Who Owns A Picture? I've seen this subject come up here before. This is really interesting. I hope it doesn't come over to this side of the pond.

twindad Loc: SW Michigan, frolicking in the snow.

I've seen this subject come up here before. This is really interesting. I hope it doesn't come over to this side of the pond.

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/01/uk-ruling-says-similar-composition-enough-violate-copyright

ebaribeault Loc: Baltimore

twindad wrote:

I've seen this subject come up here before. This is really interesting. I hope it doesn't come over to this side of the pond.

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/01/uk-ruling-says-similar-composition-enough-violate-copyright

I will never include a picture of a tree again in my photos after visiting this link good grief keep it on the otherside of the pond

MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy

Besides the awful colour selection, I can't see how these images are similar enough to be considered a copyright issued.

Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA

The judge just can't see the difference. The photos are complete different. Keep thinking like that in England.

Ted155 Loc: Melbourne Australia

we have to be very careful of infringement of copyright. If we copy somebody else's idea to make a profit you are leaving yourself open to being sued.
In Australia we have an icon Uluru which changes colour in differing lights. Everyone attempts to replicate a particular commercial image of this rock sticking out of the ground. It becomes a vivid red a sunset. To now protect this image the rock "owners" only allow images from particular positions so as to protect the sacred grounds on and around the rock. It is however possible to get a similar image but different location therefore protecting the original image. Photographers with Canon's Nikon's and tripods are not allowed into Uluru without a permit.
These images are from Uluru's official site.
http://au.images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-501-s&va=uluru+ayers+rock

ShakyShutter Loc: Arizona

These would be close enough to cause a court case over here very easily. And just think what would happen if you tried to sell a hamburger with the last name McDonald anywhere in the U.S.

And look what happened to those poor chaps who tried to sell the imported Pineapple Computers back in the 90s... Bam major smack down because the "a" word was in the brand name.

duggerindy Loc: Midwest, US

Unless legal issues have changed since I was in college, (quite a few years ago) this case wouldn't hold up here in the states. General rulings in copyright infringement regarding images has always championed the adage that "you can't copyright an idea". The example I was given in class showed 2 identically composed images of a child on a swing set. Both images even had the sun setting in the exact spot in the photo. The judge through the case out. This particular British judge's opinion shows (IMO) a lack of understanding the creative process and how changing even 1 item in a photo , e.g. the hue, can change the feel and meaning of any photo.

RobertMaxey

twindad wrote:

I've seen this subject come up here before. This is really interesting. I hope it doesn't come over to this side of the pond.

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/01/uk-ruling-says-similar-composition-enough-violate-copyright

Barring any property rights issues, people without releases, and the laws of your country, it is your picture. These "look and feel" cases bother me because once you take a picture, I cannot take the same picture from the same place.

The samples you posted are not the same, period.

RobertMaxey

ShakyShutter wrote:

These would be close enough to cause a court case over here very easily. And just think what would happen if you tried to sell a hamburger with the last name McDonald anywhere in the U.S.

And look what happened to those poor chaps who tried to sell the imported Pineapple Computers back in the 90s... Bam major smack down because the "a" word was in the brand name.

Bad analogy; McDonalds is properly protected. A better one would be this: McDonalds sells burgers so you cannot sell any kind of sandwich where a hunk of meat is placed between two buns.

Any silly thing can end up in court, so the two images could present a problem. That said, the images are not even close to being the same and since you cannot (currently, thank God) protect an idea, you can take the images and you have not violated any laws.

donrent Loc: Punta Gorda , Fl

Typical British outlook...

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

donrent wrote:

Typical British outlook...

Really? How is it typical? And what of?

I agree it's a disgrace, and unrealistic, but then, it's not hard to find disgraceful and unrealistic attitudes and outlooks (and even laws) in any country.

Cheers,

R.

yhtomit Loc: Port Land. Oregon

I think it was the premeditated mimic thing that crossed the line for the judge,not really anything to do with the actual photos.
Happy Thursday
T.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Really interesting ruling. I can see the magistrate's position on this. One image appears to be a derivative of the other. The red bus on the bleached background with basically the same view. The question isn't really if I shoot a puppy and a ball then no one else in the world can shoot a puppy and a ball. But if I shoot that puppy and ball and then you get a puppy of the same breed, ball of the same style and recreate the image almost exactly it would certainly be (in my opinion)a copyright violation. I remember one copyright case in the States where a photograph of a line of puppies was recreated as a painting with differences in the dogs and background but was held to be a copyright violation. Simple answer: Be Original.

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

If we don't stand up for and guard our constitution we'll end up with just such BS here.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

DaVinci's "La Gioconda" owns the copyright on full face images. No more portraits, please.