Photos Recreating Famous Works of Art

Booooooom and Adobe have partnered up for a photo project and contest called “Remake“, which asks people to recreate famous works of art using photography.

The grand prize is a copy of Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 Master Collection worth $900., and the deadline for entering the contest is this Friday. You can also browse a gallery of current submissions.

Remake / Photo Project [Booooooom]

Image credits: “Self Portrait 1889″ remake by Seth Johnson, “Narcissus” remake by Max Zerrahn, “American Gothic” remake by Jesse John Hunniford, “Café Terrace at Night” remake by Jonathan Pruc, “Portrait of a Man” remake by Ryan Halliwill

  • Anonymous


    See, doesn’t make sense to me either.  You can’t copyright an idea.

  • Ben Garland
  • Ben G.

    Kind of like a reverse Alexa Meade:

  • Ben G.

    Kind of like a reverse Alexa Meade:

  • Ben G.
  • Albert

    It’s not about copyrighting an idea – which isn’t the case here, since they’re literally copying a finished piece – but whether or not the copyrights are still applicable today.

  • Dan

    Copyright has long since expired on all of these images.  You should research copyright laws.

  • Monlabiaga

    And also this pictures×300.jpg and this advertising

  • Anonymous

    No, they are not ‘literally’ copying the finished piece.  If that were the case, it would look ‘literally’ the same.  Can you clearly tell a difference between the original and the copy?  Yes.  Is there an intention to deceive the viewer into believing the copy is the original?  No.  

    They are mimicking or copying the IDEA, concept, or vision of the piece.  If they re-created one of the above paintings by using toothpicks made from different types and colors of wood, would that be infringement (assuming of course that the original piece was still covered by copyright)?  What if someone recreated a famous photograph through installation art using colored bowling balls?   

    What if someone paints a scene of a rolling hill with a tree?  Should that view now be locked away, restricting any future artist’s right to photograph or paint either the actual location of the original artist’s inspiration or even the mere idea of a lone tree on a hill?Hey, I’m a big believer in copyright.  I am grateful that it protects my work from folks that would profit from it by using my images, verbatim, without paying fair market value for them, a price which I ALONE am free to set.  But there HAVE to be limits to anything, and I feel that trying to fit the above interpretation into the confines of modern-day copyright is both an abuse of copyright and a real stretch.

  • Carolyn P

    Hey guys – they’re PARODIES! They cause us to reflect on the social and artistic values observable in the original, and how and why they are/aren’t present in the modern interpretation.