Imitation or Inspiration? No One Cares!

Whether Pablo Picasso or T.S. Eliot had said "good artists copy, great artists steal," I think they were both trying to emphasize the significance of finding and later on evolving a unique style for your art or craft. Well, this quote is quite ambiguous in some points and I doubt if stealing is still vital for being a "great artist."

Since I first started doing photography, I've always asked myself "what makes a good photographer?" I read lots of books and articles about this, but I've never found a decent personal answer. It was helpful not to find an out though; I still keep searching and learning by way of finding the most convenient answer. Most of the photographers — including some popular names — share their experiences and techniques in-depth for the last 10 years or more. They don't abstain from being copied or replicated hence they are aware of the fact that imitation is the sincerest flattery. Besides, they encourage anyone who has the potential of being greater than themselves. In this regard, we all learned from masters, tried to achieve their looks on our images, so we still keep evolving to find our own style. We imitate their styles to find our own ways. It is acceptable until it is an obvious reproduction. But, what if a great artist or a great brand copies and reproduces directly?

Last week, a story about Calvin Klein's latest ad campaign went viral and the company/photographer was accused of being a copycat by Melbourne-based photographer Jack Hawkins. Hawkins has shot a very similar image about two years ago and recently he saw the campaign image, with exact same concept and mood of his own original piece, from Calvin Klein.

"If one of the big boys takes something of yours, you can't [do] anything about it unless you're already a big player yourself and can afford the expensive legal fees. Depressing I know," said Hawkins, and unfortunately he is right.

On his Facebook page, he stated that he tried to get in touch with both the photographer and authorized people at Calvin Klein, but he couldn't reach any of them. He is aware of the fact that anything is possible at this point and he just wanted to seek the truth behind this. He also came up with some facts about possible legal action fees that is impossible to afford as a "non-famous" photographer.

For this situation, it is hard to determine if it is re-produced on purpose. There's a possibility of creative directors having seen Hawkins' image on any photo sharing networks or on his own website, but maybe this is just a coincidence — a big coincidence for a big brand!

I've faced a similar situation twice in my professional life. In 2014, I shot a campaign for a London-based Turkish designer brand and all photos were published by the client and by myself on social media. I uploaded the photos to my website as well. Just one year later, I saw a very similar editorial shooting on Schön Magazine shot by an English celebrity photographer. From hair and makeup, to set decor, to posing. Everything was incredibly identical. Much like Hawkins did, first I wanted to reach out to the magazine, but same story here, I got no answer from the other party. So I let it go.

Four months after our shooting, in October 2014, my client decided to launch their first showroom in Istanbul with a special fashion show and a grand opening party. It was going to be a big organization, so I was invited for a meeting about creating the main concept. After hours of brainstorming, I came up with the idea of using an "airport" theme. As the event was going to be performed at the British Consulate building in Istanbul, everyone in the company liked and agreed on my idea. I even designed the invitations by myself and a few months later, the show was held at the end with good feedback. Once again, just one year after the show, in October 2015, Chanel's 2016 A/W runway show was announced and voila, their concept was airport themed too.

I'm not blaming Chanel, Calvin Klein, or Schön Magazine. I cannot know if they're copycats or not. But, since they're big companies, they are obliged to research everything about their concepts. If they're building their brands on authenticity, they have to search for unique ideas. On the other hand, they are also big enough to be untouchables. If I sketched these ideas and kept them for myself in my memo, then of course I wouldn't have any right to rake these issues up. But, all these shootings and events went public, and no matter the regions were different; as a photographer, I have a right to question this.

Let's handle this from another perspective. We are bunch of photographers trying to achieve a place in the photography world. We photographers criticize ourselves and only we follow the entire media and publications about what's going on recently. The target audience of these brands don't even care about how good or how unique the photography is that they're served. It's because these brands already have a reputation and they are untouchables. They cannot even be questioned. I believe some other companies copied random concepts before, but all people need to have the awareness of authenticity and they should react as well when they are cheated. It's no different than plagiarism on a Ph.D thesis. Moreover, copycat photographers collect the applause and are praised. Yet, I didn't underline the average budgets of these campaigns. I also work with mood boards and I have lots of inspiration folders including different photographers' work. I update those folders regularly, but when it comes to shooting, I tend to be different and original. It's an ethical issue in itself. Also, one thing to remember: the Internet never forgets!

As a naive photographer, I'd like to choose to believe in coincidence on all of these images and ideas. So would you call this just an inspiration or reproduction of another piece? Is it just a coincidence or paranoia? What would be your way of dealing with such a situation?