Is this wrong? © issues or not?

08/29/2008 11:28:59 AM · #2

Um WOW. What a bunch of Jackasses!! Its one thing to derive an "idea" or "Concept" from other sources but that is just plain wrong IMO. I hope she sues their asses off and gets the compensation she deserves!!

-dave

pamelasue

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/29/2008 11:55:57 AM · #3

wow ... it's ok to get inspiration from someone else's work ... but stright up copy it??? Not cool! Hopefully this works out in the original photographers favor!!

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

08/29/2008 12:07:14 PM · #4

I bet they had lawyers on set telling them what they needed to alter to stay legal. I don't think this would be actionable. The makeup is different, the background runs a different direction, the hammer is different, there are shoes, etc.

That's the same as saying no one else can do waterdrops or chocolate into milk, or woodies. Can no one else take photos of Multnomah Falls? If they'd stolen her work and photoshopped it, I'd see a legal issue. But to simply recreate the shot themselves without anything trademarkable on it? I don't know.

vxpra

Pentax K100D

08/29/2008 12:08:15 PM · #5

Clearly these are two seperate and distinct images. Just great minds thinking alike. In the shoes ad, the model has yellow finger nails, do you see yellow fingernails in the first one? No.

And shoes, there are no shoes in the first photo.

Oh, and need I point out that in the shoes ad the model is wearing a bright red lipstick, while in the other the model is wearing a peachy lipstick.

Clearly everyone can see that in the first photo she is holding a hammer, and in the second she is holding a tack hammer.

Pretty signifigant differences I would say.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/29/2008 12:20:22 PM · #6

Originally posted by vxpra:

Sarcasm yes, but still all true, right?

dassilem

Nikon D90

08/29/2008 12:28:06 PM · #7

If they did the same thing in a different color, would it be as much of a copyright issue?

I'm currently trying to duplicate

levyj413

I have Green jello molding today....have already broken a wine glass (as I don't balance as well as his).

Am I doing a copyright infringement.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 12:28:27.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

08/29/2008 12:36:42 PM · #8

It's a rip off. Yes they changed stuff and there is probably no recourse but it is still a rip off plain and simple. It would not be a big deal if done here and credit was given but these images were published with no credit given to the original concept.

It's a bummer and shows a complete lack of talent on the creative directors part.

08/29/2008 12:47:19 PM · #9

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Or it's an homage.

08/29/2008 12:52:00 PM · #10

Originally posted by dassilem:

If they did the same thing in a different color, would it be as much of a copyright issue?

I'm currently trying to duplicate levyj413
I have Green jello molding today....have already broken a wine glass (as I don't balance as well as his).

Am I doing a copyright infringement.

What you are doing is a little different, the biggest being you are NOT a professional agency and you are not making money off of trying to duplicate levyj413's photo but trying to learn from it. IMO there is a big difference.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

08/29/2008 01:01:55 PM · #11

Originally posted by dknourek:

Originally posted by dassilem:
If they did the same thing in a different color, would it be as much of a copyright issue?

I'm currently trying to duplicate levyj413
I have Green jello molding today....have already broken a wine glass (as I don't balance as well as his).

Am I doing a copyright infringement.

What you are doing is a little different, the biggest being you are NOT a professional agency and you are not making money off of trying to duplicate levyj413's photo but trying to learn from it. IMO there is a big difference.

But again, where's the line?

Can I take a photo of Multnomah and try to sell it? Can I do it in B&W? Or am I stealing from Adams?

Sorry, but that is not a trademark... and you cannot copyright an "idea".

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

08/29/2008 01:13:00 PM · #12

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Or it's an homage.

If it were where is the credit? I have paid homage to

Graphicfunk many times on this site but always have given credit to him for the concept.

CNovack

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

08/29/2008 01:24:41 PM · #13

Are there differences: Yes.

But overall are there enough points of similarity? Yes.

Ultimately, this will be one the courts decide and lay down the groundwork.

I wish I still had my Media Law from my college days when studying Communications.

There was a case way back when McDonald's had a kids playground with mushrooms and a 'talking' tree. Burger King came out with a playground modeled on McDonald's playground about a year later. McDonald's sued for copyright infrigement - and WON. The reasons were that there was enough points of similarity to McDonald's design AND McDonald's had a copyright on the design.

And let me just make a point with this on individuals who say that the original photographer should be flattered. Yes, people do pay homage to others work BUT when they turn around and make money off of it, it is NO LONGER a homage. Fact: this is a big name company and basically the little guy gets stomped because the big company decides to do it themselves and 'rip'/lift the concept from another.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 13:29:03.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

08/29/2008 01:29:50 PM · #14

There was a case, not too long ago where a photographer successfully sued an ad agency for "copying" his photograph.

Rather than simply license the original, which was fairly expensive, since it was the work of a prominent photographer, the A.D. traced the essential elements of the original, presented it to the new photographer as a "sketch" and used the resulting photo in an advertisement.

In another, but related vein, the artist Jeff Koons has been sued several times for infringement. Most famously, he took a greeting card showing an older man and a younger woman holding a litter of 8 puppies and made a sculpture from it. Read the decision here. Pay particular attention to sections 31-34.

In the end, the photographer won a judgement of $367,000 + court costs from Koons.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 13:32:03.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

08/29/2008 01:34:11 PM · #15

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Read the decision here. Pay particular attention to sections 31-34.

So a precedent has been set and there you have it!

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED VR

08/29/2008 01:34:31 PM · #16

But again, where's the line?
The line is often a fine one...

Can I take a photo of Multnomah and try to sell it?
Yes you can, all you want. If its the falls you are referring to then there is no recourse as they are a natural occurrence and not man made...

Can I do it in B&W?
Yup

Or am I stealing from Adams?
Nope, the falls are a natural. (see question 2) :)

Sorry, but that is not a trademark... and you cannot copyright an "idea".
Actually yes you can. I remember reading years ago about a photographer that took a photo of a person sitting on a park like bench with I believe 4 puppies on the bench with them. Then along came a sculptor that made an identical sculpture and the photographer ended up suing and actually won as the original photo scene was staged and thus "created" by the photographer so they owned the rights. The sculptor had done similar to the OP to go as far as creating the scene almost exactly as the original. ~~Ill see if I can find any references to the story...~~ scratch that Spazmo99 posted the article two posts above mine, I type to dam slow lol.

Anyway, a lot of the time when stuff like this happens esp in advertising its some new dumbass designer looking to boost their career quickly and pass off direct copies of others works as their own, or the case of an agency desperate for work willing to pass off the good ideas of others as their own. In the almost 18 years Ive been in to graphic design Ive seen it happen a LOT and thanks to the internet its happening a lot more but people don't realize the world is a very small place and more often then not if you directly rip off someone else's idea someone else WILL recognize it.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 13:38:36.

jdennique

Nikon D3100

08/29/2008 01:40:51 PM · #17

As I computer geek I always look back at the Windows 2.0 Vs. Mac OS lawsuit.

Microsoft won that lawsuit as the judge ruled that even though there were many visual similarities that under the merger doctrine (ideas cannot be copyrighted), Microsoft was not in violation.

Personally I think this just shows that there really are very few original ideas.

Copyright or not;

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" - coined by Charles Caleb Colton in 1820

Of course credit should always be given where credit is due.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

08/29/2008 01:47:34 PM · #18

Originally posted by dknourek:

Can I do it in B&W?
Yup

However, copying an image and simply switching it from color to B&W or vice versa is not enough to make it not copying, nor is switching media e.g. taking a photograph and making a sculpture out of it.

The decision in Rogers v Koons was not based on the Koons using the "idea" of Rogers photograph, but that he simply copied the work, making minor changes and moving from a 2-D work to a 3-D work. Had Koons simply made a sculpture of two people sitting on a bench holding a litter of puppies, he would have been OK. In fact, he removed the copyright notice from the postcard, and gave it to his Italian workers telling the to reproduce it as closely as possible, making only cosmetic changes (i.e. making the puppies blue, putting flowers in the people's hair, changing the noses, making it in color)

08/29/2008 01:50:01 PM · #19

I was only speaking in the sense of shooting the waterfall, a naturally occurring subject.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

08/29/2008 01:52:04 PM · #20

Originally posted by dknourek:

I was only speaking in the sense of shooting the waterfall, a naturally occurring subject.

OK, I figured that was the case, but I also saw how it could be otherwise interpreted and wanted to expand on that.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 13:52:45.

08/29/2008 01:55:23 PM · #21

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by dknourek:
I was only speaking in the sense of shooting the waterfall, a naturally occurring subject.

OK, I figured that was the case, but I also saw how it could be otherwise interpreted and wanted to expand on that.

lol no worries I was just clarifying your clarifying of what you were expanding on to clarify things :P

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

08/29/2008 02:51:06 PM · #22

Originally posted by dknourek:

And that's what I'm a photographer and web developer and NOT a lawyer.

I stand corrected.

justamistere

Nikon D3s

08/29/2008 03:10:50 PM · #23

Please verify: I thought when you copyright a photo it is that particular photograph, not the methods, ideas, or subjects used in creating the scene for it.
I was always for the idea of reproducing Famous Paintings by artists, redone as photographs. So you think they can sue me for that. It may be so. if they are living.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 15:16:00.