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?
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Never mind tripod holes, just getting anywhere near another point could get you in trouble!'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.'
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"
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
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.
A design department that I worked for ran into this exact thing. They didn't like the price for an image that was in photographer A's portfolio, so they hired a young photographer to do something in a similar style. Our legal dept. put the kabosh on it. They said the images weren't similar enough on their own to ruffle any feathers, but the fact that we had ASKED photographer A for a quote, and then declined, made it likely that we'd lose copyright suit.Originally Posted by Paul Ewins
Makes me think of the oft-repeated mantra around here: better to ask forgiveness than ask permission.
That seems to be the key idea here that solves the riddle, the idea that the two sides were in contact before the second photo was made (and there seems to have been other cases between these two). Absent that chain of events I'm not sure this would make any sense at all.
--Darin
This should not apply to photography. The images in question is a computer graphics concoction.
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.managing director Justin Fielder – who shot the image in August 2005 and then manipulated it using Photoshop
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.
I used to make images similar to that (i.e. one part colored, the rest black and white) pretty often in the old days with film and a fume room using Kami masking fluid to mask the part to be colored and coloring in a toner or by hand-coloring. It was actually a very common practice. I'm surprised you've never seen anything like that.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
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
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
I didn't think it was. This seems more like a case of trademark infringement than copyright infringement.
Steve.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks