Photographer Loses Case Against The Artist Who Copied Off Her Work

The resemblance is quite striking, indeed. If you look at the image we’ve provided above, then you’ll notice a lot of similarities between the two. The one on the left is a painting made by Luxembourg-based painter Jeff Dieschburg, which won him the 11th Biennale of Contemporary Art in 2020. 

The other image on the right, which looks like a mirrored copy is United States-based photographer Jinga Zhang’s work for Harper’s Bazaar Vietnam in 2017. The photographer, noticing the odd similarities between her work and Dieschburg’s took it to court for plagiarism. 

However, the Luxembourg court which handled the complaint ruled that the fine artist did not commit any type of plagiarism. The original photo by Zhang, according to the judges, did not meet the criteria to fall under Luxembourgish or European copyright law.

In response to this ruling, the photographer shared to social media the basis of the ruling. “The model’s pose in my photo is not unique,” she shared. “I am devastated by the copyright ruling in Luxembourg today, which stated that my work lacks originality and therefore will not receive copyright protection in Luxembourg,” she added. 

Image credit: Jinga Zhang, Jeff Dieschburg via PetaPixel


Newest 2
Newest 2 Comments

It seems that the copyright law of luxembourg is quite different from what is commonly expected to be. The motive is clearly a copy of the photograph, therfore everybody would expect a kind of plagiarism. Maybe the following aspect of the photograph may show why it may not be the motive itself that is subjected to plagiarism laws: Imagine the model gets photographed by another Photographer or even worse makes a self portrait photograph in the same or different pose. Should it be possible that Bring Zhang could sue her for plagiarism? Therefore, it may not be possible that the portaited person itself is subjected to plagiarism laws and hence the court surely has judged the only aspect of the photo istself i.e. the pose of the model and this was certainly not protected by plagiarism laws.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I suspect that the ruling had nothing to do with "originality." More likley is that no copyright was filed or even available in the EU or Luxembourg. Perhaps Zhang did not own the copyright (perhaps it is owned by Harper's) and therefore did not have standing to bring the suit.
If the goals were to embarrass the "fine artist" and Bring Zhang publicity, then he has won.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.




Email This Post to a Friend
"Photographer Loses Case Against The Artist Who Copied Off Her Work"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More