When are two images considered different?

First the hypothetical, but the opinions I seek must be applied to two different contexts.

Hypo #1: You click a photo of scene (Image 1). You re-arrange your strobes and click again (Image 2). You come back to the spot later in the dive and take almost the same shot (Image 3). You come back to spot and take almost the same shot on a subsequent dive (Image 4). You come back to the site and take the same image the next day (Image 5). You come back to the site the following year and take a similar shot (Image 6).

Are these images different? (wait for context)

Hypo #2: You are snorkeling at the surface. A whale comes swimming by. You fire in continuous mode. You get 20-30 shots in a sequence. Any 2 or 3 look very similar, but shot 1 and shot 30 are very different due to the whales relative change in position.

Are each of shots different? (wait for context)

Context A: You license one of your images. Someone wants to license one of the other snaps of the shutter. Can you do this, or are Images 1 to 6 in Hypo #1 too similar or images 1-30 in Hypo #2. Since it involves licensing and copyright, there may be a more bright line answer for this context. I just don't know what it is.

Context B: You want to enter an image for a photo contest. Rules state you can't enter an image that has placed in a previous contest. Are the hypothetical clicks of the shutter creating different images, or are the same image in the context of "sameness" for the photo contest rules. If the answer is "they are the same", what would the criteria be to cross the line of being different?

I recently saw a contest winner that I had seen before. It placed several years ago in a contest category that I had also placed in. I would guess it was a flat out violation of the rules, but it could have been the second "snap" of the shutter release on the same dive.

I don't think there is any strict definition. For me 1-3 are the same, no doubt. If the ambient light is now different in 4 (say sunburst in the frame) then this would be different, or if you returned with a rectilinear lens, rather than fisheye.

As for competitions - this happens a lot - sadly. Flogging the same image (or almost duplicate frames) around the comps might pick you up prizes, but your reputation as a photographer comes from a body of work - rather than a series of variations of the same shot.

I also think a lot of people, again very sadly, ignore competition rules on purpose - leaving it for the competition to spot and exclude them. Each year judging the Traditional category of the WP/DPG/Int Comp is always very disappointing for the number of entries that are clearly entered outside the rules (the photographers hoping that they might get away with it). The amount that do it - clearly indicates that much of the time they do get away with it (especially as some images we reject, go on to be entered and win other contests where they would also be outside the rules, if someone checked).

Alex

I'm no lawyer....but the answer is 'depends'....

Let's take scenario A first.

To a certain extent, all images are the same or very close. No matter...it really depends on how the image(s) are licensed. Does the client require non-exclusive, or exclusive? I use the word 'require' because many want exclusivity, but not all can afford the additional fee. Why does it cost more for exclusivity? One answer follows...

Exclusive rights costs more for the very reason you hint at; it would (IMHO) very unprofessional to sell an exclusive license to one client of a particular scene...and then license other, similar images to other clients. If not unprofessional, it may well breach any contractual term agreed between the parties. For exclusive to mean exactly that you would be unable to license the similar images, therefore the increased fee is in part compensation for loss of these (potential) additional sales.

Finally, like all good IP use rights, a time limit for use is very, very important. Once the time limit for exclusive use passes and the client does not wish to continue using the image, then you would be free to re-license not only the (former) exclusive license, but all of the similar images.

Now to scenario B.

Trickier, and very much up to the individual competition and the judges thereof. Ethically, one must make their own call...I share Alex's view; Once an image has done well, move on. This helps the photographer and the competition organisers maintain a high standard, forcing everyone to up their game a little.

My 2 cents/pence

I think it's all subject to the people on the receiving end to decide IF the photos aren't identical pixel for pixel.

Context A depends on the licensee no? If they know there's a similar pic and don't care, then it's not your issue.

Context B: If the photo contest can't get their own screening process down or choose to ignore them after the prizes are issued, then great for the the photographer who either intentionally or unintentionally put in the photos. If there is a sequence of shots, then it's up to the screeners to say if it is a repeat or not. Same for previous winners.

I think it's all subject to the people on the receiving end to decide IF the photos aren't identical pixel for pixel.

 

Context A depends on the licensee no? If they know there's a similar pic and don't care, then it's not your issue.

 

Context B: If the photo contest can't get their own screening process down or choose to ignore them after the prizes are issued, then great for the the photographer who either intentionally or unintentionally put in the photos. If there is a sequence of shots, then it's up to the screeners to say if it is a repeat or not. Same for previous winners.

It is more complex than that I think. Unless your screeners see all the shots submitted in other contests, it is very difficult to know if someone entered and won some other prize with the same or a slightly different picture. Does a crop (where allowed) count as a separate picture?

Bill

What if you have 2 different people taking a photo of the same scene one ofter the other with similar hardware and getting the same shot? (I know that this may be unlikely because people are different, but it is quite possible to get a similar image).

Bill

I agree the ethical portion is on the photographer, but with Google image searches so easily available and with the short list of finalist, the onus does come back to the organizers. Previous winners in other competitions are usually posted online. Some pics available online date way back to the 90s even, before digital. Yes it's a lot of work. And it's up to the organizers to do it or not.

Getty refer to similar images as 'Similars' - they do not need to be identical but will show content in a clearly similar way - so 'similar' shots from a shoot are pretty easy to identify - they are quite simply similar.

Problems occur when taking a similar subject in a different place or at a different time but in all honesty if the images look similar then it doesn't take a lot of figuring that they are similar and that they shouldn't be submitted when confusion could take place. The pedantics of images being identical are subverted by the use of the word similar and I'm sure that legally this could be a lawyers dream case but in all honesty all it takes is the application of a little common sense to appreciate that submission of similar images isn't good practice and could lead to problems. (For competitions most rules state that the judges decisions are final so a similar might just be discarded because the judges have seen a similar image before).

Paul

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't catalogs also choose the images they insert into their catalogs when you put in your submissions? If that's the case, it's on them to choose what's on the catalog, no?

Paul

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't catalogs also choose the images they insert into their catalogs when you put in your submissions? If that's the case, it's on them to choose what's on the catalog, no?

Drew

Whist they do, agencies like Getty specify that 'similars' should not be supplied elsewhere (whether submitted to them and rejected or otherwise) - there is a fair amount about this on their site but you need to be logged in to view it - although rejected material which is not 'similar' can be placed elsewhere. So if they accept an image, both their rejected 'similars' as well as any other 'similars' still held but not sent in to them should not be sold directly or indirectly or submitted elsewhere. This makes perfect sense if you are thinking purely commercially (and I am very careful about what goes where these days). I'm represented by other agencies on a non-exclusive basis which circumvents any problems like this (although they obviously prefer not to be competing against identical/similar images) but even so common sense has to be applied. Putting as many (similar/identical) images in as many places as possible would eventually lead to problems I'm certain.

I think the uniqueness of a picture lies on the raw file. If you have two different raw files you have two different pictures. Now, if an agency wants us to give in and consider "similar" as "same" it is up to us to accept or not... an it is up to us to accept that it is the agency who will decide what "similar" means. How many Picassos, Van Goghs, Warhols etc... are similar? why should we treat our work in a different way?

I have never worked with an agency so I know nothing about this, but I think a photographer should sell pictures as some boutiques sell women dresses: they manage who they sell them to and when they are going to use it so there are not two ladies with the same dress at the same party:P ...but it is the boutique who does this management, not the lady...and it should be the photographer who should decide, based on experience, what is a similar picture and what are the different possible sales/uses of that series of "similar" pictures... if you do it wrong you may end up out of business, but if you decide right you can get a higher profit.

I think the uniqueness of a picture lies on the raw file. If you have two different raw files you have two different pictures. Now, if an agency wants us to give in and consider "similar" as "same" it is up to us to accept or not... an it is up to us to accept that it is the agency who will decide what "similar" means. How many Picassos, Van Goghs, Warhols etc... are similar? why should we treat our work in a different way?

 

I have never worked with an agency so I know nothing about this, but I think a photographer should sell pictures as some boutiques sell women dresses: they manage who they sell them to and when they are going to use it so there are not two ladies with the same dress at the same party:P ...but it is the boutique who does this management, not the lady...and it should be the photographer who should decide, based on experience, what is a similar picture and what are the different possible sales/uses of that series of "similar" pictures... if you do it wrong you may end up out of business, but if you decide right you can get a higher profit.

If only it was that simple - you are partway right but...... Licensing an image may require licensing exclusive rights for a period (for advertising) so its very important that such an image (or 'similar' images) does not get licensed to a competitor - not a problem for editorial material but potentially a big problem for advertising licensing.

Bill

I agree the ethical portion is on the photographer, but with Google image searches so easily available and with the short list of finalist, the onus does come back to the organizers. Previous winners in other competitions are usually posted online. Some pics available online date way back to the 90s even, before digital. Yes it's a lot of work. And it's up to the organizers to do it or not.

I totally agree about the work part. The problem is a practical one. Most folks don't name their pics when they submit, so what do I google? I have a photographer name, say Keri Wilk (not to pick on Keri). I google Keri and look at his pics and see 17,400 images. But I can't find easily the one that he submitted and won with at LAUPS two years ago. Multiply that by 40 and it is indeed a lot of work. The bigger question though is not exact duplicates but rather a crop of an image or a rotation etc. How do you figure this out?

Bill