionally do that and I know that to my core. What I'm speaking of is those artists that directly follow me, know what they are doing, and they deliberately take without even an acknowledgment. It's more of a piece intended to call out those that do this intentionally, and I believe they know who they are.
Yes, Francesca is/was incredibly inspiring, and so is Ruth. And I can see more of what I might call your “roots” there—if I may say so! A cheeky devil might even claim that your photographs bear a striking resemblance to Ruth’s 🤭
Honestly, I’d be really curious to see what these so-called copies look like. When I first discovered Francesca’s work, I was so inspired and moved by it that I grabbed a friend who’s a dancer, and we spent an entire morning locked inside an old, abandoned house, creating photos. Francesca’s images were definitely floating in the back of my mind at first, but as the session progressed, and we got caught up in the energy and process, they faded further into the background. We ended up finding our own very intimate path.
Was that stolen? I’d say no. Inspiration? Absolutely, 100%. I think the distinction lies in whether something is taken intentionally and reproduced without adding anything of your own or whether it’s a moment where inspiration ignites your creativity and leads you somewhere new. And from what you’ve said, your issue isn’t with inspiration—it’s with those who knowingly and deliberately take without acknowledgment. That distinction matters, and I think anyone who understands the artistic process knows the difference.
I allow others to steal and copy my work, I'm not jealous or self obsessed enough to care about those things. The knowledge and inspiration that I gain through my work is for the world to see. I'm a messenger, not a gatekeeper
Awesome, but it’s not gatekeeping. Gatekeeping would be me not telling anyone the film or camera or location or fabric or anything involved. I teach people in classes… I have no issue with telling people about my process. However if you take that process and go copy the same photos I made, that’s just copying. Not gatekeeping.
Never said you were. ;)
You know I’ve been thinking about this for years and I’m on the fence with this one. No thought or idea is truly original—they pass through the collective consciousness until someone claims them. Even then, I believe people should be free to take an idea and build upon it, potentially making it better. Take Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon—it drew heavily from African tribal art. While his work was transformative, it was rooted in pre-existing ideas. The difference? He acknowledged the influence and reinterpreted it in a way that sparked Cubism. It’s not the borrowing that’s the problem; it’s failing to recognize the origin or add anything meaningful to it.
That lack of credit, not the borrowing itself, is the true problem.
Also,not everyone is meant to be “original.” Some excel at executing ideas rather than creating them, and that’s a skill in itself. Dismissing their contributions because they aren’t groundbreaking undermines the value of their work. Creativity thrives when inspiration and innovation coexist, not when one is vilified.
I agree, read through the comments :). You’re speaking of the idea itself but I’m speaking of replicating an already conceived and constructed idea. Being inspired by and using a general idea is NOT what I’m referring to. Copying is not being inspired by. And yes, the lack of credit is definitely something I understand, and do myself. However that’s based around inspiration. I’m constantly inspired by photographers and painters and think of them often when I create. But the line here is when do you go from inspiration to copying? To me, there’s a distinct difference between being inspired by and flat out finding a photograph and mimicking it.
I’m actually speaking on both inspirations and coping. Copying, in itself, isn’t inherently bad—it’s often how artists learn and grow. The issue is lack of evolution or acknowledgement. I get your frustration but no one can accurately imitate your technique, composition or perspective. Forgive me, I know nothing about photography but two people could shoot the same subject at the same location with similar equipment, yet the results will differ slightly. Am I not allowed to paint the exact same painting as Picasso’s? Of course I can but must give credit where credit is due.
I agree.
I’ve been plagiarized word for word in real life more than once, and had people copy sections out of my journals and post them as their own here on Substack. It’s infuriating. (But also a little funny because it comes through my feed and I get to call them on it.) It must be more difficult for an artist for the reasons you listed but I’m sure I’d be able to tell the difference between your work and a copycat.