This whole copyright quagmire......
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_311191.html
This kind of decision in the UK IMO just muddies the water when we are talking about images including national monuments parks and historic buildings etc which have been photographed millions of times. Your thoughts?
Re: This whole copyright quagmire......
Quote:
'The UK government has accepted a recommendation in the Hargreaves Report that the Patents County Court… should operate a small claims procedure for intellectual property claims under £5,000.'
Never mind tripod holes, just getting anywhere near another point could get you in trouble!
On one hand, this is nuts, but I think I see what the judge was doing. But even as I've been trying to paraphrase it, it's still nuts, but it isn't. What this is like is as if a concept has been patented, not an instance has been copyrighted.
So of course under patent law this is valid. But under strict copyright law, it's invalid. And to top it all off, it's something that someone can yank you into small claims court over it. Yech.
"Scenic Overlook"
"Photography Prohibited by Copyright"
Re: This whole copyright quagmire......
That one dodens't surprise me at all. It was a fairly blatant case of copying that photographer's style: Company A asks to license Photographer B's work. Company A doesn't like the price so they get Photographer C to go out and produce something similar for less. So Company A has copied Photog B's work and Photog B has suffered a monetary loss as a result.
If Company A had instead found another (cheaper) photographer who already had a photo of a spot coloured London Bus on Westminster Bridge they would probably have been in the clear since no copying had occurred, even although the end result may have been identical.
The David La Chapelle vs Rhianna case is a similar thing, but involves copying the look of a photo in a music video. Again, that one is fairly blatant since David La Chapelle's style is utterly unique and completely artificial.
I really don't think any of us would have anything to worry about unless we are asked to create a substitute for another photographer's work using their style. It is the copying that matters, not the similarity of subject matter. I think it is still fine to shoot Yosemite in B&W.
Re: This whole copyright quagmire......
This should not apply to photography. The images in question is a computer graphics concoction.
Quote:
managing director Justin Fielder – who shot the image in August 2005 and then manipulated it using Photoshop
The two images are labeled "Photograph" but I have never seen a photograph from a camera looking anything like that. Those are both computer graphics images.
http://www.swanturton.com/multimedia...hotographs.pdf
Calling those images "photographs" is like calling the Starbucks logo a photograph of a woman.
Come to think of it, I have a photograph of a woman with long hair that I took in 1969 that looks very similar...guess its time to sue.
Re: This whole copyright quagmire......
Copyright means the right to copy. The second photo is clearly not a copy of the first.
The styles may be similar, but styles are not copyrightable. Perhaps UK law is different.
- Leigh
Re: This whole copyright quagmire......
The second photographer manipulated a common image to resemble some one else's manipulation. I think he's caught, especially since it's in a commercial context, not art.
Re: This whole copyright quagmire......
I'm not sure the judge's decision would stand up under appeal in the US. The image could very well be considered a scène à faire.
SCENES A FAIRE UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW
Re: This whole copyright quagmire......
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mark Stahlke
One sentence in that opinion expresses my opinion on the subject quite well:
"The Court went on to find that the later photographs were not virtually identical, finding differences in shadows, angles and other factors. "
- Leigh
Re: This whole copyright quagmire......
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John Olsen
The second photographer manipulated a common image to resemble some one else's manipulation. I think he's caught, especially since it's in a commercial context, not art.
We are calling them photographers? The images are created on a computer.
Re: This whole copyright quagmire......
Copyright law means plagiarism is unlawful.
So rather than muddying the water this clarifies it in the UK at least.
Ian