Photographer Remakes Movie Posters as Wedding Photos

Photographer Remakes Movie Posters as Wedding Photos

Last fall, Nashville based photographer, Andres Martinez, remade a series of famous movie posters with the actors replaced by friends of his who were engaged. While these aren't the first time someone's made movie-poster-inspired wedding / engagement images, these are some of the best I've come across. The posters hit Reddit earlier this week and were a hit. Their subject matter spans old classics, Lord of the Rings, westerns, even Twilight.  Apparently Martinez spent around a month painstakingly shooting and compositing these masterpieces, making an effort to accurately reproduce lighting, composition, and posing.

Austin_Rogers_Fstoppers_Movie_Poster_Remake_1Austin_Rogers_Fstoppers_Movie_Poster_Remake_2Austin_Rogers_Fstoppers_Movie_Poster_Remake_3Austin_Rogers_Fstoppers_Movie_Poster_Remake_4Austin_Rogers_Fstoppers_Movie_Poster_Remake_6Austin_Rogers_Fstoppers_Movie_Poster_Remake_5

 

[Via Ad Freak & Reddit]

Log in or register to post comments

43 Comments

Great job! :)

ALEXANDER TARDIF's picture

Cool. Just such an unfortunate case of a chinass.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is a chinass?

I guess it's a chin that looks like an ass. Not that I agree.

No doubt Andres did a fantastic job doing these, but I can't help but remembering Joseph Gambles article here on fstopper, A Tale of Two Magazine Covers. http://fstoppers.com/a-tale-of-two-magazine-covers

How does he get away making these posters in the age of everybody suing everyone else for copyright infringement...?

Just curious what the justification is...?

i guess as long as there is no commercial use for them and therefore no money from a company it is fine? Am i wrong?

Chris Helton's picture

Fstoppers just used the images. Commercial use right there.
Even if they say they are only reporting the news, this site is still a commercial site with an income/outcome.

That isn't commercial use though. Things are always a bit strange when it comes to that, but the images aren't being used to sell a product, so it isn't commercial use even though FStoppers is making money by the story through advertising or even selling products, the images themselves aren't selling the products.

Lee Ramsden's picture

but the images make people arrive here, and so yes the images are selling the products. A woman with next to nothing on, has absolutely nothing to do with perfume, but it is used to sell the product..... just playing devils advocate here before some of you get really worked up lol

FStoppers use is "fair use for news reporting," no problem whatsoever. But if the photographer makes money, it's more problematic.

You know, I am fairly confident that Austin obtained permission from the photographer prior to posting his images here. Did he get permission from the studios to post their copyright protected materials here? Well... that might be a good question to ask. Doesn't really matter if its commercial or not. If CNN would use my image without my permission it would be considered copyright infringement. How else does Getty stay in business? Even if it's considered editorial. Same if a painter uses one of my images as a reference. By no means am I an expert of copyright law and I can't state strong enough that I think Andres did a superb job producing these. But, I also can't help but think that if one of the film studios wanted to make a stink, they most certainly could... remember the President Obama "Hope" poster and what a lawsuit mess that turned into? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster

I doubt he got authorization from each and every photographer (i.e. Joey L for Twilight) to replicate the posters. He is from a point of view stealing an idea and using it to make a commercial gain, therefore he is infringing copyright. Now whether the original artists are willing to sue this guy are not, that's a different story

Although it's use is commercial (at the very least for the wedding photographer), he is re- inacting the set with different people and, which is important, with a completely different artistic intention.
So he did not take the original artwork and altered it (not allowed), but entirely re- inacted them. There is a legal term that finds application here, I think: "By the sweat of their brow". Meaning, if the artist had put real and his own effort into the picture, then we have a new ballgame here; but as they say: "out at sea and before man's court we're in God's hands".

The photographer might get into an issue when using copyrighted letter types and phrases, though.

But aside from that, really nice work (now why didn't I come up with that?)

1. It's "parody"
2. not commercial

Lee Ramsden's picture

Tron, lets say that you are a professional photographer/ designer, and i take your best image, and make fun of it / with it... would you be happy? If the newly created image, to the lay man is identifiable then it infringes copyright laws, simple.

Parody. Parody is not illegal.

Yes, I'd have to agree with you Alex. If it's an obvious parody and the intent isn't to fool someone into thinking it's the real thing, then you're probably safe. This reminds me of the "Dumb Starbucks" store in LA.

Unfortunate miss spelling of compositing Austin. These are nothing like compost.

Misspelling is one word, not two.

Ooh...buuuuurn

Adam T's picture

So when will the MPAA come in and sue the photographer.

INCREDIBLY well done!

The photographer is not being sued because the company would end up paying more to the blood sucking lawyers than they could ever hope to recover from the photographer. Just one more reminder where the real money is.

That is some amazing work right there!

Did this over a year ago at my own wedding with more romantic movie/poster choices like Gone with the Wind, Moulin Rouge, Titanic, Chocolat, Breakfast at Tiffanys etc.

David Vaughn's picture

But didn't the Titanic....sink? :P

Sure - but it's still a better love story than Twilight :D sorry, couldn't resist.

All marriages do...

Pages