| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/19/2008 07:09:39 PM · #1 |
Details of a case precedent set in Europe in which a stock photo idea was copied and the copyist taken to court. The outcome being that copying stock or commercial photo ideas is not legally acceptable. But, in my opinion, it depends entirely on how much justice you can afford to buy. Legal access and defense costs money.
Another useful link about visual plagiarism at Editorial Photographers UK. |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 08:05:44 PM · #2 |
| The problem with the cases is where does it stop? When is it going to be illegal to assume a certain pose because someone used it in an ad? |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 08:17:06 PM · #3 |
| Copyright, be it visual based media or text based, is hard to define at the edges, so to speak. There are no clear "national" borders. It simply depends on how much you can pay an attack dog lawyer to do your protecting (think of those kids that Apple's lawyers have threatened, for example).... Derivative rights are both difficult to define and to protect your work from such exploitation. In my opinion, too much copyright protection is as bad as too little. Too much prevents photographers, for instance, from gaining commercial opportunities. Too little makes for a lawless free for all. I think that the lesson in this little case is: if you're going to gain some inspiration from some other photographer's work, then you'd better not use that of a Getty photographer. |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 10:36:08 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
Copyright, be it visual based media or text based, is hard to define at the edges, so to speak. There are no clear "national" borders. It simply depends on how much you can pay an attack dog lawyer to do your protecting (think of those kids that Apple's lawyers have threatened, for example).... Derivative rights are both difficult to define and to protect your work from such exploitation. In my opinion, too much copyright protection is as bad as too little. Too much prevents photographers, for instance, from gaining commercial opportunities. Too little makes for a lawless free for all. I think that the lesson in this little case is: if you're going to gain some inspiration from some other photographer's work, then you'd better not use that of a Getty photographer. |
I think the bottom line is that you shouldn't look at a Getty photo, draw it, hand it to your photographer and style it almost identically to the Getty image. Use it as a springboard, sure, but don't just copy.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 10:37:49 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Kaveran:
The problem with the cases is where does it stop? When is it going to be illegal to assume a certain pose because someone used it in an ad? |
It went way beyond just the pose, It was the similarity in the models, their clothes, the photographic techniques, the point of view all in addition to the pose.
Message edited by author 2008-01-19 22:38:07.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 11:30:39 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Kaveran:
The problem with the cases is where does it stop? When is it going to be illegal to assume a certain pose because someone used it in an ad? |
It went way beyond just the pose, It was the similarity in the models, their clothes, the photographic techniques, the point of view all in addition to the pose. |
But but that's ok to do if it's for a ribbon, right? :P I copied Gordon's "fantasia" shot once for the Deja Vu challenge and that's the only place you'll see it. I can't imagine going through that level of detail to copy and then passing it off as yours to sell.
Message edited by author 2008-01-19 23:32:00. |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 06:37:31 PM · #7 |
| I think the whole thing is ridiculous. It's obviously a ripoff but can it really be called plagiarism? I'd call it plagiarism/copyright infringment if they used the same photo. But it's not the same photo. It's a ripoff. Like those cheap purses and sunglasses you buy on the street that look like the real thing. Unimaginative, yes. Grounds for a lawsuit, I wish it weren't. |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 07:10:31 PM · #8 |
| Considering how many millions of photos there are on Getty/iStock these days, I reckon it would be pretty darned easy to inadvertently end up with a similar image without ever having visited Getty.... such is life. |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 08:17:15 PM · #9 |
just a few thoughts...
i can't give any examples to substantiate it, but there are a lot of claims floating around that getty frequently sends out their photographers to reshoot images shot by non-getty photographers, rather than licensing the originals. (i seem to remember one such incident with jeff raynor's swimming tiger, even though none of the subsequent agency images came close to his.)
a staff photographer at the Richmond Times-Dispatch was fired a few years ago for 'visual plaguerism'. she went out to shoot a feature, saw a photo shot months earlier by another publication, then basically recreated the previous shot. it's one thing to achieve a happy coincidence of coming up with a similar shot, it's another thing to go after it with intent.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2008 08:22:50 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by bdenny:
I think the whole thing is ridiculous. It's obviously a ripoff but can it really be called plagiarism? I'd call it plagiarism/copyright infringment if they used the same photo. But it's not the same photo. It's a ripoff. Like those cheap purses and sunglasses you buy on the street that look like the real thing. Unimaginative, yes. Grounds for a lawsuit, I wish it weren't. |
It's like taking a best-seller and re-writing it, only changing a paragraph or two and then re-publishing it as your own.
If you had spent who knows how long writing that novel, wouldn't you be upset even though it's not "exactly" the same, it's really, really too close to be original.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2008 08:33:24 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
It's like taking a best-seller and re-writing it, only changing a paragraph or two and then re-publishing it as your own.
If you had spent who knows how long writing that novel, wouldn't you be upset even though it's not "exactly" the same, it's really, really too close to be original. |
That's plagiarism...this is paraphrasing. |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 11:33:33 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by bdenny:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
It's like taking a best-seller and re-writing it, only changing a paragraph or two and then re-publishing it as your own.
If you had spent who knows how long writing that novel, wouldn't you be upset even though it's not "exactly" the same, it's really, really too close to be original. |
That's plagiarism...this is paraphrasing. |
No, it's not the equivalent of paraphrasing and, obviously, the court agreed.
|
|
|
|
01/21/2008 08:40:08 AM · #13 |
Don't forget, the original ruling was not in favor of Getty. It was an appeals court that declared it a copyright infringment. It's obviously not as clear cut an issue as we'd like it to be. Copying a written work verbatim is readily detectible, but this simply is not.
Here's an excerpt from wikipedia's "Intellectual Property" article
"Furthermore, due to the non-rivalrous nature of intellectual property, comparing the unauthorized use of intellectual property to the crime of theft presents its own unique problems. In common law, theft requires deprivation of the rightful owner of his or her rights to possess, use, or destroy property. Example: When Joe steals Jane's bicycle, Jane cannot use or have access to it. Since intellectual property (for example, ideas and various transcriptions into written words, audible sounds, or electronic media) are so easily reproduced, no such deprivation to the owner occurs. Example: When Joe makes a copy of the music Jane recorded, Jane is not denied access to her original copy. In this sense, many forms of intellectual property meet the non-rival test for public goods: the use of the good by one individual does not reduce the use of that good by others."
I do agree that its a very touchy subject. And I in no way condone plagiarism. I just don't think this issue is as clear cut as others.
Go here for some other examples of visual plagiarism. |
|
|
|
01/21/2008 10:00:48 AM · #14 |
i have a hard time believing that the original photographer saw the mimiced image and thought it was his own... come on now - they aren't that similar.
|
|
|
|
01/21/2008 10:26:48 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by soup:
i have a hard time believing that the original photographer saw the mimiced image and thought it was his own... come on now - they aren't that similar. |
Thats kind of what I was thinking. Its quite concievable that, especially for major landmarks etc that two photographers will/have taken VERY similar photos without the intent of copying someone. Its bound to happen to some degree. Its silly to think that just because I am the first one to complain that others have taken nearly the same pic of the grand canyon that I have that I have the ight to sue them for damages.
I think this is more about INTENT than the actual image similarities. |
|
|
|
01/21/2008 11:34:47 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by soup:
i have a hard time believing that the original photographer saw the mimiced image and thought it was his own... come on now - they aren't that similar. |
According to the original article, the ad agency did a tracing of the original image and gave it to the photographer. The final image is a composite, where the photographer shot the models according to the tracing overlay, and the BG was photoshopped in.
R.
ETA: it's somewhat similar to if you had submitted a script for a show to a network, and they rejected the script then did something very similar with their own people.
Message edited by author 2008-01-21 11:36:06.
|
|
|
|
01/21/2008 12:14:05 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by soup:
i have a hard time believing that the original photographer saw the mimiced image and thought it was his own... come on now - they aren't that similar. |
According to the original article, the ad agency did a tracing of the original image and gave it to the photographer. The final image is a composite, where the photographer shot the models according to the tracing overlay, and the BG was photoshopped in.
R.
ETA: it's somewhat similar to if you had submitted a script for a show to a network, and they rejected the script then did something very similar with their own people. |
That brings up a good point then. Is it the photographers fault for working off a drawing supplied by a publisher where the photog may not have any idea that the trace was off of someone elses work? Or is it the fault of the publisher for requesting the "copy" of another photog's work?
Sounds like one more thing for the photographer to include in their contract to reduce potential liability. |
|
|
|
01/21/2008 12:17:27 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Kaveran:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by soup:
i have a hard time believing that the original photographer saw the mimiced image and thought it was his own... come on now - they aren't that similar. |
According to the original article, the ad agency did a tracing of the original image and gave it to the photographer. The final image is a composite, where the photographer shot the models according to the tracing overlay, and the BG was photoshopped in.
R.
ETA: it's somewhat similar to if you had submitted a script for a show to a network, and they rejected the script then did something very similar with their own people. |
That brings up a good point then. Is it the photographers fault for working off a drawing supplied by a publisher where the photog may not have any idea that the trace was off of someone elses work? Or is it the fault of the publisher for requesting the "copy" of another photog's work?
Sounds like one more thing for the photographer to include in their contract to reduce potential liability. |
No, working from tracings is common in commercial photography. Especially for large-format product shots. The client/agency art director will provide a sketch that you can tape to your ground glass, and then you do your setup to match the sketch. A lot of magazine covers are shot this way too, so space is allowed for the various text elements.
The photographer is not liable here anyway, even if it is decided SOMEONE is liable; the party at fault will be the agency, who provided the sketch.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/21/2008 12:30:52 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The photographer is not liable here anyway, even if it is decided SOMEONE is liable; the party at fault will be the agency, who provided the sketch. |
Yeah, I agree but I have heard of agency's having the staff photg re-photographing popular images before. Not sure this is something new.... Just got caught out this time. |
|
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 06:53:48 PM EDT.
