tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477449.post1816956158415580730..comments2024-03-18T13:56:52.176+00:00Comments on Beyond the obvious: A question of authorshipBeyond the obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00698822210164295613noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477449.post-76603033049814374682007-02-17T13:04:00.000+00:002007-02-17T13:04:00.000+00:00Hi Paul,Your explanation here makes it quite clear...Hi Paul,<BR/><BR/>Your explanation here makes it quite clear that this is a self portrait and wholely Magda's work. As Chris says, in this case, you were just the shutter triggering mechanism! In fairness, you probably played a continuity role in ensuring that Magda was positioned as she intended.<BR/>Without the explanation, however, it is easy to see why someone could think that this is more like one of the variety of images that you have posted featuring Magda.<BR/>I speak as one who managed to get completely the wrong end of the stick with Magda's "Idle" posting on ephotozine - to my unending regret.<BR/>I agree that copyright can obviously be transferred, but authorship cannot.<BR/>In terms of using assistants, there is some similarity here to the presentation of medical research papers, perhaps, where the prof may be the author of the paper but most of the research and lab work has been undertaken by assistants. That somehow has always seemed unfair to me. But I am in no doubt about Magda's authorship.<BR/>Best wishes to you both.<BR/><BR/>SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477449.post-86319889143935684222007-02-08T12:28:00.000+00:002007-02-08T12:28:00.000+00:00Andy Warhol used to have assistants who did the sc...Andy Warhol used to have assistants who did the screen printing for him, apparently some would sneak back at night and run off a few for themselves.<BR/><BR/>There is some debate as to whether these "extras" are genuine Warhols, AFAICS they are.<BR/><BR/>In the case of Magdas shot - I would say it is definitely her shot.<BR/><BR/>If she had used remote capture software to trigger your shot then the copyright would not belong to the software company who wrote the capture software. In this case Paul, you were simply relegated to the job of remote capture hardware! LOL.Chris Shepherdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07477371787636884460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477449.post-60405238801376607352007-02-08T11:07:00.000+00:002007-02-08T11:07:00.000+00:00Hi Paul,An interesting article and one close to my...Hi Paul,<BR/><BR/>An interesting article and one close to my own heart at present. I attended a series of debates on this subject recently. Interestingly I used several rennaisance masters not painting but directing their work as an argument for exactly what you have discussed. It may also interest people to know that at least 3 of the main Bienial artists in 2006 had not made their own work. They just supplied ideas to various companies. Also at one recent preview exhibition the photographer/artist had not seen the end result of his 'idea' until everyone else had. All where credited as the creator and copyright holder of the work.<BR/><BR/>Anyway anyone who is <I>anyone</I> in photography knows Magda takes <A HREF="http://bp1.blogger.com/_40zWmTzk5oU/RZu6iYIf6wI/AAAAAAAAABI/LHiIcvAYrF8/s1600-h/takenbymagda.jpg" REL="nofollow">the best pictures of photographers</A><BR/><BR/>:o)<BR/><BR/>DDavid Toynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04539656721786624824noreply@blogger.com