A picture that reversed the image taken by the photographer won a prize at the exhibition, and although it was sued for plagiarism, it won the case
At
Jeff Dieschburg case: plagiarism not recognized | Delano News
https://delano.lu/article/jeff-dieschburg-case-plagiaris
Polémique: Un artiste luxembourgeois récompensé at-il plagié une artiste chinoise? - L'essentiel
https://www.lessentiel.lu/fr/story/un-artiste-luxembourgeois-recompensea-t-il-plagie-uneartiste-chinoise-368268015272
Zhang Jingna, a Chinese-born, US-based artist and photographer, filed a lawsuit in the Luxembourg court for copyright protection of the work. In addition, the following image is an image comparing Mr. Dieschburg's work and Mr. Zhang's work in 2017. The left is Mr. Dieschburg's work, and the right is Mr. Zhang's work.
Mr. Dieschburg is suspected of plagiarizing other people's photos many times.
Continuation of the Jeff Dieschburg saga brought to light by @zemotion : he's apparently ripped of my own photography numerous times as well. Don't do this; this is not inspiration, study, nor cheeky derivative art. pic.twitter.com/RiWGENACDI
—Bekka Björke (@bekka) June 1, 2022
In the trial, it was ruled that Mr. Zhang's work could not receive copyright protection in Luxembourg because the originality of Mr. Zhang's photo pose was not recognized. However, Mr. Zhang is skeptical that photographic copyright is based solely on poses, stating, 'If the originality of poses is the premise of copyright protection, almost all photographic works in the world will be protected by copyright.' It means that we are not.”
But how can a photo's copyright be based on a pose alone?
— Jingna Zhang (@zemotion) December 7, 2022
If having a unique pose is the premise for copyright protection of an image, then nearly all portrait works in the world will not have copyright protection.
In addition, Mr. Dieschburg's work is sold in Luxembourg for 6000 euros (about 860,000 yen), and Mr. Zhang points out that `` It is illegal to sell Mr. Dieschburg's paintings without paying the license fee. . In addition, Mr. Zhang is asking Mr. Dieschburg to return the prize money and stop selling the work.
The fact that my work has been copied by others countless times is a testament to its originality and style—including in this particular case, where it's been exploited by the violator for a painting that won an award, exhibited, and was offered for sale for €6,500.3/ pic.twitter.com/8dU5Ph4IYr
— Jingna Zhang (@zemotion) December 7, 2022
On the other hand, Mr. Dieschburg and Mr. Gaston Vogel, a lawyer, explained, 'This work was inspired by Mr. Zhang's work and is a general art strategy.'
However, Mr. Zhang fears that the court's ruling will allow anyone in Luxembourg to freely use, sell and commercialize his work without respecting Mr. Zhang's rights. He also points out that this copyright protection ruling could not only affect his own work, but also set a dangerous precedent that could affect all photographers and artists.
This ruling effectively allows anyone in Luxembourg to freely exploit, sell, license, and use my work without permission or respect for my rights, despite recognizing me as the copyright holder of my work.
— Jingna Zhang (@zemotion) December 7, 2022
This simply goes against the very principles of copyright law.
In response to this ruling, Mr. Zhang said, ``This ruling is not only unfair to me, but dangerous to the entire art and photography community inside and outside Luxembourg, and I will appeal this ruling.''
Related Posts:
in Art, Posted by log1r_ut