Technical > Digital Imaging > [FYI] Similar, but not copied, image found to breach copyright

[FYI] Similar, but not copied, image found to breach copyright

said by dpreview :

---

Amateur Photographer magazine has published an interesting story about a copyright infringement case of similar, but not directly copied, images. The issue of copyright is thorny, contentious and often misunderstood but this case sheds some light on the current attitude of courts in the UK. Despite significant differences between the two images (there was no implication that the second image was a duplicate of the first), the court found that the second image copied substantially from the 'intellectual creation' of the first (that is the elements that can be protected by copyright in the original image, including a consideration of the composition, lighting and processing of the image).

---

Re: [FYI] Similar, but not copied, image found to breach copyrig

reply to mromero
I find it completely repugnant to think for a second that a photographer owns a spot on public property or owns a certain processing technique available to all.

The plaintiff doesn't "own" selective color, and he also doesn't own the exclusive right to photograph on the little patch of land where he set up his gear.

There are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of the "same" image, taken over and over and over again by many different photographers. Macros and still lifes, landscapes and moon-shots.

Horrible precedent. Don't shoot Half-Dome in B&W! Don't shoot the Bay Bridge in SF, from any angle at any time of day or night because, it's already been done folks, and you might find yourself on the wrong side of wrong headed judgement.

Disgusting FAIL!
--
You Can't Kill Rock 'n' Roll!

Part of the issue, I'm sure, is that the image was created as a commercial image, then used as such. The second photographer was aware of the usage, failed to negotiate rights to use similar imagery and was brought to court over it:

Yeah, I understand that. Still, I don't care about that aspect and still can't see how a Judge can make such a ruling.

I mean does anyone really think that the very first time someone had a red double-decker bus in a monochrome background of The Palace of Westminster was 2005? Done with Photoshop?

The whole idea is laughable. I can't imagine that same shot and the same selective color not being done before by anyone else prior to 2005.

Doesn't pass the sniff test, and the precedent it sets is so dangerous the decision needs to be appealed and overturned, IMO.

Edited to come off less adversarial

reply to mromero
I really don't see the bases for a judgment of infringement. I see a different composition of a similar red bus on a bridge with an orientation not even close to similar.

It is not illegal to see another photo and be inspired to take a picture of the same subjects from a different artistic interpretation!
--
*****aka The WIZARD *****A Founding member of Seti BBR Team Starfire***

reply to mromero
How many times has the photo used for the album cover on the Beatles "Abbey Road" album been reshot with all kinds of people, some intending to look like the Beatles and some not.

Are all those then infringing on the copyright of that photo? If this judgement stands it would seem they should.

I am sure there are many other similar instances.
--
Best of luck

"Do, or Do not, there is no try!" Yoda

reply to HFB1217
After reading and re-reading the judgement, it appears there was an earlier incident in which the defendants had used a "first" red bus image on their tea products. Apparently, the claimant and defendant reached an agreement where the defendants would license the "first" red bus image, give credit to the claimant and compensate the claimant for use of the "first" red bus image on their tea products. It appears there were some disagreements between the two parties about the compensation package to which they had agreed.

After that, some months later, the defendants created their own "second" image using a red bus to use on their tea products in which they neither gave credit to the claimant, nor did they compensate him. I don't know all the specifics of the "first" red bus agreement, but it appears the defendants either used the claimant's own image of the red bus or they created a very similar image using a red bus. Otherwise, why would they have agreed to give credit to the claimant and compensate him for using the red bus image? They must have agreed they violated his copyright. After they had a disagreement over how much they should compensate the claimant, the defendants decided they could create their own red bus image, use it on their products and screw (my word) the claimant. That's why he felt he had to take them to court and let the courts decide if there was an infringement of his copyright or not. The court ruled there was an infringement and I wholeheartedly agree with the court's decision.

So, as you can see, the judgement over the "second" red bus image ties into the previous incident over the "first" red bus image. The latest judgement doesn't specifically mention the "first" red bus image case, but it is noted. Regarding the claimant's red bus image, it appears the image is an iconic image that is well-known in Great Britain and it is recognized as belong to the claimant's Red Bus product line. Basically, the red bus is their trademark, which leaves me to wonder why this case was over copyright infringement rather than trademark infringement. Hmm...

reply to mromero
The Red Bus itself is not the property of the Claimant if anyone has a right to sue it is the owners of the Actual Red Bus.

But that Red Bus belongs to the Public Transportation System which is actually Public Property. Photographed on a public road with public property as a backround.

So I do not see where anyone has the exclusive rights to photograph or lay claim to exclusive rights of any other photo or the use of a similar scene or image.

They only should have claim to the use of their actual images not photos taken on a public road of a public transportation conveyance.
--
*****aka The WIZARD *****A Founding member of Seti BBR Team Starfire***

reply to mromero
Shouldn't this be more an issue of trademark and not copyright? Sorry, the two images are dissimilar enough to not violate copyright IMO. But I see the plaintiff's point, and could rule in favor of him for a trademark violation (all things being correct and proper, and based on my limited understanding of the law).

I think the image itself falls under copyright, while the usage of the image as a face of the company would fall under trademark. Of course, I don't know how it would work in England. And this case has the prior history to confuse things.
--
***ATMFAQ***DIFAQ***Kitchen Sink***