plagiarism is taking the work of others and passing it as your own without crediting the authors. In this case the photographer created his work of art/composition, your work is completely based on the work of art of the photographer, a derivative work, and you dont credit the author, hence, its plagiarism.
Additionally, you dont have permission to monetize derivative works of that copyrighted photograph, so you are also infringing copyright law.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
From one of the forums:
"One of the biggest scandals in the field of copyright with the participation of Russian contemporary artists happened to the artist Georgy Pusenkov, who has been permanently residing in Cologne for the fifth year. Like all modern artists who use elements of postmodernism, Pusenkoff used a citation in one of his paintings a nude girl, a pose and even highlights and shadows copied the model of one of the works of the famous photographer Helmut Newton, famous for the series of artistic shots of naked models. Puzenkova’s plagiarism is not very clear: the rough and unattractive (unlike the original) silhouette of the girl is depicted as dead lilac and black, and the “all the most interesting” covers the yellow square. Actually, Pusenkoff’s work is very ironic - “Power of Blue”. Unfortunately, it was this picture that was exhibited at the Venice Biennale and caught the eye of the maitre of photography. Newton was outraged, finding that it was the work of a malicious plagiarist before him. Pusenkov, in turn, implied that the open quotation flattered the author of the original, because ku it is - a sure sign of recognition of the artistic credibility of international importance. However, the master of the “world” did not go, unambiguously hinting at Pusenkoff’s lawyers that everything can be quoted, but subject to appropriate deductions to the author. At the first stage of the instant trial, the Land Court in Hamburg upheld Newton’s lawsuit, banning Pusenkova from exposing the painting and distributing its reproductions. Pusenkoff sold the painting for an extremely high price - 16 thousand DM, at the same time filing an appeal with the court. On the day when this issue of Money magazine was signed, we contacted Cologne, where the artist lives, by telephone. Here is what George Pusenkov himself said:
“I beat Newton this process today.” I appealed to the High Court in Hamburg, and this court found me right. All his absurd claims are removed. After the first trial I was forbidden to exhibit this work, otherwise I was threatened with fines and almost a prison. Now all these sanctions have been lifted from me, besides, Newton pays all legal costs, pays lawyers. One could also file a claim for moral damages, but that would be a separate story. The absurdity of the situation, from my point of view, is that a painting, an object made by hands, is a completely different area of perception than photography. Of course, this is a quotation, but when a quote is used in a work of art, it is used as a stone, as a tool used for construction - and the building is completely different. It may be, in addition to this, any other elements.
Well, given the loudness of Newton's worldwide fame, the exceptional interest of the Western press in the just-completed litigation and the unprecedentedness of the final — few expected that the court would take the side of an émigré artist from Russia — the current owners of the ill-fated picture could make a fortune this week.
There are many ways of borrowing, in which there is nothing bad, and resorted to by the most eminent masters.
You can learn more about art plagiarism here: https://steemit.com/abuse/@jaguar.force/what-is-art-plagiarism-by-francis-leverett-golden
what you are doing is not borrowing, since you dont have permission by the author. borrowing is done with consent.
This is not plagiarism! you are a stupid person
You are really bad at making arguments.
lets see you argue in russian clown. @daio has worked hard to create actual content on the platform and people are acting stupid, why should she even need to argue with anyone?
She doesn't, but if she's going to, calling people stupid instead of addressing the claims isn't a good way of going about it.
I call you stupid all the time with no support for my opinion. I am all for educating and helping people but these self appointmented police ot thr blockchain is of no value. This is my opinion.