I am very proud of the image I am posting today...and...I think it conveys a sense of mystery (as to who the author of the original work is) through the ambiguity (of not knowing who actually made the original photograph). I like to have a loose narrative (with the truth) that lets the viewer go on a bit of a journey to concentrate not so much on the literal meaning of the work... (like who actually made the photograph) but instead on the emotive aspects and how they make you feel. (completely ripped off)*Of course paraphrasing Ben Ali Ong's words from an article written by Jane Somerville for *Australian Art Review to describe the upcoming photographic work Mr Ong was to have shown in the Tim Olsen Gallery is probably what some would refer to as 'plagiarism'.The fact is that this photograph was shot by a colleague of mine, Tommy Trinh and I simply turned it into a 'moody surreal' image by judiciously applying a black and white filter...that's it...took about 30 seconds...er, a half a minute that is...So can I claim this image as my own, or proclaim, as Mr Ong has done to Jane Somerville that "(Ong's) images all derive from photographs he has taken himself on 35mm film and which are then blow (sic) up to 100 x 120cm. The result amplifies the soft graininess of Ong’s images. To enhance the feeling of timelessness, Ong sometimes shoots through a foggy lens. He also manipulated the negative by lightly sanding it or sandwiching it with others."The history of artists appropriating anothers work is a long one... from the early reworkings of bible stories to Andy Warhols silk screen prints of celebrities, to the unorthodox Jeff Koons (I mean who actually authored 'Puppy'?) to all those underpants and T-shirts with the portrait of Che Guevara on them, nods and winks have always been given to the original creator of the image...Or have they?I can't remember if Laurie Graham ever actually credited the original creator of the images that she re-worked into billboards in that oh so 'post modern' way or if Anne Zahalka ever actually credited Max Dupain as the inspiration for her photo 'The Sunbathers #2' but I do know that if Mr Ong had been smart enough to at least rip off someone famous and carry out a Malcolm McClaren style 'Great Rock and Roll Swindle' then perhaps he may still have a semblance of a career in the future...The way it stands now I doubt if he will ever have another show again...So this leads me to the question...what exactly has happened here?I have just spent about $10,000.00 policing a breach of contract and copyright action against two organisations that failed to observe my moral right as an artist and literally 'stole' my photograph to use for their own purposes. I was pretty rightly pissed off as it felt akin to being burgled, or having a car stolen but at least I didn't suffer the ignominy of having my image 'rebirthed' and the credit for it given to someone else.But what of the 'photo media artist', Ben Ali Ong, who implied that two of his feature images of birds were his original work but are in fact photographs that were made by Matt Hansen and simply desaturated? Was he misguided, or is he a young artist that in being propelled to the dizzying heights of having a solo exhibition at Tim Olsen's gallery simply decided to cheat and 'own' something that he had no right to...Is this a premeditated and cynical rip off or a foolhardy attempt at a grasp for fame? And where in lies the culpability of the 'art world' that is in a constant hunt for the next 'big thing'?What ever way you look at it I think this incident calls for open debate on the responsibilities of photographers and galleries and a certain amount of sympathy for young players...Though there is an old Russian proverb which goes along the lines of this"With lies you may get ahead in the world - but you can never go back."BTW todays title is courtesy of James Cottam.