DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> mimicing an image could violate copyright
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 44, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/25/2012 12:34:00 PM · #1
//www.popphoto.com/news/2012/01/uk-ruling-says-similar-composition-enough-violate-copyright

Wow. Hope this isnt the case in the US.
01/25/2012 12:39:24 PM · #2
Photographers should be able to rip off other photographers in the US you mean? There's also a thread on this already.
01/25/2012 12:45:39 PM · #3
Rip off?

Its one thing if you are trying to copy a "brand". Its entirely another mimic a style.
01/25/2012 12:53:14 PM · #4
The first photographer was selling his photo. The second photographer (the ruling concluded), aware of the first photograph set out to deliberately imitate it and then make money off of this imitation. Had the two images been circumstantial or both parties weren't making money from their respective images the ruling would have been different.
01/25/2012 03:13:51 PM · #5
"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?
01/25/2012 03:35:21 PM · #6
what happens if someone pops up with a slide from 1970 and says well youre both copying me idlike all the money youve earnt from it.......
01/25/2012 04:02:26 PM · #7
Seriously??? I see an overturned ruling in 10...9...8...
01/25/2012 04:04:56 PM · #8
Previous rulings in similar cases have stood up. There was one several years ago where a magazine editor handed a photographer a crude printout of another photographer's image of a couple on a merry-go-round and asked him to recreate that.
01/25/2012 04:10:53 PM · #9
Originally posted by tanguera:

Seriously??? I see an overturned ruling in 10...9...8...


Yeh, in the US I'd see this one being reversed on appeal. Not sure how that works in the UK though.
01/25/2012 04:22:46 PM · #10
It's not quite as egregious as it seems at first glance: the one company's quite well-known for their red-bus-on-bridge image, and the other company, which more-or-less competes with them, is clearly trying to piggyback on that. How they can translate this into legalese I do not know, but for SURE it wouldn't work for me to pull an image out of archives and say "Look, boys, I shot this in 1961 and you both owe me everything you've earned up to now!"

That's not what's at issue. It's a commercial-trademarking sort of case, not an artistic-license sort of case. As far as I can see, anyhow...

R.
01/25/2012 04:32:27 PM · #11
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

...It's a commercial-trademarking sort of case, not an artistic-license sort of case. As far as I can see, anyhow...

R.


Robert, I tend to disagree. The plaintiff in the case seems to have used the image on retail packaging, not resold the image as art. It seems that they most likely were trying to avoid licensing the well-known image, but they weren't really competing with it.
In the end, I don't see how they can be held in violation of copyright. The images are actually quite different, and they should have every right to use a similar image. It would be almost impossible to avoid roughly duplicating *someone's* image if one were to use any famous location on a product. These places are photographed to death.
01/25/2012 04:46:13 PM · #12
1. These photos are nowhere near similar. They both use an obvious, dumb selective saturation idea. Bad ruling.

2. Of course if you copy somebody's photo, as many dpc ribbons do, you are violating their copyright. Are you somehow excluded from copyright law because you put a lot of effort into your theft?
01/25/2012 04:52:55 PM · #13
Originally posted by kirbic:

In the end, I don't see how they can be held in violation of copyright. The images are actually quite different, and they should have every right to use a similar image. It would be almost impossible to avoid roughly duplicating *someone's* image if one were to use any famous location on a product. These places are photographed to death.


Yes, except the ruling was that the second photographer purposely copied the first photographer for profit, it wasn't just fluke that the images were so similar! I'm amazed more people here aren't for this ruling.

Message edited by author 2012-01-25 16:53:59.
01/25/2012 04:52:59 PM · #14
So, no one can ever photograph a red bus on that bridge again, for other than their own personal collection?...

I may be missing the point here, at least I hope I am. The two images seem different enough to me. Add to that the difference in uses... I really don't see it. Had the other image been closer, I might feel differently.
01/25/2012 04:56:22 PM · #15
Originally posted by ambaker:

So, no one can ever photograph a red bus on that bridge again, for other than their own personal collection?...

I may be missing the point here, at least I hope I am. The two images seem different enough to me. Add to that the difference in uses... I really don't see it. Had the other image been closer, I might feel differently.

Really....

+1
01/25/2012 04:57:14 PM · #16
If your goal was to make a duplicate of a copyrighted image, and then sell your own image, then no. This is what the ruling was. If you happened to take a similar image without purposefully copying someone else's copyrighted image then that's not the same thing.
01/25/2012 04:59:18 PM · #17
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It's not quite as egregious as it seems at first glance: the one company's quite well-known for their red-bus-on-bridge image, and the other company, which more-or-less competes with them, is clearly trying to piggyback on that.

R.


Not really, one sells Tea Bags, the other sells tacky tourist crap.

Even I have similar images that I have taken that look like this
01/25/2012 05:00:37 PM · #18
This ruling is complete and utter tripe!! I'm going to London soon and I am going to take as many red bus on Westminster bridge shots as I can! Then, I'm going to flood the net with them and stuff the stupid judges who make these daft rulings.
01/25/2012 05:06:54 PM · #19
Originally posted by JulietNN:

Not really, one sells Tea Bags, the other sells tacky tourist crap.

Even I have similar images that I have taken that look like this


That's why I said "more or less", Juliet; they are both commercial enterprises.

But the issue isn't whether a gazillion of us have captured similar images in the past, it's whether the one company has some sort of claim on images like this, commercially.

Look, I think it's a bullshit ruling too, OK? We're all in agreement on that. I'm just trying to point the disagreement in a rational direction, because whether you or I or anyone else has ever taken a similar picture isn't what they are fighting about. But I'll shaddup now...

R.
01/25/2012 05:09:07 PM · #20
Originally posted by Bear_Music:



That's why I said "more or less", Juliet; they are both commercial enterprises.

.

R.


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooohhhhhh, I see. I had a bad feeling you where dissin our teabags again and thinking of throwing them in the water!!!!!!!!!!!! =P

Edited to add ~ that statement might not sound as funny on paper as it was in my head> I see your point of view now it is clearer!!

Message edited by author 2012-01-25 17:11:13.
01/25/2012 05:10:22 PM · #21
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

...I'm just trying to point the disagreement in a rational direction...


Well *there's* your mistake,LOL!
01/25/2012 05:11:47 PM · #22
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

...I'm just trying to point the disagreement in a rational direction...


Well *there's* your mistake,LOL!


That's what I was thinkin': "DPC" and "rational" don't live in the same neighborhood.

R.
01/25/2012 05:12:04 PM · #23
HmmmmI can see a new challenge right now

RED BUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
01/25/2012 05:19:55 PM · #24
Originally posted by HawkinsT:

If your goal was to make a duplicate of a copyrighted image, and then sell your own image, then no. This is what the ruling was. If you happened to take a similar image without purposefully copying someone else's copyrighted image then that's not the same thing.


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.
01/25/2012 06:03:30 PM · #25
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.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/28/2021 09:16:35 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/28/2021 09:16:35 AM EDT.