Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39

Thread: This whole copyright quagmire......

  1. #1
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    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?
    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"

  2. #2
    Format Omnivore Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Posts
    2,997

    Re: This whole copyright quagmire......

    '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"
    "It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    575

    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.

  4. #4
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6,736

    Re: This whole copyright quagmire......

    This should not apply to photography. The images in question is a computer graphics concoction.

    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.

  5. #5
    8x10, 5x7, 4x5, et al Leigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    5,454

    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
    If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.

  6. #6
    John Olsen
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    1,096

    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.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    526

    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
    Never is always wrong; always is never right.

    www.LostManPhoto.com
    www.MarkStahlkePhotography.com

  8. #8
    8x10, 5x7, 4x5, et al Leigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    5,454

    Re: This whole copyright quagmire......

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Stahlke View Post
    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
    If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.

  9. #9
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6,736

    Re: This whole copyright quagmire......

    Quote Originally Posted by John Olsen View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    IanG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Aegean (Turkey & UK)
    Posts
    4,122

    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

Similar Threads

  1. Your Copyright may be "orphaned" - new ammendment
    By tim atherton in forum Business
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 9-Mar-2006, 22:16
  2. Caught stealing image - now what?
    By bglick in forum Announcements
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 8-Feb-2006, 12:52
  3. Recent Copyright decisions - National Geo et al
    By tim atherton in forum Business
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 9-Oct-2005, 07:33
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 7-Dec-2001, 18:18

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •