Copyright infringement ruling gone wrong.

DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
edited February 2, 2012 in The Big Picture
"Amateur Photographer magazine reports that an English judge has decided in favor of a plaintiff because two photographs were “similar enough” to be a case of copyright infringement. Here’s the story and the photos, decide for yourself. If the judge’s decision goes unchallenged, it could have disastrous implications for photographers. "

Here.
Moderator Emeritus
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops

Comments

  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited January 31, 2012
    Yeah, I read about that one. It's one of the most bone-headed decisions ever.
    My Pics
  • OffTopicOffTopic Registered Users Posts: 521 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2012
    I'm not so sure I disagree with the judge on this one. As I read it, the tea company requested to license the image but decided they didn't want to pay the licensing fee, so the owner of the tea company went out and took a similar shot himself, obviously seeking to recreate the same image he refused to pay for as evidenced by the same selective color treatment of the substantially same subject.

    It would be one thing if it was just a coincidence, but in this case Houghton specifically decided he could copy the image for free. I don't think anyone in the stock photography business would agree that it's okay for a potential client to copy their images.

    In the US it would fall under the Law of Substantial Similarity. Some selected resources for your reading pleasure:

    ASMP Frequently asked Questions About Copyright

    A Photo Attorney - Copyright Infringement for Substantially Similar Works

    Editorial Photographers - "Hey That Looks Like Mine", The Law of Substantial Similarity
    Lori
    My Photos
    My Blog
    On Google+
    On DrivingLine
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2012
    These shots are more dissimilar than they are similar. Stupid ruling.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • DemianDemian Registered Users Posts: 211 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2012
    OffTopic wrote: »
    As I read it, the tea company requested to license the image but decided they didn't want to pay the licensing fee, so the owner of the tea company went out and took a similar shot himself, obviously seeking to recreate the same image he refused to pay for as evidenced by the same selective color treatment of the substantially same subject.

    Where he is fully within his rights to take his own picture if he cannot find an affordable one. The shots are pretty dissimilar... the only two similar elements are a landmark and selective coloring (And if you have facebook, you know that's no rarity :p) As in the third link you posted, "It is not therefore the idea of a couple with 8 small puppies on a bench [or a red bus on the london bridge] that is protected, but rather the expression of that idea"


    I think what unnerves me most is that the landmark is such a big issue in determining infringement. If you consider that, we're probably all imitating a photo every time we shoot a landmark -.-



    Not totally related, but am I the only one who thinks the knockoff is better than the original? :p
Sign In or Register to comment.