Reminder Secure

Here's a fun copyright problem

This thread is being watched by 1 person
Neil Anderson is off-line
23 January 2012 12:42
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Location
United Kingdom
London
West London

It seems from the judgement that this was the second attempt at copying, presumably the first was virtually identical as this second go was an attempt to be significantly less similar.
Like any dealer he was watching for the card that is so high and wild he'll never need to deal another...


Marek aka Maz is off-line
25 January 2012 14:36
maznu
Photographer
maznu
Location
United Kingdom
Greater Manchester


Here's hoping that judgement reduces the amount of copy-pasta godsawful same-as-everything-else commercial "adult photography" and "adult film".

You know the sort of stuff I mean. ;-)


Dragon Graffix is off-line
27 January 2012 20:13
DragonGraffix
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
Hampshire
Portsmouth

My immediate reaction was the judge had made the wrong decision .......... however,

I read the full adjudication, it took a while to do so and to digest it. The judge’s reasons for his verdict were quite simple. The defendant had seen the claimant’s work and had tried to replicate it to a point that it was not significantly different from the claimant’s work. Whether you agree with that or not, that was the decision. The judge actually made reference to the fact that if the defendant had hired a photographer to go and get photographs of a red bus going over Westminster Bridge with Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament in the background, there would not have been an issue because it was original work.

So to quote an example given previously, photographing a model against a tree is not breaking copyright because someone had done it before. However, taking the same model, posing against the same tree, using the same pose, and the photograph cropped and edited in the same way would constitute infringement of copyright, and that sounds quite plausible, especially as the judge said that copyright is not just restricted to taking a facsimile of the original. What the judge has to deduce is that one takes a very similar image as someone else by chance against an idea is copied. Now with our tree example, if we had enough images of the said model and tree and different posing and different editing and cropping, it may indicate that an image was taken by chance rather than through copying someone else’s!

I wonder how long it will be before someone comes after the claimant for infringing their copyright?????


 

"Beauty is how you feel inside, and it reflects in your eyes. It is not something physical." - Sophia Loren


Andy Johnstone is off-line
28 January 2012 19:21
photomane9
Photographer
photomane9
Location
United Kingdom
London
Bexleyheath

Quote from DragonGraffix

My immediate reaction was the judge had made the wrong decision .......... however,

I read the full adjudication, it took a while to do so and to digest it. The judge’s reasons for his verdict were quite simple. The defendant had seen the claimant’s work and had tried to replicate it to a point that it was not significantly different from the claimant’s work. Whether you agree with that or not, that was the decision. The judge actually made reference to the fact that if the defendant had hired a photographer to go and get photographs of a red bus going over Westminster Bridge with Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament in the background, there would not have been an issue because it was original work.

So to quote an example given previously, photographing a model against a tree is not breaking copyright because someone had done it before. However, taking the same model, posing against the same tree, using the same pose, and the photograph cropped and edited in the same way would constitute infringement of copyright, and that sounds quite plausible, especially as the judge said that copyright is not just restricted to taking a facsimile of the original. What the judge has to deduce is that one takes a very similar image as someone else by chance against an idea is copied. Now with our tree example, if we had enough images of the said model and tree and different posing and different editing and cropping, it may indicate that an image was taken by chance rather than through copying someone else’s!

I wonder how long it will be before someone comes after the claimant for infringing their copyright?????



Dragon, I'm not sure I entirely agree with your analysis of the judgment. The judge summarised the intentions of the defendant thus; "It is also obvious that the point of the exercise was to avoid infringing. Mr Houghton was clearly trying to avoid infringing  ...  the second image was produced because the whole point of the exercise was to produce a non-infringing image given the complaint about the first image the defendant had used."  (Para 10). To put these remarks in context there had been an earlier case in which the defendant had copied the New Island Collection image almost identically and this was found to have been infringement, hence the second attempt to create an image with much of the same ethos, but sufficiently different in composition to not infringe. The fact that the judge says that just photographing a bus going over Westminster Bridge would not infringe, indicates that there is a point (in his opinion) at which two images based the same subject matter diverge sufficiently that there is no infringement. But who is to know where this line is drawn? That's one reason why this is a bad judgment as it makes the law less certain, rather than more certain, which is generally what case law is supposed to do.

The second point at issue in this case is that copyright protects the expression of the idea, not the idea itself, which has led a number of IP experts (for instance here) to say that this judgment has laid too much emphasis on the idea and the extent to which it has been reproduced. What is noticeable is that, as noted in Jane Lambert's  blog post, the 1999 High Court decision known as Creation Records took completely the opposite view concerning two photographs taken of substantially the same subject matter and with the clear intention of the second copying the first. There's a link to the Creation Records judgment in the post shown above.



Dragon Graffix is off-line
29 January 2012 05:15
DragonGraffix
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
Hampshire
Portsmouth

Quote from photomane9
Dragon, I'm not sure I entirely agree with your analysis of the judgment. The judge summarised the intentions of the defendant thus; "It is also obvious that the point of the exercise was to avoid infringing. Mr Houghton was clearly trying to avoid infringing  ...  the second image was produced because the whole point of the exercise was to produce a non-infringing image given the complaint about the first image the defendant had used."  (Para 10). To put these remarks in context there had been an earlier case in which the defendant had copied the New Island Collection image almost identically and this was found to have been infringement, hence the second attempt to create an image with much of the same ethos, but sufficiently different in composition to not infringe. The fact that the judge says that just photographing a bus going over Westminster Bridge would not infringe, indicates that there is a point (in his opinion) at which two images based the same subject matter diverge sufficiently that there is no infringement. But who is to know where this line is drawn? That's one reason why this is a bad judgment as it makes the law less certain, rather than more certain, which is generally what case law is supposed to do.

The second point at issue in this case is that copyright protects the expression of the idea, not the idea itself, which has led a number of IP experts (for instance here) to say that this judgment has laid too much emphasis on the idea and the extent to which it has been reproduced. What is noticeable is that, as noted in Jane Lambert's  blog post, the 1999 High Court decision known as Creation Records took completely the opposite view concerning two photographs taken of substantially the same subject matter and with the clear intention of the second copying the first. There's a link to the Creation Records judgment in the post shown above.

 



Andy, I believe what I have said is exactly the same as what you have said. I tried to say it in a way that did not paraphrase the 'legal speak' from the case notes!

The point I was making more than anything followed previous posts where come comments intimated that we will be infringing copyright by copying each others ideas, which, by the case notes, is not true, hence giving the example of the model posing by a tree above!


"Beauty is how you feel inside, and it reflects in your eyes. It is not something physical." - Sophia Loren


theperfectgentleman is off-line
03 October 2013 08:21
theperfectgentleman
Photographer
theperfectgentleman
Location
United Kingdom
Essex
Chelmsford

[ merged ]

copyright judgment?

I have just come accross this judgment in the british courts that might be of interest.

 Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English Teas.
Part of the judgment included the following:-
  1. The parties also referred to the commentary in the text book Laddie Prescott & Vitoria (4th Ed.) in paragraphs 4.60 and 4.61. There the learned authors discuss some of the special problems with photography in copyright law given that the mere taking of a photograph is a mechanical process involving no skill at all and the labour of merely pressing a button. The authors, with almost but not quite perfect geographical prescience, make the following observation and pose a question: It is obvious that although a man may get a copyright by taking a photograph of some well known object like Westminster Abbey, he does not get a monopoly in representing Westminster Abbey as such any more than an artist who painted or drew the building. What then is the scope of photographic copyright?

 

I would be interested in throwing this out to the learned community.


Paul Riddell is off-line
08 October 2013 04:43
riddell
Photographer
riddell
Location
United Kingdom
Hertfordshire
berkhamsted


Plagerism I can maybe see, but there is certainly no copyright infringment.

I'd like to see the EXACT result of the court case. Facts can so easily get distorted by an internet round robin.

Paul.
www.photographybyriddell.co.uk
www.photographybyriddell.co.uk


Neil Anderson is off-line
08 October 2013 05:08
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Location
United Kingdom
London
West London

Quote from riddell
Plagerism I can maybe see, but there is certainly no copyright infringment.
I'd like to see the EXACT result of the court case. Facts can so easily get distorted by an internet round robin.
Paul.
www.photographybyriddell.co.uk



It's quoted somewhere above.

It's not really about photography copyright as it 's about people selling tea in tins where the second party has copied the first's product, including taking a similar photograph to put on lid.
Like any dealer he was watching for the card that is so high and wild he'll never need to deal another...


Skymouse is off-lineGold Member
08 October 2013 18:19
skymouse
Photographer
skymouse
Location
United Kingdom
London
London

I think the point is that if you make an unauthorised copy of someone's work, it isn't coming up with a visually similar result that makes it an infringement, it's making an authorised copy that makes it an infringement.

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx.



27 Users currently online   Blue=Models Orange=Photographers Red=Agencies Purple=MUA/Stylists Grey=Studios Green=Moderators
emmaloux Kacie MissCaraJane pinklilly QueenDeeVa01 RoxyMendez Sammy_Louise Sarahlou73
ad360photo antoinewynn chandos david1500 iestyn john_at_tina_spice Jpdo JRFox lemonvalleystudio markeos50d Matt1988 Peter_d_photography peterh PhilWinterbourne rscott360 ScottMCCCXIV shinywear Shootonlocation Steveh32