For the videographers who copy StillMotion clips shot by shot, I fail to see how this could be a dependable business strategy in the long run? Do they pace themselves to book a new client only after SM releases a new clip so they can imitate it?

Or are these people using SM's ideas to jump start the style that they themselves would eventually develop? I think the latter is more likely..

As a teacher on occaision, I'd like to add a bit of commentary to the mix...

There are basically three stages to learning any "craft", and perhaps anything...

Stage 1: Learn the "tools" and the fundamentals of how they are used... this includes the unique lingo of any trade.
tripod, camera, aperature, DOF, etc. etc.
You have to learn the basics one way or another, and when starting out, learning to speak the language and use the tools is a good place to start. Children have to learn the alphabet and numbers... without that, there's nothing to build upon.

Stage 2: Imitate (yes, copy) the creations of others by studying their technique and the "rules" which they appear to follow in the pursuit of their craft/art. "Rules" are part of the framework we must go through along the way, so we have SOMETHING to go on while we are learning...
This is pretty typical of how human beans learn ANYTHING - they see and imitate someone they think is "cool" or authoritative on a subject... doesn't mean the authority figure knows it all or even pretends they do, but that's how the "student" sees them...

Stage 3: Innovate... this is where the magic comes in - you take the fundamentals, the rules, and everything you've taken in, and you throw it in a blender, break all the rules, try strange techniques, and try to do it in a "live" environment and do something unique and cool. If sucessful, you'll be the "cool" guru dude... or at least sucessful! If you really break all the rules, you're the Beatles or... maybe Still Motion <wink>.


What I think Patrick is saying is don't get stuck at stage 2, because stage 3 is where the magic happens. I can say after watching his behind the scenes corporate short, it's that creativity and magic that drives the "Still Motion" team to push the boundaries in what they do.

Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but I think Patrick want's EVERY videographer to see and be inspired not to slavishly copy, but to innovate and find their OWN voice and vision - because if they don't they will just be another wannabe.

We live in a world of cheap knockoffs, thank the internet for that... BUT we also live in a time when we can be spurred to greatness by building upon the collective genius of those who choose to generously share and teach what they have learned. It's all a pile of poo if we just "copy", and it's sad that that's as far as some people get (pity, really!).

Speaking for myself, I don't mind being "copied" (and it's an honor to rise to a level that you're WORTH copying!), but I think it's more exciting to see others take that leap to their own creative expression. I know that while I'm still flogging along learning how not to be disgusted by my own work, I have those "moments" when things just come together and send a shiver down my spine because they "work". We all should stirve to find those "moments"...

I think by now those who wanted to understand why we brought it up, understood.

I don't know where you, Bill, are finding the anger.

Thanks Jack. It is exactly that what we don't like and yes, we are not happy with that. And nobody should.
These clips were what set this off, together with Travis's demo. But the two, being the opposite, were used as comparison. There were people saying that his demo is SM. It's not, but there is maybe some influence. We wanted to show that this what we don't mind and are actually proud of. Who wouldn't be? But on the other hand we wanted to say, while this is perfectly fine, you can't just take any clip and just try to copy it.
And Dave, while I agree with you on the learning process (you can take a shot or two and imitate different things), I would just like to add that I don't think you have to copy the whole clip.

I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure that altruism is at the heart of your message. This discussion has taken place dozens of times on dozens of forums. Trying to quell imitation is like trying to blind yourself to influence. It can't happen. 10 years ago having online clips was a novelty. Blogs didn't exist. Videographer forums were very few and infrequently visited. Now everyone's works is online, competing for paying client eyeballs. By posting that same work on public forums and entering contests you can reach a certain level of notoriety amongst your peers, which in reality has nothing to do with your business interests. The result is that it can be unnerving to see your ideas being carried out by others. What you may have professed to do at the outset, share, has actually worked. Any subsequent thoughts or comments based on what has happened that aren't completely altruistic and encouraging are based on ego, which easily masquerades under the guise of 'sharing'.

Whatever it was that drew you to the forum, whether it was altruism or ego, has had consequences, both positive and negative. In the end what has always happened will happen: Someone else comes on the field with unique ideas and their work becomes the work to be imitated. Its an endless cycle. None of it matters, because this online world doesn't exist. Its a virtual world of people separated by space that puts nearly all of us outside each other's real-world sphere of influence. What does matter is your business, and in nearly every case the innovators keep innovating and the copiers keep copying. No matter how many discussions like this have taken place and the good intentions that people declare human nature will never change. When it comes down to being able to create something that is tangibly more valuable people will use anything they see. There are companies doing work that is just as unique that go about serving their customers without going out of their way to post work for other videographers. They don't have an ego to satisfy so as a result they aren't pushing the industry forward by freely dispersing ideas. I think the industry is in a better place because you've been generous about sharing your work, but that was a decision you made that will have consequences regardless of how hard you appeal to people's better judgement.

Joel I am going to agree with what you say wholeheartedly! Ego, pride, self importance come to mind, all self destructive. You can mask it how you like, but it will still reveal itself...

It is blatantly obvious people will copy, human nature! If you don't want them too, then stop putting your work where the whole world can see it!

Cheers.

Konrad,
No anger... I'm not really involved... I'm just observing...
Bill

John: "Ego, pride, self importance come to mind" Why do you enter awards ceremonies again??!! Proud of your work perhaps? Bit of an ego trip perhaps?

Joel: in response to what you've said:

SHARING is fine, always has been, always will be. I love sharing my work, Patrick loves sharing his work, so-and-so might not like to share their work.

But COPYING exact shots is lame. e.g. Macro shot moving a light source over 2 rings, to produce moving shadows is an EXACT COPIED shot. I'd prefer to see a variation of that if the viewer had enjoyed seeing it so much, but not the exact same thing. And that's just one example, but I hope it illustrates the difference between sharing/influencing, and people copying exact shots.

Patrick's been doing some cool fast panning transitions which i've seen people instantly try to imitate exactly. But me, it just made me aware that I 'might' look into developing a cool transition myself, not trying to work out the exact way he did his.

ok, another example is, millions globally are copying Videocopilot's stuff in AE, but that's the nature of his site really, infact it's encouraged....but it seems the people everyone has the MOST respect for on his forum (and other forum-goers will agree), are the ones that produce showreels utilising the skills they've just watched, to develop their OWN style, not copying the tutorials exactly to get the exact same results.

** i'm not having a go at anyone here, just trying to clear things up. oh, and i'm sorry for the patronising captialisations. i'm leaving this thread alone now :) :)

I don't think copying a particular ring shot is what this is about... I think it more has to do with seeing a video and making your video just like it... as in not a couple of seconds worth of a shot, but rather 3 minutes worth.

And by the way, those pan transitions are not new to the wedding industry. I first saw Mayad using them, but I honestly have no idea who started them. As an industry, do we really want to stake claim to every original shot and transition we come up with?

From what I gathered, the 'beef' (if you want to call it that) is that it's okay to be INSPIRED by watching someone else's work, but copying shot-for-shot isn't hurting the one being copied. It's hurting the one DOING the copying because they aren't putting those creative juices to work.

I get that and I think we can all appreciate it. We can easily fall into a pattern and habit of copying what we see and then all we're doing is just going through the motions rather than trying to be original or creative.

But where exactly did it all start? Who was the first to get a tight shot of the wedding rings and make it their own? Who was the first to use a steadicam for weddings?

In TV land, we're quick to say that 'there are no new ideas.' Everything has already been done. Watch a newscast from 1975, 85 or 95... and the reality sets in!

I like to watch other newscasts that have great photojournalists and see what they come up with and see if I can incorporate their ideas or styles into something that works for me. Heck, if Spielberg does something I think is awesome I'm going to try it as well.

But I'm going to do my best to MAKE IT MY OWN.

97% of the time... ;)

But in this lies the condundrum; at what point does it go from copying what you've seen to being your own artistic vision? If I use a different background for that shot, or maybe gel the light, or I don't know,use a wide angle instead of macro does it change the fact that what I'm trying to do is recreate the feel of Patrick's ring shot?

Where someone is crossing the line is when they copy my videos, put them on their website and claim they did them to sell more or higher priced packages. But if you like what I do, and can re-create it and make money then what's the harm? If you adopt my techniques, move into my market and seriously put a dent into my business then that's on me for showing you what I did and for not being strong enough on the business side to fend off the competition.

I too am done with this discussion.

My final statements:

Be your self not somebody else.

Let the story and what's happening in front of the camera dictate the outcome of how you shoot and edit.

wow
 

Wow, I just logged in and started reading through this thread. It really is amazing to me that some of you really care that much if someone emulates your shots. I know for a fact people have copied me and I can say without feeling the least bit bad that I've tried to emulate shots I've seen. Of course I have always tried to push the envelope with my personal style and I'm really happy where I'm at now, but when I was starting out, I would watch Still-Motion, Jason Magbanua, Maya Studios religiously and try to completely emulate their style, it's how I got to where I am. I watched those guys all steal (if that's what you want to call it) each others shots as well. I personally think this whole thread is ridiculous, you'd never see professional photographers having this conversation.

Josh - it seems that Patrick's original intent was to encourage people to do more than emulate his style & search for their own and grow as artists, but something in his comments definitely struck a nerve around here.

Didn't I say I was done? Ok, now I'm really done.

And I think that's exactly what he and his company did for me, helped me develop my own style. I guess I used him and his videos as my mentor. What's hard about these forums is that you can't truly know the tone behind the posts, I'm sure he meant nothing by his post but I could see how people could get riled up over it, I guess I kind of did when I read it.

That's what I first thought as well when I looked at one of Jason Magbanua clips because it looked a lot like what patrick is doing, only Jasons editing style is different. I think as well that in one way or the other everybody is copying, not only from other wedding videographers but from movies. The fast pan transtitions for instance is something I have seen more then once in movies. The only thing is that you need to make it your own after that by adding your own touch to it and not just carbon copy.

Tru dat. ALL of wedding videography as an industry is inspired by what we've first seen in movies, television, where they have mega $$ art directors coming up with unique ideas etc..

Anyone who is trying to say wedding videography is a reliable source of unique and new ideas in motion imagery is kidding themselves.

End of discussion.

Yang is right on with his comment. Jason, Patrick and many others around here do some nice work BUT in no way shape or form are they nor anyone else in the wedding industry "original".

Creative...yes, talented...yes, BUT innovators and originators....Nope! In addition to weddings, I've worked in the television land for a while....and have shot for a lot of networks in addition to my wedding stuff. I have yet to see one frame of wedding footage from anyone that I am like...."wow, I've NEVER seen that before!" I doubt I ever will.

There's a lot of talent "out there" who could care less about being "known" by other wedding videographers.

There's lots of excellent feedback in this thread, but it has definitely run its course.

Concluded.