Artists and Bands

Rihanna’s video for her new ‘S&M’ single has been causing controversy this week. The promo has been banned in 11 countries and deemed ‘inappropriate’ by YouTube, who were swift to slap an age restriction on it. And now it has been hit by plagiarism claims. 
The bondage-themed video, directed by Melina Matsoukas, features stark images such as Rihanna ’saran-wrapped’ (that’s ‘cellophaned’ to us Brits) to a press conference wall, and the 22-year-old singer leading celebrity blogger Perze Hilton around on a leash. 
In an interview with MTV, director Matsoukas explains how she and the singer wanted to create a “fun romp through an alternate universe.” The director reveals inspiration as wide-ranging as Japanese anime porn, pop art and Post-Its. 
Not once does she mention famed photographer David LaChapelle. 

Perez Hilton’s attack takes the… proverbial… 
But fans of the video have noticed more than a passing resemblance to the photographer’s work, causing heated debate on Twitter and Facebook. When it emerged that LaChapelle, who has previously worked with the singer, played no part in the video, Rihanna was swiftly accused of plagiarising the artist’s work. 
Even Perez Hilton, who appeared in the video, rounded on the star, tweeting: “The next time you make a David LaChapelle music video you should probably hire David LaChapelle.” 
If Rihanna wanted David LaChapelle, she would have David LaChapelle – she has in the past. 
Admittedly, when some of the images are shown side-by-side (we can’t for copyright reasons, but the Daily Mail can), the similarities are striking, some have said “blatant”. But Chapelle’s images are themselves unoriginal. 

I am a fan of the photographer’s work, but, as with any visual artist, LaChapelle does not deal with wholly original concepts. He finds inspiration from the world around him. That inspiration derives from everything he experiences, be it personal life or popular media. 
LaChapelle didn’t invent bondage imagery. For example, the man on the leash was no doubt inspired by images from films such as Salo, which were in turn inspired by other works. LaChapelle has merely taken that idea and added his own touches. 
Certainly LaChapelle will be justifiably disgruntled if the video is based so closely to his ideas, but when any successful artist releases a work into the public domain, imitation is unavoidable and should be regarded as the sincerest form of flattery. 
Madonna is just one pop artist who has referenced bondage in her videos, long before LaChapelle put it in Vogue, yet Rihanna isn’t accused of plagiarising her (although no doubt she has been ‘inspired’ by the multi-platinum artist). 
Music videos are apt to find ‘inspiration’ from other media, even cannibalising their own. So why have people been so quick to damn the singer’s video as plagiary rather than celebrating it as a homage? 
Rihanna and Matsoukas attempt to express concepts that prey on the singer’s mind – primarily the restrictive nature of the press – in an exciting and colourful way. For that they should be applauded. 
Both are no doubt aware of LaChapelle’s work and his imagery will have filtered into their minds somehow, as celebrated as it is. But to damn the pair for plagiarism is a bit of a leap. As any artist will tell you, you can’t copyright an idea (it is the work that is copyrighted).

Music video by Rihanna performing Unfaithful. (C) 2006 The Island Def Jam Music Group