Non-Copied Photo Is Ruled Copyright Infringement 657
An anonymous reader writes "A UK judge ruled that a photograph inspired by another photograph, but clearly different from it, infringes the original photo's copyright. The two photographs were shot in the same location, have the same subject, and use the same distinctive post-processing treatment. However, the angle and composition are different. From the article: '[The judge] said a difficult decision hinged on a "qualitative assessment of the reproduced elements." He defined Fielder's image a "photographic work," as distinct from a simply a photograph, in that "its appearance is the product of deliberate choices and also deliberate manipulations by the author," and concluded that those aspects had been copied.'"
Actual 2 photos (Score:5, Informative)
Link here [swanturton.com]
Re:Actual 2 photos (Score:2, Informative)
That's a PDF link. Here are the photos linked in the article: http://3.s.img-dpreview.com/files/news/1166562748/Fielder.jpg
This is how you do it. It's the whole damned idea. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the images are arguably similar. But there is absolutely no merit whatsoever to the claim that one would be a copy of the other, thus violating the copyright monopoly. What the judge has done here is to set a precedent that states that the monopoly does not just cover the creative work, but extends to a general creative idea, which completely shatters the traditional notion that the copyright monopoly only covers a specific expression of an idea, and never the idea itself.
So what’s the big deal, then? In this case, they sought to recreate the image and took a similar one. Why is that not a violation of the copyright monopoly?
Because that’s exactly how you do it if you don’t want to pay a license fee on the original terms. You create a similar work yourself, entirely by yourself, and compete. It’s the whole damned idea.
Article by Falkvinge on this verdict [falkvinge.net].
Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied" (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the second photo was intentionally made to avoid licensing fees from using the original.
original, you say? [google.com]
Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied" (Score:5, Informative)
Not the same compositional idea (Score:5, Informative)
I think to say the sky/building contrast was a choice is wrong; That's simply a byproduct of B&W conversion in a place that has uniformly grey skies a lot of the time. Perhaps if the artist had done extra work to get the sky that color but having done some B&W conversions I very much doubt that is the case.
The one actually coped element is simply the treatment of the red bus in color contrasting with everything else. But that practice was in use well before 2006.
The rest of the work compositionally speaking, is totally different - the relation of the bus to the buildings, even the relation of people to the bus or the use of people within the image is totally different.
I guess he just had a really inept defense because this judgment should not have ended up this way based on that image.
Re:WHERE DOES IT END! (Score:0, Informative)
Like I said, if there existed examples of common red London bus/b&w Big Ben artwork before 2006, then that would constitute prior art, and the plaintiff shouldn't have won. However, TFA says that the defendant could not provide dates for the examples he offered.
Apple isn't suing over glassy tablets with rounded corners. It's the overall combination of similar design elements that obviously came from Jonathan Ive's design studio which no tablets or smartphones looked like previously: the exact same black border with the same spacing, the same chrome back with just enough peeking over the sides to frame the black front, the same hardware dimensions, the same earpiece slit, the same software icon grid with in many cases the exact same icons...I mean, come on [regmedia.co.uk]. That entire combination of so many visual and behavioral similarities is clearly a design copy.
Take a look at these iOS devices [imgur.com] and you can all the industrial design elements that the copies incorporate to resemble the originals as closely as possible. It's not just simple variations but complete recreations, without having done the design work that Apple had to go through to come up with them (Jobs probably had a whip). There weren't smartphones or tablets that looked like those devices before Apple put those designs out on the market.
And by the way, the previous link is a trick. Those are Toshiba devices, not iOS devices. You literally can't tell the difference from the picture. That's how much of a clone they are. So I don't blame Apple at all for going after competitors who just repackage their work, especially because, as has been mentioned before around here, if the knock-offs are poorly made or faulty in some way, it can actually damage Apple's brand because the devices are intentionally made to look so similar.
Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied" (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not "cheering" anything. I'm saying that the photograph is clearly copied from the other on an artwork level--that being the artistic expression comprised of the subject matter, processing, and overall "tone". It's also a matter of fact that it was specifically intended to be a copy of the original.
I mean, if you saw a movie called "Triassic Park" with a logo using the same font as the original and a different angle for the T-rex silhouette, and the same storyline but with different actors and slightly different shots, and a soundtrack that resembled the original but for a few changed notes, you'd still consider it a rip-off of Jurassic Park. At some level, it's just common sense.
It looks similar, but the point is that it is not clearly copied from that particular photograph. Do a google image search for "bus big ben", and you will see HUNDREDS of photographs which look similar. So I do not know why anybody here should be able to copyright the "look" of these photographs...
Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied" (Score:5, Informative)
This original photo in question is not just a recording of something. Have a look at it. It's been greatly modified from what the camera actually recorded.
Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied" (Score:5, Informative)
This is a bit like music, in that I can write a tune that has a similar melody to someone else using totally different instruments and if it is too similar the original composer can sue me and claim royalty payments. This has been the case for years.
The Beatles are a great example in fact. The music and lyrics to Come Together? Partly ripped off from Chuck Berry. They settled out of court in the end but there was a lawsuit. They allegedly even tried to slow it down to make it more original.
This is not a new idea in copyright of artistic works I am afraid.
Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied" (Score:5, Informative)
It looks similar, but the point is that it is not clearly copied from that particular photograph.
You didn't read TFA, did you? The Judge was able to determine that the image was clearly copied from that particular photograph precisely because that particular photograph was being used by the defendant without permission until a court ordered him to pay licensing fees. Only then was the new photograph was created.
Group think on Slashdot is reaching new levels of stupidity. This isn't a case of artistic freedom, this is about using someone else's art to sell tea and refusing to recognise their efforts.
Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied" (Score:5, Informative)
Not the first time. Look up Kimba the White Lion. Disney had Pinochio created and in the can waiting to go public at the first possible moment the original copyright on Pinochio faded to public domain.
That's Disney's general M.O. for self produced movies.
Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied" (Score:2, Informative)
Obligatory geek-cred correction:
"Star Wars is BSG. (Seriously, tell me Rebel technology is not based off the Viper.) "
Er, considering Star Wars came out in 1977, and Battlestar Galactica 1978, that's probably not possible.
Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied" (Score:5, Informative)
You can't Copyright an idea. Only the EXPRESSION thereof.
Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied" (Score:5, Informative)
A bricklayer spends lots of time putting bricks on bricks to build a house, that should not give the bricklayer the right to prevent others from building a house by putting bricks on bricks. Even if it's a house with the same colour scheme (but different shape).
So what is covered? Does this ruling mean that any picture with "coloured iconic object in monochrome background" is now infringing?
I'm not photographer, but it seems silly for any photographers to be happy about this ruling. In my unlearned opinion what this ruling means is that just taking a picture of a famous monument that's been processed in some (not too trivial?) way would be infringing on any previous similar photos. You really sure you want that? You might not be able to do much non-infringing professional or "value-add" photography, or maybe if the judges get more insane, you might not be able to do much noninfringing photography of popular objects/sites.
The main difficulty is not ideas and concepts, the difficulty is coming up with a high quality result from the original idea. So giving a person a monopoly on a concept seems ridiculous. I can have plenty of ideas on photography - that does not mean I can produce a good "photo".
In fact to me the two photos are very different other than the colour schemes: one has sky, skyline, stairs, bridge and river. The other is sky, famous building, the bus on a long road and the bus is "smack in the front". As a result In the latter the bus is more prominent, more of a main subject, whereas the former, the bus is a highlighted object but in a more varied background.
Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied" (Score:4, Informative)
No, no there is not. Can you take photos of the pages of a book if you're not going to sell them? No. Buildings are not copyrightable in the US. In Canada, I was going to take a picture of my wife in front of a fountain inside casino windsor and was asked to put the camera away due to copyright. You really seem to be in with the copyright lobby. Let me just ask a simple question:
Is is OK to go to London (stupid American, I think that's where the photo in the article is from), stand by those stairs (or even the side of the road - the shots are from very different angles and with different lens), set my camera to "black and white -except red" and take a picture of a bus?
And now some extra questions:
Can I sell it? Can I get a large print and hang it on my wall? Can I set the camera to yellow and wait for a taxi? In new york? Where exactly IS the line that this guy is supposed to have crossed?
Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied" (Score:4, Informative)
And to further that line of thought, the issue was that the second person was using the first person's photo without paying copyright. When he was sued, he went out and produced a photo as close to the original as possible to avoid paying licensing fees. So the intent has a lot to do with the ruling.