| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/03/2015 09:44:09 AM · #1 |
I went to a talk a few months ago by a lawyer, but not a copyright lawyer, which focused on copyright infringement of a photograph's contents/scene.
I really didn't think this was something where you could infringe another's photo. For example, how many people have shot the lighthouse reflecting in the tidal pool at Pemaquid Point Maine. Or he used, in his example, the often shot Cape Neddick Light in Maine. He used one of his examples, and said the elements, the particular stormy sky, waves, etc., were enough to distinguish his photo. But given the tone of his talk, I'm not sure.
The lighthouse is the most extreme example perhaps--most of us would not give it a second thought. That was what surprised me. But other examples were equally surprising, for example, a shot of a subway station street performer who is quite distinct.
Has anyone heard similar? Your thoughts on the topic?
|
|
|
|
06/03/2015 09:51:07 AM · #2 |
unless you are reproducing their image to an EXACT, painstaking, quantifiable amount, down to the articles of clothing, hairstyles, Everything, of a published image, then you're just taking your own image and not infringing on copyright.
Too many people are looking for a way to claim ownership of a vague concept lately.
"You can't photography a blue sky with white clouds and one dark grey cloud, that's my idea, I've got it up on a stock website, so you can't, otherwise you're taking money away from something I created by duplicating it".
no, you're stupid. I took a picture, I framed it, edited it, uploaded it and people like it. if you can't handle that pressure, GTFO.
if you revolutionize a way in which to TAKE a picture, then that is different. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 09:58:04 AM · #3 |
I saw a copyright infringement piece where a photographer was suing someone for passing off their photograph as her own. It was of an iceberg off Antarctica. Turns out they were both taking the photo a couple feet and a couple seconds apart on the same ship, as was evidenced when the two shots were overlaid on each other.
There's a lot of strange stuff in the bowels of copyright law - things that you can do that you'd never expect to be legal (i.e. Richard Prince), and then the idea that you can successfully copyright and defend a scene such as Neil is describing. A lot has to do with 1) actually registering it with the government, and 2) how the offending image was used. I've given up trying to figure it out. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 10:00:11 AM · #4 |
| I believe the only issue in these images is if you are using them for commercial use. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 10:10:47 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by franktheyank:
I believe the only issue in these images is if you are using them for commercial use. |
Yes, I am only talking about commercial use here. I think most of my landscapes are pretty unique, including my shot of the Pemaquid Point lighthouse or the many times-shot Bass Harbor light. And I do sell art prints, as well as licensing prints for commercial use. So the nuances of it are of concern to me!
|
|
|
|
06/03/2015 10:12:52 AM · #6 |
my take on copyrights are (i'm not a lawyer) is that two things need to occur.
intentional theft of an intellectual work with resulting damages that are usually monetary.
however, what your discussion sounds more like is trademark infringement.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2015 10:22:18 AM · #7 |
| more importantly, no matter how you define it, there is nothing to stop someone with the means to sue you and make your life miserable or bankrupt you in the process of your defense. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 10:33:00 AM · #8 |
| I sympathize in the commercial use bit, this is your living, but a line has to be drawn, frivolous lawsuits have to stop (not that you're guilty of them), and people have to keep on top of their game. Laurels are a good place to rest in order to catch your breath if you've earned them, but they're not meant to hold you up forever, you need to keep moving, keep advancing, and ideally, keep winning. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 11:02:56 AM · #9 |
copyrights/trademarks/patents need to be used exclusively as a means to protect intellectual properties. too often lately they are used as a means to stifle competition.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2015 11:37:15 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Mike:
copyrights/trademarks/patents need to be used exclusively as a means to protect intellectual properties. too often lately they are used as a means to stifle competition. |
Unfortunately, many seem to think that unless you're allowing your IP to be freely copied, you're stifling competition. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 01:52:29 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Neil:
I went to a talk a few months ago by a lawyer, but not a copyright lawyer, which focused on copyright infringement of a photograph's contents/scene. |
You should invest in the Legal Handbook For Photographers by Bert Krages, who is a copyright lawyer and photographer. |
|
|
|
06/03/2015 03:46:16 PM · #12 |
I think you should consider the "London Bus" case, where copyright infringement was deemed to have occurred due to sufficiently similar images:
//azrights.com/media/news-and-media/blog/database/2013/11/photographers-photography-copyright-and-the-red-bus-case/
|
|
|
|
06/04/2015 09:31:06 PM · #13 |
I'd heard about this but it was good to read it in detail. Also, I found some interesting other links/data while reading this. Thanks! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:21:15 PM EDT.
