Slashdot Mirror
Non-Copied Photo Is Ruled Copyright Infringement
An anonymous reader writes "A UK judge ruled that a photograph inspired by another photograph, but clearly different from it, infringes the original photo's copyright. The two photographs were shot in the same location, have the same subject, and use the same distinctive post-processing treatment. However, the angle and composition are different. From the article: '[The judge] said a difficult decision hinged on a "qualitative assessment of the reproduced elements." He defined Fielder's image a "photographic work," as distinct from a simply a photograph, in that "its appearance is the product of deliberate choices and also deliberate manipulations by the author," and concluded that those aspects had been copied.'"
You know, having read the judge's reasoning, the headline and summary for this story are somewhat misleading. Yes, the photograph is "clearly different" in that it's not the exact same photograph, but it is clearly the same compositional idea, with the only practical difference between a difference in angle. Also, the second photo was intentionally made to avoid licensing fees from using the original.
The judge offered his logic behind the decision:
In other words, the original wasn't simply a photograph of something but a specifically processed piece of artwork, and the second piece attempts the exact same style and processing. The defendant commercially used the original without licensing it from the plaintiff and was sued by his company, and the second photo was only taken afterward to avoid paying the licensing fee, so the intent of the photo was specifically to copy the original and not borne of parallel-developed artistic expression.
So to say it's a "non-copied photo" is, in my opinion, wrong.
Howeverthe comments to the article also point out that this kind of shot is common: example, example, and example (note that these pictures have no dates provided). The article says alternative examples were in fact brought up in court, but the judge said they worked against the defense because they "served to emphasize how different ostensibly independent expressions of the same idea actually look." But I think they're all a close enough idea that the differences in angle and position don't serve to make them different enough, because the core idea of all the pictures is this specific London red bus in front of a monochrome Big Ben scene.
If it can be proved that there existed images like this before 2006, then the plaintiff shouldn't have won, but apparently, the examples given in court were undated.
"Sufferin' succotash."
without their permission, toss the judge in the Thames along with his ruling.
Link here
Copyright is such garbage.
That this judgement isn't reproduced in the future
I was thinking, I could see the point - if you nearly duplicated the angle, and used a similar treatment then yeah I think a photo could be close enough for infringement even if not the same.
But looking at the actual shot, the angle is totally different. The "treatment" is simply the (by now VASTLY overused) technique of leaving one object in color with the rest greyed out. Come on! That is in use everywhere as a common element, and I'll warrant it was even in use a fair amount before the original was taken. If ever there was a call for some kind of copyright "prior art" this is it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I bet big ben has been photographed from nearly every angle, under nearly every lighting condition and season. If this holds up, they should just issue tickets to anyone holding up a camera in front of it. That and station police at every location marked as a scenic wayside.
... then why didn't Apple win their "look&feel" lawsuit against Microsoft when they came out with Windows?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The film and porn industries won't sit by and let this one survive because it will put them all out of business overnight.
This is exactly the bullshit we reap when we submit to the whims of the copyright lobby. Is anyone surprised at the general apathy most people have regarding upholding copyright?
10 years ago I said that the people pushing copyright everywhere would eventually wind up with copyright nowhere (i.e., with no copyright at all, due to a total loss of public support). This sort of crap does nothing to change that feeling.
Yes, the images are arguably similar. But there is absolutely no merit whatsoever to the claim that one would be a copy of the other, thus violating the copyright monopoly. What the judge has done here is to set a precedent that states that the monopoly does not just cover the creative work, but extends to a general creative idea, which completely shatters the traditional notion that the copyright monopoly only covers a specific expression of an idea, and never the idea itself.
So what’s the big deal, then? In this case, they sought to recreate the image and took a similar one. Why is that not a violation of the copyright monopoly?
Because that’s exactly how you do it if you don’t want to pay a license fee on the original terms. You create a similar work yourself, entirely by yourself, and compete. It’s the whole damned idea.
Article by Falkvinge on this verdict.
If I had taken a color picture of my house from the street prior to the Google Streetview car, are they infringing on my copyright? Their picture would look closer to mine than the two in this case.
Am I now prohibited from taking street view pictures of my house if I had not done so previously?
So what you are saying, OCG, is that attempting to avoid a licencing fee by using a similar but different piece of "intellectual property" should be illegal?
Apple Computer agrees with you. As you know, they own flat glassy tablets with rounded corners. Don't try to avoid patent licencing by making similar but different tablets...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Just ask "Little, yellow, different" Nuprin.
Both pictures are clearly infringing on Louboutin's trademark on "red". Not a particular shade, or a particular usage. Just, you know, red.
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/40152586/ :)
Seems like a lot of artists should get some legal PO Box in the UK and a good UK lawyer. From patent trolling to art trolling?
As for the US Unix is Linux case, if only they had thought about UK law and followed the libel tourism trade
"When you go to the bookshop and look in the UNIX section, there's books on 'How to Programme UNIX' but when you go to the Linux section and look for 'How to Programme Linux' you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist""
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
First, it's not even close. It seems like the judge took a quick glance and thought, "derp, there's a bus, there's a pointy building, it's mostly black & white, yup they're the same."
Second, whether it's similar is hardly relevant. The "copy" wasn't made in 2 seconds by downloading it online. It's a separate and vaguely similar work, but not a "copy". A copy is exact or very close to it (this isn't).
If someone did all the work, bought all the gear, went to the same location, waited for the same conditions and created the image, it's not a copy. Knock-off, fake, second-tier, call it what you want, but its not a copy in the technical sense of the word. This technical sense is what copyright is supposed to deal with because copyright is a response to technology that makes duplicates of works more quickly than it takes to create the original.
This judge should be slapped.
taken from same place (earth usually) having the same central subject.
there are so many examples. this is really poor judgement.
I think to say the sky/building contrast was a choice is wrong; That's simply a byproduct of B&W conversion in a place that has uniformly grey skies a lot of the time. Perhaps if the artist had done extra work to get the sky that color but having done some B&W conversions I very much doubt that is the case.
The one actually coped element is simply the treatment of the red bus in color contrasting with everything else. But that practice was in use well before 2006.
The rest of the work compositionally speaking, is totally different - the relation of the bus to the buildings, even the relation of people to the bus or the use of people within the image is totally different.
I guess he just had a really inept defense because this judgment should not have ended up this way based on that image.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"a specifically processed piece of artwork"
There's no such thing, he had no IP rights to the 'partial desaturation' technique, there is no special right to using that technique on some scenes. The judge here is trying to extend copyright to something it doesn't cover.
Photography can and always was at the fringe of what could be copyrighted, since its just a mechanical record of a fact. What the judge is claiming is that by applying a processing technique to that fact (which the guy had no special exclusive on), somehow creates something more. He then goes on to further extend that to say it covers a class of similar photographs.
i.e. if X is his copyright, copyright law says infringement = X
Judge is saying that X+Y creates a right (X+Y-0.1) Infringment (X+Y+0.1)
However the only thing that could extend photography copyright into a CLASS of similar images is the 'Y' and Y is zero, he has no special right to that technique and its a common technique, Y is zero.
In doing so he is devaluing that technique. It would be like I invented a super machine, patented it, and the first user claimed that applying that to it's purpose created copyright and he holds the copyright, ergo I cannot profit from my invention!!
So that technique is reduced by this decision.
This should and will be overturned on appeal. It's a garbage decision. The judge should be ashamed, idiot.
Apple vs Microsoft all over again! I can see that if this is used for commercial purposes then there is a case to answer, the basic content and style is duplicated, although the photo is from a different position, it is clearly intended to duplicate eliments of the first photo.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
One of the companies I worked for the legal department had to come to our dev team meeting. Some guy had been sending copies of his software to our developers. We had a new version of an add-on product coming out. He also made add-ons and knew was guessing the direction we were going and probably many aspects would be the same.
What our legal department said was if our programmer's have never seen the other guys program they are "clean" programmers and no copyright violation if similar things show up. If our programmers had seen or been show the other guys program then wrote similar thing they are "dirty" programmer and what they do would be copyright violation. So legal dept collected all the still sealed copies and held them then ripped the other guy a new one.
Now what is really strange is legal said if marketing sees the other guys product and then describes a feature to a programmer the programmer is still considered a "clean" programmer. Geez no wonder there is no consistency in legal decisions.
If I was in the UK, now would certainly be the time to release a copyrighted sound-effect pack containing each note on the musical scale (let's say one set on piano and one on a slightly distorted guitar). Bam. Now I can apparently legitimately claim that essentially every song in existence infringes my copyright. Sure, the song uses my copyrighted notes in a particular arrangement, but they still recorded their own copy of middle-C to avoid paying the 100-euro-per-play licensing fee for using the middle-C from my sound-effect pack.
Ridiculous.
Censorship is the opposite of education. If neo-darwinism were defensible, people would not need to try and censor ID.
Romantic comedy writers across the world are frightened by this verdict.
The subjectivity of this legal argument, the subjectivity of fair use in general, the fact that it's impossible to browse the internet without unintentionally violating copyright, the enforcement of copyright being so infrequent and partial -- these characteristics on any law show that the law is a terrible idea. This ruling wasn't based on uncertainty of the facts of the case, it was based on uncertainty of whether the law had been broken at all when all the relevant facts are undisputed.
Furthermore, the terms on copyright are limited and the duration of copyright terms are arbitrary. If people really believed in copyright then there would be no limit on terms, or there would be a very soundly derivable reason for the limit to be exactly what it is set to.
Copyright is a law that gets 99% of it's support from the fact that it exists and people are afraid to challenge the status quo. Given that so many people even intentionally violate this law (which is not even properly a right since it places no demands on government other than general enforcement of laws), I really am astonished that the idea of eliminating copyright altogether is such an unpopular position.
In 1912 new automobile companies definitely infringed on horse cart companies.
But was it possible to ban automobile in the world? Or was the innovation by itself (automobile) stronger than the international legal system of that time?
Step 1. Buy a digital camera
Step 2. Take photographs of popular monuments using my cameras Sepia filter.
Step 3. Sue everyone using the sepia filter for copyright infringement of my photographs.
Step 4. Sue camera manufacturers for putting sepia filter in their cameras, aiding copyright infringement.
Step 5. Profit.
That Judge isn't fit to deal with copyright infringements if he doesn't even understand the basis for copyright.
The common law rule for photographs is well known and straightforward, and is the same in the US and England. The three elements are 1) RENDITION (angle of shot, light and shade, exposure, effects achieved by means of filters, developing techniques, etc); 2) TIMING; and 3) ARRANGEMENT (manipulation of the objects in the scene). None of these elements are necessary, nor are they individually sufficient. But this is your starting point. Nothing in that case is even remotely shocking from a legal theory perspective.
It's also worth noting that the touch stone of copyright is originality. It doesn't matter if your photograph looks exactly like another if you in fact had never seen that other photograph. But originality matters because copyright does extend to the "idea" of the work. In other words, when lawyers say that copyright covers "expression", they don't just mean the physical work, but the abstract, mental expression. The idea/expression dichotomy isn't about real versus conceptual. Both are conceptual. The different is fundamentally one of degree. If your mental expression derives from someone else's, and you fix that expression into a physical work, then you've violated the copyright. Right or wrong. This is very basic copyright law.
The reason why you don't see more of these photograph cases is that the claimant has to prove other elements, too, including similarity, actual copying (at a minimum showing that the violator had access to the other work), and originality in the claimant's work. This isn't very easy, especially for photographs lacking the third element of arrangement. Note that it appears to have had the first element (rendition) in spades.
So all the people who have taken photos of people "holding up" the Leaning Tower of Pisa are in for a world of hurt, huh?
Vote Quimby.
Wait until the tourist board for the "Leaning Tower of Pisa" get a hold of this!.
Shh.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyright_Case
By Sixpm (Jan 26, 2012 at 04:21:56 GMT)
It saddens me when I see that we all have been brainwashed and indoctrinate to fight for survival or for money, which is just a tool for mass control. Isn't it time for people to wake up that our world is full of abundance and scarcity was created to manipulate the masses into believing that we have to fight in order to get fed?
Our world is free for all to share, to enjoy all of our creativity, copyright law and patent laws are just a few 'regulations' to make sure we are 'trapped' in our own selfish mindsets to maintain our selfish ways of life.
Wake up and to realise that we are all living on a prison planet, undermine and controlled from the moment we're born. No one owns another, so the idea of one has the 'right' over another is totally absurd. Peace out!
Men are moved by two levers only— fear and self interest.
Napoleon Bonaparte
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
The Bible (King James Version) 1 Timothy 6:10
This is why life on this planet is in such a mess for most of the people on it.... :(
My comment has a similar format to previous commentors.
My comment is over the same topic too!
Copyright violation here we come.
In all seriousness though, this is a horrible ruling, and sets a disturbing precident.
Yes, protecting artists' works are good, but these pictures aren't even that similar!
Copyright in it's current form is abused, if copyright spreads to ideas, we're all sunk.
The Disney Company surely blesses you, if it doesn't already own you.
The full judgement is here that provides the legal basis for the decision, which states that copyright covers "intellectual creation". Specifically, note the following in the "Subsistence of copyright" section:
"Sufferin' succotash."
I would donate funds to an appeal of this ruling. Utterly absurd.
There is a special place at the bottom floor of the Tower of London for the judges like this, just by the Thames. The wig shall not help him to escape, this time.
If you'd RTFA, you'd see that it says the judge was shown other examples of this idea, and said that they were not only undated (and so couldn't be determined to have originated before 2006, the year of the first photo's creation) but also different enough to actually hurt the defendant's case, because they provided examples of expressing the basic idea without infringing.
In the UK law cited in the text of the full judgement, copyright covers "intellectual creation". The judge interpreted the second photo as a reproduction of the first photo's intellectual creation and decided that was an infringement.
"Sufferin' succotash."
You don't get it (nor do many of the folks on this thread).
Let's put this into other terms. Let's say there is a movie (say the matrix for argument's sake), and someone watches the movie in Brazil and says, "hey, I like that movie, I'd like to license that movie and sell it in Brazil". Then they try to negotiate a license to distribute the movie, but can't come to an agreement on price. Then they get another studio to make a movie about a future world where machines take over and use people as batteries and trick them into not committing suicide by putting them in a virtual reality world. Probably won't get sued. However, if they make the same movie and put in bullet time special effects into the movie and the script has similar scene order and shot perspective and they end up calling the movie "The Tensor", many folks might think they crossed the line (maybe).
Why? it would have copied so many aspect of what made the Matrix, the Matrix, that it is considered a derivative work that lacks any transformativeness. If they, however, added some artistic element (say like make it a parody like space balls vs star wars), such that the work could be considered a new work under copyright law. Similarly, if the movie had the bullet time effects, but say was a movie about terminators, well, that's not the same movie. Or if the movie didn't have digital rain, or bullet time effects, but was say a movie with a plot like say dark city, that had a different effect say like moving buildings... etc...
It doesn't have to be an exact copy to be a "copy" under copyright law. Otherwize, someone could hire an army of people from some 3rd world country, give them the linux source code after the pre-processor and have each person memorize a function and type in another version from memory with variables converted to camelCase reverseHungarian and all the for loops turned into while loops and maybe some switch statements converted to if/else, run it through a pretty-printer and re-intepreted by a few code cleaning scripts and auto-doc tools to make some comments, and voila! a non GPL version of Linux could emerge! NOT! That work would also likley be inspired enough by linux that it wouldn't pass the test of being a new work (unless say they made it a microkernel instead of a megakernel which would be "new" or maybe "old" depending on your point of view)
UK copyright law covers "intellectual creation" in so-called "artistic works," which covers photographs. All this stuff is listed in the online text of the ruling linked in the article.
99% of the artists in history would today be behind bars. Because this is how in the past great artists became artists in the first place, copying the works of other artists and learning the technique.
Guess it's time to raid a few galleries and museums and destroy a few old copycat pieces.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The artistic world would entirely disagree with this Judge. By that I mean, the entire population of visual artists who work in traditional media. It has been acknowledged and even encouraged for hundreds if not thousands of years to study each others works and to do ones own version them. Usually one would subtitle "A study after so-and-so..." and its all good. Much in the same way a music group will do a "cover" of another band's song. *ALL* of the Masters learned their trade by copying others - even Rembrandt, Michelangelo, et al. NONE of them were "self-taught"!!!
C|N>K
The reason why you don't see more of these photograph cases is that the claimant has to prove other elements, too, including similarity, actual copying (at a minimum showing that the violator had access to the other work), and originality in the claimant's work. This isn't very easy, especially for photographs lacking the third element of arrangement. Note that it appears to have had the first element (rendition) in spades.
Exactly. And in this case, the defendant had previously infringed on the copyright of the plaintiff, and went out the reimplement the photograph just to avoid further licensing fees. The judge is simply reminding the defendant, "yeah, you can't do that now."
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
This comment is clearly copying all preciou karma whores, and seeking to avoid IP licensing fees to the original virgin karma whore. (She who shall-not-be-named).
Is quite possibly the recipient of a large sum pf money or quite stupid.
The photos in question:
htt^://www.swanturton.com/multimedia/docs/Temple Island v New English photographs.pdf
Remove the carat!
I don't see how this can be even remotely contemplated without making literally everyone with a camera a copyright violator.
So if a room full of journalist take a photo of the queen does only the first photo get to be copyrighted and all others after that one disposed of?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
> Note that it appears to have had the first element (rendition) in spades
You should take a look at the images again. The angle of shot is completely different.
We ended up in the same situation at home, since now we can't shoot certain photos because it would take some economic entity's imaginary property away.
This is the obvious result of starting to grant rights to people over imaginary things: there's no limit to imagination!
On a side note, I hope the UK will start publishing official, government-approved books containing all the photos ever made, so that photographers can consult them every time they're about to take a picture, to be sure that they won't be sued by someone who happened to take the same photo some decade before.
Kubism as a movement in art to portray things in a certain way. There are others but Kubism was specifically invented in relevant recent times by well known artists... AND used by a lot more. With no problem. It was invented but it was also a copy, it was based on more primitive art, some statues from Africa have similar stark angular lines that you can buy at any tourist trap but are most certainly not Kubist themselves but based on far far older works.
For that matter, how would this judge deal with portraits? That style is so copied that it has become law, your passport portrait MUST look a certain way.
Sometimes judges rulings should be pre-read and if they open to big a can of worms they should be shot (the judges, not the worms) and replaced with a more sensible judge. You can bet your ass that this ruling WILL be abused. There are so many compositions that have been copied over and over again. It was for thousands of years considered normal, a tribute to the original, a sign you inspired others.
What will now happen to anyone who copies the composition of the Abby Road album cover (the 4 beatles on zebra crossing)? What about the composition idea of taking a shot of big ben in such a way that the person in the foreground seems to be the same size? You would have to lock up and brutally torture every tourist... oooh, not bad at all. Sometimes a stupid ruling is worth it after all!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Now a freaking IDEA is protected under copyright? Great, open the gates for all the lawyers, and people wonder why we hate them so much. No need for a patent or trademark anymore, just claim you have the copyright on the whole process how you did something (which are clearly what patents are suppose to cover).
"its appearance is the product of deliberate choices and also deliberate manipulations by the author," and concluded that those aspects had been copied.'"
But those aspects are just how he did it. This is not a work of art, the same way as if I carper a table, the nailing and sawing are also "deliberate choices and also deliberate manipulations", but they cannot be copyrighted.
Fuck copyright. I never will abid to the stupid laws of copyright if I can get away with it. Sorry for all the artists that I will not give my money, but as long as the copyright laws are as such I will not recognize them. Maybe you (the artists) should get together and press to make them moral again, than I will concider to recognize them again.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
There are free apps on my phone can make a picture that looks exactly like the original. Even if they were matched frame for frame (which would be impossible unless the traffic was the same and the bus was the same) a picture of something that exists in the world shouldn't be copyrighted.
If I go outside and photograph a tree that shouldn't be protected. If I decorate the tree then take a photograph, that should. If someone else decorates the tree every day and I take a photo one day, then another person takes the same photo the next day, no protection.
But that is my opinion.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Based upon the ruling and its basis, I should immediately start copyrighting all the notes I make in university classes. Can I then accuse other students of mimicking my intent and execution with their notes and require they pay me royalties to keep their notes when exam time comes?
Yes, the defendant's firm should have been found guilty for their prior infringing use, but the subsequent replacement with their own image should have been perfectly legal.
Someone needs to send this judge a collection of Getty DVDs. Clearly he understands nothing about commercial photography.
Frames are frequently sold one at a time from a shoot where 100s of pictures of the same subject, same setting, same composition are snapped. The original photographer still retains copyright on the distinct images he does not sell or license, and likewise his buyer has the same on their portion they purchase.
Everything was black and white except for that one girl with the red dress.
Some of the most profound scientific concepts have been discovered by different people decades apart without them knowing each other.
Similar ideas in similar cultures are generated independently because they are based on sampling and inspiration by that very shared culture and heritage.
The bus-example is hardly unique. As a matter of fact, it's very clichéd in both subject and post-processing. The intellectual process and conceptual insight would probably've gone like this:
talentless art-director: "i'd like a London-y feel."
designer/photographer: "what's a london-y feel?"
talentless art-director: "Big Ben, a double-decker bus, umbrellas."
designer/photographer: "Really?"
talentless art-director: "Keep the red."
How does a simple portrait photo survive your thinking? Same angle, same composition, some treatment. Oops!
What about a CV or any standard document? My CV is certainly my creation so if you copy my style, are you an infringer?
Terry Pratchett is rather famous (a reviewer on the BBC I think slammed him for it and was torn to shreds for it) for not using chapters. So if I write without chapters, I am infringing? Only one person can write without chapters? For that matter, isn't the idea of dividing a story in chapters a copyrighted idea?
There are some compositions that stand out, I wrote another comment about the Abby Road cover but what of that shot in Star Wars of Luke standing with two suns in the background? It is a classic shot, with a very simple effect it instantly creates an alien world. But it is NOT a new idea, lots of covers of old sci-fi and fantasy books do the same, showing the hero looking out over an alien landscape. HOW the landscape is alien might differ, dragons in the sky, a gigantic moon, rings in orbot, but the idea is the same. Who owns that composition?
The idea of owning a specific composition, an idea, is frightening. It is one thing for the Disney corporation to have infinite copyright on Mickey Mouse but to give them ownership of the idea of a cartoon mouse... EVEN Disney would not go, has not gone, that far. See Tom and Jerry, The Secret of Nimh and others.
For that matter, what would happen to the web? How many sites use the same composition, header, footer, body? Are newspaper columns now owned by the first newspaper? The BBC itself is in serious trouble, who owns the composition off the news reader looking straight into the camera from behind a desk while reading the news? Can you imagine the hazzle of every news show having to come up with a new composition that isn't to similar to every one elses? There are 179 or so countries, each with at least 1 news show...any new program would have to come up with something amazing not to infringe.
No, I think this Judge let himself be ruled by the other infringement facts of the case and wanted to rule against the defense no matter how it would affect the rest of the world. The 2nd foto was taken to avoid paying for the 1st one, that is not nice BUT to make it illegal to punish the not so nice defendant is to let loose the lawyers of frivolous lawsuits. This judge will be remembered for a long time. And not in a good way.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The original has the bus in the middle slightly to the left, whereas the so-called copy has it in the lower right corner. Also the original appears to be shot with a 50mm equivalent lens, but the so-called copy uses a wide angle. Then the steps to the bridge which are dominating the lower part of the original photograph are completely missing from the so-called copy as is the river. Finally, the lighting appears to be different. The shadows in the so-called copy are more distinct, because it was shot on a sunny day whereas the original sky was probably overcast.
Regarding the treatment -- so putting a bright red object on a monochrome background is forbidden now? I now it's cliché and overused, but that's no reason to ban the technique. (Which was used by Steven Spielberg in Schindler's List for great effect. There you have your prior art.)
Never mind the fact that artists have been copying each other since forever. It's how you learn and how art works.
Gawd, I hate copyright law.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Too broad interpretaions of copyright are as detrimental to the copyright system as too narrow ones. You can't claim copyright on a copyright infringement. (Unlike with patents, where you can patent an incremental improvement to a previously pantented design.)
- Hey you copied my image.
- Yes, I copied the image, but you can't claim copyright on it. See how similar it is to this earlier image that I found on the interwebs?
I have never heard such a silly ruling
Composition of a single person, from the chest up, looking at the camera with a plain background is infringing the passport photo copyright
Composition of a parked car in a street scene is infringing the classified add copyright!
Composition of a pretty girl on a beach scene with natural lighting is infringing the holiday snap copyright
Need i go on?
"AHH! All the world is going to shit because ONE judge ruled in ONE case not even in my same country!"
Seriously, as some smarter posters had posted, the defendant is a moron. He didn't want to pay licence costs for it, got sued, THEN painted another Mona Lisa with a different hair color to get around said licencing fees. This ruling was about his intent. Had he commissioned the photo and claimed he had never seen the original it would of been different. There is a reason why clean room reverse engineering is so expensive but also so valuable here in the states:P
I am sure the judge knew the implications to it and I am sure everyone is going to go nutters about this once it reaches the 5th page of the news. But how else was he supposed to rule? The defendant was clearly trying to get around paying for the original work. Do you punish the photographer who made the original art or the guy who wants a free ride.
Please slashdot, tell me why I, Leonardo Polizzi can't charge $50 to look at my Mona Lisa
PS - Bad example as its just the original with some junk on it. But what if I painted it exactly as it was, strokes and all, even the same smile, but changed the hair color?
Interesting interpretation about photographs, but totally wrong when it comes to software. You can make software that has *exactly* the same interfaces but as long as you didn't copy the bits or the source you are allowed to do it for the purposes of interoperability (eg. why SAMBA lives on despite Microsoft dearly wanting to destroy it many years ago). This has been tested in court and compatible implementations were not found to breach copyright (now with all the idea patent nonsense you would get pinged on that - but not for breaching copyright).
There is no way in hell the second photograph violates the first one's copyrights. If this ruling sets a precedent, pretty much everybody is in some kind of shit.
I'll repeat that more precisely: if that ruling sets a precedent, you cannot take a photo without infringing on some other person's copyrights.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Once i read the line that the two photographers has been sparring in court before, it dident take long to figure out why the outcome is the way it is. Obviously you dont go trying to license something, and cant come to an agreement so you "make" one of your own that uses the same elements as the origonal photograph. Had the photo been in all black and white or all colour the outcome may have very well been diffrent.
A major feature of this case was that the photograph was first blatantly copied, in breach of copyright, without payment, and the second one only taken when a court case had proven this. So there is lots of bad faith here, and it's easy to prove that the second user was intentionally copying the 'look and feel' of the photograph.
This was an extreme case where the second photographer was cocking his snoot at the judicial system. I don't think it can be taken as a precedent for banning all 'similar photographs'...
that's not irony.
These rulings are so stupid that they make me sick...
What if I do not take a picture at all. What if I go to the location itself, stand there and look at the scenery. I will see the same as what is on the 'copyrighted' picture. I will probably even enjoy it more than just the picture. Can I now be forbidden to see things??
What a total load of balloney this world is turning into.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
You intend to create a work derived from the original.
If you copy the idea, where, exactly, is the creative work that YOUR copyright comes from?
(Reading Article to try to stay on target)
Specifically, Judge Birss QC highlighted two visual contrasts: "one between the bright red bus and the monochrome background" ...
Okay, so now we get to see if the Judge did any homework:
John Doe (TV series)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe_(TV_series)
The entire plot revolves around why a couple of people in John Doe's life are in color while the rest of the world is monochrome. So I think the judge had better talk to Brandon Camp, Mike Thompson, Mimi Leder, and Fox TV.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
In one fell swoop this will end the current generation's pop music industry.
you can't begin to imagine how many times people have replicated that cover
Just for an example. It's clearly done to avoid licensing the original (which had been infringed before), if you read WHAT THE PERSON DID, you know, the putative criminal, rather than just look at the scene of the crime and go "I saw this on Columbo, it clearly isn't a murder!".
But lets say that this person just went to the same place, did the same thing and got very much the same picture. Since there was no creative process in this, where is the second "author's" creative input that enables any copyright in his work at all?
Exactly. And in this case, the defendant had previously infringed on the copyright of the plaintiff, and went out the reimplement the photograph just to avoid further licensing fees. The judge is simply reminding the defendant, "yeah, you can't do that now."
Then that sucks. I don't agree that this definition of copyright is remotely in the public interest, and I think it should be revoked.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
And detrimental to creation
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Does the first photo of a celebrity at a photo station become the copyright for all the subsequent photos taken of the celebrity that night? Everyone could license the that first photo.
This is exactly how I see most software patents being applied.
I'm losing my motivation to do anything.
If you want examples of mostly black & white photographs with a touch of color, then you need to go back to the 19th century:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dubbelportr%C3%A4tt,_Sven_Alarik_Bergstr%C3%B6m_och_hans_hustru_Flore_Jos%C3%A9phine_Constance,_f._Pontus_-_Nordiska_Museet_-_NMA.0052773_1.jpg
Exactly.
From the judgement: "Conversely the claimant says: The defendants are free if they wish to create a red on grey London icon image. They can even have a Routemaster before the Houses of Parliament. As their own evidence shows, these can be depicted in all sorts of different ways. But what they cannot have is a southbound Routemaster on Westminster Bridge before the Houses of Parliament at the same angle as the claimant's work on a greyscale background and a white sky, in circumstances where they have admitted seeing the claimant's work"
The judge shot that down as putting the case too high. What he seems to be saying is that seeing a picture of a red southbound routemaster bus in a desaturated view of Westminster bridge, as used to advertise one product, and then asking a photographer to create something similar to advertise your own product is copyright infringement.
Having said that, I think the compositions are different enough to avoid any risk of confusion.
And secondly, if I'd been responsible for either image I'd be hiding in my corner that taste forgot rather than making a big deal out of it. Seriously, selective colouring? Still?
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
The precedent here is that all (not very creative) artists who emulate someone (in awe or poor taste) have done something illegal. This is wrong.
Society will punish these artists "socially" (=bad reputation) as we have always done, and not through legal action.
Good taste and not lawsuits should dictate our behaviour.
People pay millions for "the original" for the right to say "but this is the original", which makes us marvel at the work, study the details aso. While anyone can get a copy online or at Ikea..
How will this precedent fare with stock photography, for instance? Or Disney's fairy tales that are clearly inspired by Old world tales?
Defining Statistics and Social Research
So, if I buy data from USGS, DOT, and other sources, the same data that anyone else can buy, and use it to create a road atlas, I'm infringing on another map-maker's copyright because my map looks just like theirs, even though it might have different fonts, colors, and other unimportant things.
Got it.
From the judgement:
In summary the manipulations Mr Fielder undertook were: the red colour of the bus was strengthened; the sky was removed completely by (electronically) cutting around the skyline of the buildings; the rest of the image was turned to monochrome save for the bus; some people present in the foreground of original photograph were removed (there was a small group on the stairs and a person at the top under the lamppost); and the whole original image was stretched somewhat to change the perspective so that the verticals in the buildings were truly vertical. Mr Fielder spent about 80 hours on this including the photography trips
80 HOURS! That's two working weeks. At a push I reckon I could have my own version of this image on a tea-towel by the end of the day.
I actually don't think there is a more done to death concept
but a few:-
http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgpp31718+red-double-decker-bus-london-photography-poster.jpg
http://v2.lscache6.c.bigcache.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/10378421.jpg
http://hydeparktowershotel.com/uploads/images/see_london_gallery/Aged_Big_Ben_with_a_classic_London_bus_in_red.jpg
http://www.maidenhead.cc/pub/Main/CompImages2009to10A/IngridGledhill-Development-LondonBus.jpg
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2084100.jpg
http://www.moss247.com/ekmps/shops/mossbristol78/images/london-bus-3d-a3-503-p.jpg
http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgPP32176.jpg
people crossing Abbey road are also copyright infringers? Jesus, the British courts are going to be up to their eyeballs trying to prosecute all of those!
This kind of thing happens all the time in advertising. (NSFW for language).
You miss the point. The "idea" of it is copied. NOT the thing itself. Ideas CANNOT and more importantly for society SHOULD NOT be copyrightable.
So now this goes to say that if my kid goes to school on picture day and gets their picture taken, but then they come home and I decide to take a picture of them then I could be violating copyrights??? The judge should be slapped. The original photographer and the other should both be slapped for even wanting such a crappy picture.
"But what they cannot have is a southbound Routemaster on Westminster Bridge"
They don't. Westminster Bridge runs East-West.
Except it isn't a copy.
"This isn't a case of artistic freedom, this is about using someone else's art to sell tea and refusing to recognise their efforts."
It's not a copy, it a photograph of a bus put through a Photoshop selective desaturation filter. There's no special right to the idea behind it. Copying the idea of using a desaturation filter on a bus is irrelevent, BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH IP RIGHT!
The judge is an idiot. You are just repeating the mindless nonsense from an idiot.
That the "copied" image was applied to a branded item, and that the original image WAS the brand? This is one of those brands that sells the image, on many different things (cups, keychains, greeting cards, etc.).
This was a case of brand infringement. However, they used copyright law to bring the suit. Not exactly sure why. I would think a trademark suit would have worked.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
-H. L. Mencken
Does this mean that any photo from inside a car is now copyright infringment, given that google has already taken a very similar photo of the same view?
I'll see your John Doe, and raise you The Giver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giver
If the photo wasn't copied, it wasn't copied, end of the fucking story.
Judge, go get your head examined, because you are so off base here.
Copyright only protects the image, not what's in it.
From what you're saying, any 2 artists who paint a bowl of fruit are infringing every other artist's bowl of fruit painting.
Photographers have always and I do mean always tried to get their own versions of shots they like. That doesn't infringe copyright, never has, never will.
Copyright protects that exact image, nothing else.
So, get off your stupid horse and fix the ruling.
By this same logic, since Google Streets has photographed pretty much the entire Earth.. street by street.. they how hold the patent to the planet.
Musicians typically need permission to cover another bands song on a new studio album. The Spaghetti Incident did not happen by accident. Well, perhaps it did, but that is not the point.
So leeme get this straight... I have a stock photo from a photo company showing a young white guy in a white shirt and tie sitting at a desk smiling. Behind him is a black lady in a pant-suit outfit and an older grey-haired white guy in a full suit. Basically, your very standard business stock photo. Used *everywhere*.
So, if I hire some models and shoot something similar, but say, the black girl is the one sitting, and they are different models (it would be nearly impossible to find the original models anyhow), it's still an infringement on the original copyright because they are "in an office setting" or "similar composition" or because a judge arbitrarily sees three generic businesspeople in a photo and concludes that I'm ripping off the original photo???
Seriously, WTF???
I can see two stock photo houses clubbing each other to death with lawyers over that. I mean, every stock photo house the same generic photos, all just slightly different from the other guy's photos.
Clearly, this is infringement, and could tie up the legal system for so long, no actual criminal cases could find time to be tried. Murder suspects will die of old age awaiting their trial date.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
A client of mine wanted the pittsburgh skyline in his website design. So I went up to mt washington where thousands of other photographers have snapped this photograph overlooking the city so that I could have my own copyrighted photo to use royalty free. So according to this ruling, I would be in violation of copyright since other "artists" have snapped the same photo from the same angle? Ridiculus.
i put a box on a table you shoot it at front
i walk around back and shoot it
your saying the first guy has copyright over my image? that's way this sounds and it utter nonsense
appeal this and win
If this ruling stands, then there are millions of photographic infringements snapped daily. Many subjects, the Statue of Liberty comes to mind, offer limited viewing angles from which to take a picture. Google (images) the statue and just see how many people have infringed on my copyright of a nearly 3/4 view from a low angle against a blue sky! Oh, and my straight on shot from the Circle Line in the water, and .... you bastards! I used a polarized lens on other shots, so that's copyrighted too.
Heads up all: I've recently patented relieving oneself through an anal sphincter. Be warned!
Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
In this kind of grey area of copyright infringement I think it's a mistake to favor copy right holder. I'm no lawyer but this seems like a case that wasn't actually proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This crap is so subjective to the eye of the beholder, you can't actually prove it one way or the other, so it is mistake to assume guilt (innocent till proven guilty, right?.. right??)
There's even a Photo App that includes a preset "London" - makes everything grey except the reds: http://androidforums.com/android-applications/153410-review-vignette-camera-app-android.html
Uhm, I've got international copyright protection on "convoluted logic processing resulting in obviously stupid legal judgements" - so stand down, infringing Judge!
Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
I took a scenic photo along the Ice Age Trail in Wisconsin. I emailed the link to where my photo could be viewedalong with information on where it was taken, to somebody at the Ice Age Trail foundation. A couple of months later, their quarterly journal came out, with "my" picture on the cover (cropped). However, I was surprised when I viewed the attribution that the photographer was the person to whom I had sent the link, not me! Then, on closer inspection, I saw that it was NOT my photo, but a VERY similar one taken from the exact same location.
I don't believe his act (which was almost certainly a deliberate "knockoff", even though I offered them the use of my photo free of charge) was illegal (nor should it be, IMO), but it was, I think, at least borderline unethical.
The "copied photo" isn't even a photo. It's a Photoshop montage (the bus was taken from an image bank) made with the express intent of copying the look of the first photo, after the same company had tried to use that photo without paying or giving any credit to the author.
Before you post nonsense, read the actual verdict. If anything, this judge showed a sudden and unexpected outbreak of common sense.
Yes, the images are arguably similar. But there is absolutely no merit whatsoever to the claim that one would be a copy of the other, thus violating the copyright monopoly. What the judge has done here is to set a precedent that states that the monopoly does not just cover the creative work, but extends to a general creative idea, which completely shatters the traditional notion that the copyright monopoly only covers a specific expression of an idea, and never the idea itself.
I take it you've never heard of derivative works, then?
Looks like you didn't actually read the verdict (let alone understand the law), but still think you're qualified to comment on it. Maybe you should avoid further embarrassment by reading what the judgement actually says.
Hint: it has nothing to do with the subject of the photo.
The judge is declaring that the style of the photo is central to the copyright of the composition. It's almost as though we're supposed to consider this as a patent. Yes, I know it's not but allow me the point. Houghton's image is not the first I have seen given this treatment (a color object in a B&W field). Admittedly, the other instances which come to mind are nature photos, but the intent is the same. My point is that Houghton is not original in the treatment. He did not design the central items in his composition (Parliament, the bridge, and the distinctive bus). There is too much variation in the composition between the two photos for me to come to the conclusion that this is infringement. Further, I think the judge is setting a vary chilling and dangerous precedent with regard to specifically photography but other expressions of art as well. Musicians should hope that this judge, abetted by some slimeball with a law degree, does not take in his head to look into the copyright of arrangements.
I'm guessing you didn't read the verdict, but still thought people would somehow be interested in hearing your opinion about some fictitious ruling that only exists in your head. Do yourself a favour and go read the verdict.
67.On the second point, the collection of other similar works relied on by the defendants have worked against them because the collection has served to emphasise how different ostensibly independent expressions of the same idea actually look.
They are key and paint the case in a far different light from the scare mongering sensationalist headlines that have been produced about the case.
Puzzle Daze is now my job
Well, I definitely don't think I'm trying to troll here. Yet you bring up a point I've often gone back and forth about myself. (For the record, I enjoy photography as a hobby but am certainly not a "pro photographer". Several of my good friends, however, have photography as their profession.)
No argument a good photographer could spend days, weeks, or even months attempting to compose just the right photograph. But still, it's not really the same as the artist drawing a sketch by hand, IMO. After all, the artist could invest every bit as much time "up front" as the photographer did, locating just the right scene in the right lighting conditions to sit down and draw. But in the end, the artist is painting or drawing a rendition manually, and a photographer is using an electro-mechanical device to capture a copy of that moment in time with a press of a button.
Does that make the photographer less talented than the painter? Not necessarily... but that's irrelevant anyway. The issue at hand is the concept of copyright, and I think a strong case can be made that photographers push the limits of what's really copyrightable. Prime example? Look at the industry of taking school portraits. A photographer goes into the school, sets everything up, and in an assembly-line manner, runs kids through one after the other, taking the same basic head-shot photos of each one. Then, not only are parents expected to pay a fairly steep price for a copy of these photos in various sizes, but they're told the images are copyrighted (property of the photographer), so any reprints must be obtained through the photography business! All the photographer did was capture an image a kid's face -- a face that has unique characteristics making it worthy of photographing in the first place only because it's a result of the unique interactions of the DNA of the child's PARENTS. So logic would tell you that once paying for the SERVICE of having the initial photos taken, the right to duplicate the prints now possessed should belong to the parents!
The one on top looks like a picture of the bridge with the city in the background with a red bus (not sure why that's red). The bottom one looks like a picture of a red bus with the city in the background. There are some similarities, but these pictures don't even feel the same to me. I could believe they were taken by the same guy on the same day with the same camera that can be told to automatically make everything black and white and highlight red (there are cheap cameras that can do that you know). But these are clearly not the same image or even close to the same image.
Did you even bother to read the verdict? Nevermind, it was a rhetorical question (if you had, you would know that there no connection between this case and stock photography, because the basis of the verdict isn't even the photo itself, it's mainly the artistic work done on the photo, and the events that led to the creation of the "knock-off" image).
1. Company X was using artist A's image commercially (on its products' packaging) without giving credit or paying royalties.
2. (2011 verdict) Court ordered company X to pay the artist.
3. Company X director decided to create a similar image, to avoid paying the author.
4. Company X director wasn't even able to take a similar enough photo so he photoshopped elements from an image bank plus some of his photographs (and removed people, erased the sky, etc.) to create something similar to the work of artist A, and used it in his company's packaging instead of the original.
5. (this verdict) Court rules that company X is still trying to profit from artist A's work and must compensate him.
Which part of this do you have a problem with, exactly? How do you expect "society" to punish company X through "good taste" ? How are the people buying company X's products even supposed to know that their packaging uses a knock-off version of someone else's art? Do you think Microsoft or Zynga should be allowed to copy any independent game they come across without any compensation or acknowledgement of the original authors' work?
Good taste and not lawsuits should dictate our behaviour.
What planet do you live on? Is this some sort of Hyacinth Bucket form of free capitalism? "Oh, dumping all those chemicals into that river was in such poor taste. No, Richard, don't sue the factory, let's just glare at them disapprovingly, I'm sure the people buying their products on the other side of the world will vote with their wallets and everything will magically fix itself."
Laws exist for a reason, and, if anything, this case shows that (occasionally) copyright law can still be used to protect the actual artists. I'd expect Slashdot's readers to praise the judge, but of course, for that they would have to actually read the verdict, which I guess is asking too much. It's so much easier to post self-important rants about how clueless judges are and how any verdict spells doom for mankind due to [insert totally unrelated comparison].
Wait, so when a judge uses copyright law to protect an artist from a company trying to rip off his work without any payment or acknowledgement, that's "why copyright is wrong"...? So I guess you think that if Sony or Universal decided to rip off some indie band's songs, put together an autotuned boy band to sing them, and then sell that version without any compensation or mention of the original authors, it would be "wrong" to sue them?
I have a feeling you didn't bother to read the actual verdict or understand what this case is about (but somehow still thought your opinion would be relevant). At least I hope you didn't, otherwise what you're saying is that there's no point in trying to make a living as an artist, because any company should be allowed to copy your work and keep all the profits.
Bwian?
No, theah's no one named Bwian awound heah.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
When you say "by the same logic" you're referring to the (lack of) logic in your brain, where you choose to comment publicly about a verdict that you clearly didn't read, thus making a fool of yourself?
Who cares if it's wrong about software? That's not what we're talking about. Any discussion about software should be marked off-topic where it belongs.
So, if some photographer snaps a pic of some object, they establish an ownership right of that representation of the object. Even if they don't own it themselves. Celebrities aren't going to be happy about this, having had themselves photographed extensively by paparazzi. If they'd like to pose for a shot, now they'll have to see if some other photographer already owns the rights to that pose. Porn stars are even worse off. Some porn producer has staked claims to practically every square inch of their bodies.
Various tribal societies were right. When someone photographs you, they steal a part of your soul.
Have gnu, will travel.
Well, I remember during SCO that Linus said that if there was any infringing code, to tell them and they'd just rewrite it. Unless photos follow different rules, this would seem to indicate that a case can be made that the code couldn't be rewritten from scratch to avoid copyright, because it was written to do the same thing the infringing code was doing. Thus not designed independently.
Using the judges reasoning, Linux and all of the GNU tool that duplicate functionality found in UNIX, violates the rights of UNIX's copyright holders, since GNU and Linux came about because their respective creators did not agree with some or all aspects of the UNIX licensing terms.
Image the outcome of the SCO cases if this decision existed then?
Claimant was selling souvenirs with his pic on them at the side of the road. Doing well.
Defendant figured, "I want some of that sweet action." Made his own copies.
Claimant says, "What the?! That's my idea, my product. I'm suing."
Claimant wins because Defendant was a sneaky dick and I'd want to clock him as well. This was an example of copyright being used effectively.
End of that story. The devil is in the details.
I think adding this to copyright law, for distinguishing between derived and not-derived works, would eliminate "clean room" reverse engineering as a defense.
Reverse Engineering's intent always is to produce something that copies another work's "qualitative" and "specific processing" and "compositional idea", and to do it while avoiding having to license the original. The causal link always exists, and the reproduction of behavior/interface always exists (and behavior and interface are the qualitiative expression -- the composition -- of software, or at least proprietary software). These things are the whole point of reverse engineering.
The clean room process is to guarantee that these aspects of the original are the only things that will be copied, but if these things alone are enough to make something be a derived work, then clean rooms are no defense. Indeed, there can't ever be any defense; all reverse engineering will be be copyright infringement. How could it not be?
There are so many ways to service SMB requests, Samba just happens to do it qualitatively the same as Windows? Linux' NFS server just happens to do it qualitatively the same as Sun's?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
He was told he violated copyright, so he took what I think he rightfully thought is a very different picture. It should not matter for the sake of copyright if he had seen the image or not. You either are infringing or you are not, intent to me seems irrelevant except in determine damages.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What he seems to be saying is that seeing a picture of a red southbound routemaster bus in a desaturated view of Westminster bridge, as used to advertise one product, and then asking a photographer to create something similar to advertise your own product is copyright infringement.
Both images were used to advertise the same product. The defendant originally used the claimant's picture, but when it proved too expensive he commissioned another artist.
Intent should come into play in terms of damages. Intent should not be a part of choosing if something really violates a copyright. If a four year old saw that picture and replicated it in crayon would it really be an infringing work? You and the judge would seem to say "Yes".
It CANNOT be the case that once you see that image you are forbidden from ever taking a picture of a red bus and then desaturating the background, that is a grievous overstepping of what copyright provides.
Just accept there will be other takes made of a good work. It's not even like the knock-off was as good as the original.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How does a simple portrait photo survive your thinking? Same angle, same composition, some treatment. Oops!
Actually it very well could be the case, if the lighting were duplicated exactly as well - some high-end portrait photographers have specific shapes of flashes they use and if you replicated that to get a shaped glint in the eye, they could easily sue.
But an average straight on portrait in average light is always going to differ in some degree, in expression if nothing else.
The idea of owning a specific composition, an idea, is frightening.
Look, I agree with that assessment. I was simply saying I could see how they MIGHT have arrived at that judgement if that were the case - ALONG WITH the specify treatments (which I left unstated).
But the fact is that if you go and take exactly the same image in the same conditions it is truly a copy. Greta Photography literally is a matter of inches and I think it fair to say some compositions along with treatments and other carefully chosen elements in an image should be able to come together in a protected work.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The concept of a Young persons journey to Destiny (which happens to involve "magic") is not copylocked but of course to cover yourself you may want to ring up JKRawlings and get the perms to make different references as you need to (even if some stuff is not in fact an actual reference).
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
It's also worth noting that the touch stone of copyright is originality. It doesn't matter if your photograph looks exactly like another if you in fact had never seen that other photograph. But originality matters because copyright does extend to the "idea" of the work. In other words, when lawyers say that copyright covers "expression", they don't just mean the physical work, but the abstract, mental expression. The idea/expression dichotomy isn't about real versus conceptual. Both are conceptual. The different is fundamentally one of degree. If your mental expression derives from someone else's, and you fix that expression into a physical work, then you've violated the copyright. Right or wrong. This is very basic copyright law.
So you can basically copyright the idea of an artwork?
What if you derive an idea from someone else, but add a few elements of your own - is that sufficient to avoid infringing copyright?
This ruling is CLEARLY in the spirit of copyright law. The defendant used someone else's work illegally, was caught. Tried to create his own version of the same image, and was caught. There is no question of parallels here. His trail is well documented. You know, id assume the coders here would have figured this one out. And the musicians. Wtf guys.
I took a picture in 1968 from the visitor center......I registered it and have been receiving millions of dollars each year....
If I'm not mistaken, the defendant company licensed the original photo from the plaintiff company. They didn't want to keep paying the licensing fee so went to the location and shot a similar photo themselves.
There is a difference between seeing a photo and saying "hey that's neat and I know where and how to do that too", vs. paying someone for their original photo, use it, then not want to keep paying the licensing fee for it so deliberately copying the location & style of the original photo.
One is being inspired by others creativity, the other is screwing someone from legitimate income.
How many wedding or sports photographers are inspired by a photo in a book, then go out and try to recreate that shot at their next event?
So, which of the paintings and photographs of Motif #1 are infringing, then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motif_Number_1 http://www.rockportusa.com/motifone/motif_named.html
Google image search it. It's like the hiroshima of copyright infringement. Every manufacturer should sue each other and bind of the courts for 10 years. ...ohh and file in that court.
When I looked into the subject about 40 years ago, the owner of the photographic film became owner of the images on the film.
If you're interested in another technology that blurs the boundary between art and photography, look into "bromoil".
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hear me out, there might be something that can be done about this..
It's not often these days I have any faith in protest actions by the general public having any meaningful impact, but to me this incident is just crying out for some action to at least cause the waste of oxygen who brought the lawsuit some hassle, and hopefully make anyone else considering similar actions think twice. What needs to happen is for as many people as possible to take the same photograph on their cameras and upload to image sites, forums, wherever, with a link or explanation included. Ideally, someone would host a website containing the explanation people can link to (no need to actually host any images there and make oneself a DMCA magnet). The uniqueness original work will become so diluted as to be worthless, awareness of this bullshit ruling would be spread, and there's no way you take down all the 'infringing' images.
TFA claims this is a precedent setting ruling, but that's not true. Getty Images collected on behalf of Ernst Haas in a very similar case of Copying (shooting a substantially similar photo) specifically to Avoid Paying a License Fee.
"I'd much rather be mistaken as a lesbian by a bigot than be mistaken as a bigot by a lesbian."
There is a precedent to something like this I believe in the US, IMO (IANAL, so correct me if I am wrong). Curtis v. General Dynamics Corporation , see http://www.owe.com/legalities/legalities27.htm
I took a couple of photography classes years ago and the instructor, who taught us well, showed us the image and cautioned us on making photos too much like another work except for personal use. Too much "look and feel" is bad an shows a total lack of originality, IMO. I have problems w/ current copyright law but I hate a copycat.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The defendant in this case admitted he purposefully recreated the photo after getting caught using the original (for commercial purposes) without a licensing agreement. He didn't want to pay so he hired someone to recreate it. The fact that his image is somewhat different actually worked against him because it was further proof that he was copying the original and just tweaking it slightly because he thought this would protect him (he was wrong). So it's pretty silly of you to say that it is not copied - it just shows you haven't read the article(s) and the judgement in question.
Look at the industry of taking school portraits. A photographer goes into the school, sets everything up, and in an assembly-line manner, runs kids through one after the other, taking the same basic head-shot photos of each one. Then, not only are parents expected to pay a fairly steep price for a copy of these photos in various sizes, but they're told the images are copyrighted (property of the photographer), so any reprints must be obtained through the photography business! All the photographer did was capture an image a kid's face -- a face that has unique characteristics making it worthy of photographing in the first place only because it's a result of the unique interactions of the DNA of the child's PARENTS. So logic would tell you that once paying for the SERVICE of having the initial photos taken, the right to duplicate the prints now possessed should belong to the parents!
Take a ton of photos of your kid with standard "school photo" backgrounds the morning of photo day then sue the photographer for copyright infringement based on this new precedent.
People are copying my reality all the time! Get the heck out! I am going to sue all of you for using it!
P.S. Stop breathing my air!