A recent trial in the Netherlands found an artist guilty of plagiarism. He had painted a portrait from a photograph he found in a publication. The photographer challenged in a court of law and won. Lesson? Work from our own photos.


- Disputed

The artist was found guilty, but not everyone feels that he should have been.

My own view is that if you merely reproduce the photo in paint you should not claim it as your own work. However if you add some interpretation of your own it is not plagiarism. I can see that it might still be breach of copyright, but that's not quite the same.

It is interesting that in the Jackson's article the phtographer is described as the prosecutor - does it mean the lawyer or merely "the person bringing the prosecution"? Perhaps the artist deliberately picked a fight and lost!