Here's a fun copyright problem

Here's a fun copyright problem

39 posts
21 Jan 2012
photomane9
Photographer
photomane9
[ merged threads moved ]

Here are two images:


Do you think the one on the right infringes the copyright of the one on the left?

Surprisingly (to my mind) it does. The Patents County Court so decided in a recent case between a photgrapher who produces images for use on souvenirs of London, (the image on the left) and a company that produces tea in tins which is also aimed at the tourist market. His Honour Judge Birss took into account that the photographer of the second image (which is actually a composite made up from several different images) knew of the existence of the other image and in fact copied a substantial part of the elements which go to make up the first image in the way the composite was arranged, even though he actually  set out to create an image which differed from the original.

What amused me was the Judge's distinctly un-judicial comment "Photoshop is a bog standard bit of software that anyone can use"
Posted 21 Jan 2012
Edited by ForumModerator 23 Jan 2012
nikonuser
Photographer
nikonuser
Judges, what do they know?

someone steals a car, drives recklessly around the town centre at rush ignoring road rules and putting others at risk, wilfully damages queens property, get chased by 5 police cars and the helicopter, does untold damage, gets caught and gets........100hrs community service.

with regards to the above, 2 seperate images along the same scene, breach of copyright....no, individual adaptation of an idea, yes

agree with the judges comments on photoshop, but of course there are different levels of experience in use.

Posted 21 Jan 2012
paulford
Photographer
paulford
In my opinion no way, the only consideration is that it is or at least looks like a routemaster bus and I don't think they are used anymore, So a routemaster bus travelling over that particular bridge may be implyed to be copied. just a thought you have posted a picture of said bus/bridge so that my be seen as breach of copyright.
Posted 21 Jan 2012
Edited by paulford 21 Jan 2012
paulford
In my opinion no way, the only consideration is that it is or at least looks like a routemaster bus and I don't think they are used anymore, So a routemaster bus travelling over that particular bridge may be implyed to be copied. just a thought you have posted a picture of said bus/bridge so that my be seen as breach of copyright.
Makes a change from implyed nude - Implyed copyright lol Rob.
Posted 21 Jan 2012
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
If they were both on boxes of tea or biscuits you could easily assume they were made by the same company, and therefore the second image is a deception.

The second image does look like a cheap copy of the first, but it's all about context.

Posted 21 Jan 2012
mph
Photographer
mph
Lucky they are both crap eh?
Posted 21 Jan 2012
Flash
Photographer
Flash
They spent 80 hours creating the original image!!!!!!

Posted 21 Jan 2012
alexkidd
Photographer
alexkidd
honestly no, it's a load of iconic subject matter in a not particularly unique setting edited in a not particularly unique way

judge was a noob imho.

Posted 21 Jan 2012
photomane9
Photographer
photomane9
paulford

 just a thought you have posted a picture of said bus/bridge so that my be seen as breach of copyright.

Fortunately as these images were published in a report of judicial proceedings, I am protected by Section 45 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.frown
Posted 21 Jan 2012
artistoli
Photographer
artistoli
As if the authorities actually waste time with this kind of stuff. Its clearly not copyright infringement; they are totally different images, they just use the same iconic subjects.

If the authorities really want something to do they should sort out the wholesale and quite blatant copyright theft that happens on a vast scale on places like eBay (just check out all the printers just stealing photographs and art and putting them on canvases (and often making it out like they made the images!), or all the morons stealing images and putting into collections and selling on CDs).

Nope, that would be too difficult.

Posted 21 Jan 2012
trida
Photographer
trida
The Judge makes slightly heavy work of a simple principle.

But imagine the evidence of that second photographer describing their professional and artistic prowess to a Judge? Better he had never seen a tin of biscuits.

So, as happens, we all shoot the same model in a studio and we all have somehow seen the work of the prior shoots on PS or elsewhere. Imagine to make it easier that we all seek to commercialise those shots. The model is nude and it is debatable if the poses are anything other than the model's normal style. Edits / finishes may or may vary - or does that really matter? We all choose similar angles and the lighting is not that different.

What I wonder should the Judge decide if the first photographer to shoot that model nude sues the rest? Or does it only work if it involves a London Bus on Westminster Bridge?

Posted 21 Jan 2012
Edited by trida 21 Jan 2012
photomane9
Photographer
photomane9
Just to illustrate how unoriginal both images are, try typing "Houses of Parliament +bus" into Google images or Getty's search
Posted 21 Jan 2012
Edited by photomane9 21 Jan 2012
trida
Photographer
trida
photomane9
Just to illustrate how unoriginal both images are, try typing "Houses of Parliament +bus" into Google images or Getty's search
Good point. As buses generally go north or south across the bridge it must be the use of spot colour that is the decider. As commented a few times on threads there is the occasional lover of spot colour but you are surely not suggesting we have seen this man's work before on PS?
Posted 21 Jan 2012
photomane9
Photographer
photomane9
trida

Good point. As buses generally go north or south across the bridge it must be the use of spot colour that is the decider. As commented a few times on threads there is the occasional lover of spot colour but you are surely not suggesting we have seen this man's work before on PS?

You might think that selective colour is the work of the Devil, but I couldn't possibly comment. I'm sure the photographer behind this poster will be expecting a solicitor's letter sometime soon.
Posted 21 Jan 2012
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
photomane9

You might think that selective colour is the work of the Devil, but I couldn't possibly comment. I'm sure the photographer behind this poster will be expecting a solicitor's letter sometime soon.


It's certainly faked as the 15 doen't go across westminster bridge (or any bridge). Even if it did it would be going in the other direction to get to Tower Hill.
Posted 21 Jan 2012
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join