| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2012 06:22:38 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
... one sells Tea Bags, the other sells tacky tourist crap. |
And your point is ... ;-)
Seriously, when it comes to packaging there's a special area of law called "trade dress" which overlaps copyright and trademark law; other examples include prohibitions on other jewelers using bags of a particular blue(?) color trademarked by Tiffany's, and probably no one beside's Campbells can sell soup in red-and-white cans ... |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 06:29:36 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
... one sells Tea Bags, the other sells tacky tourist crap. |
And your point is ... ;-)
Seriously, when it comes to packaging there's a special area of law called "trade dress" which overlaps copyright and trademark law; other examples include prohibitions on other jewelers using bags of a particular blue(?) color trademarked by Tiffany's, and probably no one beside's Campbells can sell soup in red-and-white cans ... |
That's exactly what I'm talking about, thanks.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2012 06:42:17 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
... one sells Tea Bags, the other sells tacky tourist crap. |
And your point is ... ;-)
|
You are so off my Christmas Card list!!! hehehe xox |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 07:04:03 PM · #29 |
Interesting, I remember this image from working in Greenwich Market in London. Somebody was selling framed A3 prints of it, at around £60.
Just in the stall aside there was this grumpy bastard (he really is..). He has photos of Fidel Castro he took himself, countless images of old Cuba. And his pride and joy, of course. An image of a cuban classical dancers performing on the beach, their reflections in the water an almost perfect reproduction of Degas' Dancers.
I think a few of his images made it for a while to the Metropolitan.
I doubt he sells more than one fifth of any tourist geared, boring pictures trader/artist.
I actually agree with the judicial outcome, it's not really about the images in themselves, but rather the economic implications.
Somebody found a tiny, remunerative niche, with an admittedly boring image, an admittedly cheesy PP. And an hats-off, perfectly engineered, fit for purpose, necessarily boring image.
Somebody tried to steal the winning formula, not the image in itself, the money, and the original photographer succesfully defended his income.
I just found immensely funny that all this copyright conscious, uhh, artists, make a considerable slice of their income out of the omnipresent top seller among UK souvenirs.
Framed, unframed, straight, photoshopped, on canvas, shirts and mugs.. London is flooded with them... Reproductions of Banksy's stuff.
I doubt they are after him for sharing royalties, or at least saying thanks :D
|
|
|
|
01/25/2012 11:21:34 PM · #30 |
As with every art, if one can create it one's self... from scratch, then, in my opinion, it's that person's.
If I can take the Mona Lisa and paint it the same way... well, then I'm a genius at painting. (but I'm not)
I agree that it's easier nowadays to recreate things, but... it's easier nowadays to CREATE things.
If I can take a photograph and edit to be the exact same image as another artist... well... we're the same kind of artist... with equal talent.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2012 11:29:28 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
As with every art, if one can create it one's self... from scratch, then, in my opinion, it's that person's.
If I can take the Mona Lisa and paint it the same way... well, then I'm a genius at painting. (but I'm not)
I agree that it's easier nowadays to recreate things, but... it's easier nowadays to CREATE things.
If I can take a photograph and edit to be the exact same image as another artist... well... we're the same kind of artist... with equal talent. |
So ideas don't count for anything? |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 11:42:15 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
"The image is popular enough that they have an entire area of their online store devoted to it, and the photographer claims 80 hours of work went into taking and touching the image."
Seriously? |
Pretty much my thoughts exactly... What goof spends 80 hours on a photo that I am pretty sure would take like 20 minutes to edit? |
|
|
|
01/26/2012 12:11:05 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by mbrutus2009:
Originally posted by mpeters:
"The image is popular enough that they have an entire area of their online store devoted to it, and the photographer claims 80 hours of work went into taking and touching the image."
Seriously? |
Pretty much my thoughts exactly... What goof spends 80 hours on a photo that I am pretty sure would take like 20 minutes to edit? |
Perhaps he had to fly to London and back to get the image? =) |
|
|
|
01/26/2012 01:18:33 AM · #34 |
| I hadn't seen it posted yet, but does it make a difference that the guilty company tried to license the first picture from the plaintiff and couldn't come to terms and then did their own photo? IIRC that was important and it seemed the judge didn't like this attempt at an end run. |
|
|
|
01/26/2012 03:12:30 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
They just don't want any pictures taken in England for profit anymore. Afterall -- find a vacation picture that isn't already done, overdone, and for sale.
Nope. No more pictures in England. |
I agree the composition is entirely different. While there is similarity the difference between the images is too great to be considered mimicry.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2012 03:45:55 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I hadn't seen it posted yet, but does it make a difference that the guilty company tried to license the first picture from the plaintiff and couldn't come to terms and then did their own photo? IIRC that was important and it seemed the judge didn't like this attempt at an end run. |
If that IS the basis of the judgment, then I am less appalled by it. But if I find a perfect image I need at Getty or another high-end stock agency, but the cost is out of my budget range and I find a way to shoot the image myself and use it, does anyone think that should be illegal? I don't see it. I don't like the idea of copyrighting "red and white soup cans" or the like though, either. Ideas do count for something, but there is a point of ridiculousness. Not that we don't live in a world saturated with absurdity though. |
|
|
|
01/26/2012 03:54:28 AM · #37 |
I think it all hinges on this:
"But the judge's ruling relies on the defendant having both prior knowledge of the existing photograph, and be attempting to mimic it — which substantially narrows the power of the ruling. However, it means that if such charges were brought against a photographer, they'd have to fight a legal battle to prove that these things weren't true."
In my limited knowledge of law and using the much referred to phrase "innocent until proven guilty" surely the plaintiff would have to prove that these things were true before a case could even be brought? |
|
|
|
01/26/2012 07:22:13 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I hadn't seen it posted yet, but does it make a difference that the guilty company tried to license the first picture from the plaintiff and couldn't come to terms and then did their own photo? IIRC that was important and it seemed the judge didn't like this attempt at an end run. |
If that IS the basis of the judgment, then I am less appalled by it. But if I find a perfect image I need at Getty or another high-end stock agency, but the cost is out of my budget range and I find a way to shoot the image myself and use it, does anyone think that should be illegal? I don't see it. I don't like the idea of copyrighting "red and white soup cans" or the like though, either. Ideas do count for something, but there is a point of ridiculousness. Not that we don't live in a world saturated with absurdity though. |
red and white soup can and purple cad bury eggs and any other company that does this is trademarking their brand so that some other company cant come along and piggyback off their success by attempting to confuse the consumer. Its makes perfect sense to allow this. If Campbells spends years and years and dollar on dollar setting up their brand, why should some mom and pop organization be able to make a similar label? they are clearly trying to be deceptive in that case. hell apple and Samsung are fighting right now that some of Samsung's android phones look too similar to apple's and apple is trying to protect themselves.
this issue is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue, let hope it doesn't extend beyond that boundary. |
|
|
|
01/26/2012 08:33:02 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
If I can take a photograph and edit to be the exact same image as another artist... well... we're the same kind of artist... with equal talent. |
No, one of you is an artist and one of you is an extremely sophisticated Xerox. |
|
|
|
01/26/2012 08:51:58 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
I don't really see them as all that similar. They both have a red bus, they both have the bridge. Camera angles, and cropping are different. Had they used a red bus in an approximate placement, then yes. But these two images are very different to my eye. Had the bus been placed within a bus length or three, it would be different. |
It is not just a red bus on the bridge, they are composites of three images. I'm with the ruling, It is not like someone just took a picture of the bus and did a selectice desat, there was an effort to place the buildings and the brigde together in one photo. I have never been to england, but I am assuming those features aren't normally together. However, If it is just a single shot and some processing, I don't really see the problem.
Originally posted by pop photo article:
Unlike Temple Island, the New English image is actually a combination of three photos of the Houses of Parliament, one of the bus, and another stock photo of the bus. All of these pictures were combined into a single image, |
|
|
|
|
01/29/2012 09:02:23 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
Originally posted by pop photo article:
Unlike Temple Island, the New English image is actually a combination of three photos of the Houses of Parliament, one of the bus, and another stock photo of the bus. All of these pictures were combined into a single image, |
|
Actually, a very similar image could have been taken from that position. I think I have, like many others I suspect, quite a few photos on the bridge with red buses and the parliament. It's almost impossible not to include a red bus at some hours of the day, and even more difficult not to include people, which might be one of the reasons for using more than one image.
However, he might have also enlarged the parliament and the bus to make them more prominent, which reinforces your point.
Message edited by author 2012-01-29 21:03:09. |
|
|
|
01/29/2012 09:23:21 PM · #42 |
| Seriously.... the first pix is a truck carrying a bus on top... Other than red and desat I see NO connection in the details of the shots... I think the judge needs to spike his tea or take some happy pills or something.... |
|
|
|
01/30/2012 01:08:23 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by HawkinsT:
Originally posted by mbrutus2009:
Originally posted by mpeters:
"The image is popular enough that they have an entire area of their online store devoted to it, and the photographer claims 80 hours of work went into taking and touching the image."
Seriously? |
Pretty much my thoughts exactly... What goof spends 80 hours on a photo that I am pretty sure would take like 20 minutes to edit? |
Perhaps he had to fly to London and back to get the image? =) |
Likely. :) |
|
|
|
01/31/2012 03:32:09 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
Originally posted by ambaker:
I don't really see them as all that similar. They both have a red bus, they both have the bridge. Camera angles, and cropping are different. Had they used a red bus in an approximate placement, then yes. But these two images are very different to my eye. Had the bus been placed within a bus length or three, it would be different. |
It is not just a red bus on the bridge, they are composites of three images. I'm with the ruling, It is not like someone just took a picture of the bus and did a selectice desat, there was an effort to place the buildings and the brigde together in one photo. I have never been to england, but I am assuming those features aren't normally together. However, If it is just a single shot and some processing, I don't really see the problem.
Originally posted by pop photo article:
Unlike Temple Island, the New English image is actually a combination of three photos of the Houses of Parliament, one of the bus, and another stock photo of the bus. All of these pictures were combined into a single image, |
|
It is not a composite of three images, all are easily captured in one shot, as both images testify. Most people who visit London take shots from similar positions. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 10:03:06 AM EDT.
