Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Re the locked stolen photo what to do thread


User_Removed 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
18 Dec 2012 10:01AM
All this talk of copyright theft makes me wonder if, by taking the following photograph, I breached the copyright of the graffito(s) who painted the artwork on the wall?

street-photography-2-113.jpg



?

What I have noticed is the number of art and print sellers with stalls at markets in public streets who have their stalls emblazoned with "No Photography" notices - something which, of course, they have absolutely no power to enforce (although, presumably, they could take action if someone who took a perfectly legal photograph of one of their prints subsequently tried to publish it.)

Or here is another which may be doubtful:

venice-13.jpg



.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
18 Dec 2012 10:49AM

Quote:All this talk of copyright theft makes me wonder if, by taking the following photograph, I breached the copyright of the graffito(s) who painted the artwork on the wall?


Copyright doesn't apply to publicly displayed pieces of art generally, although, yes, if you merely copied a photo and then passed it off as your own it'd be a different thing. Not sure why vendors get touchy about people photographing their paintings; for similar reasons I suppose—they believe you might be photographing individual pictures rather than buying them.

The O.P's picture (not the OP in this thread!) features in a Flickr collection, which seems to be a hub for photo theft—regardless of how much any of us care about it.
User_Removed 10 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 11:28AM

Quote:You don't need to open your image in Firefox - you can drag it into Google images on Firefox from any folder on your computer. I dragged in my Northern Lights one and Google told me it was on www.chrislongley.com/ and on my own Flickr page but, interestingly, not on ePz.

LMFAO! You really must stop stealing that Wink

I realise that you can drag your image from a folder on your computer. I chose the simplest explanation as the image someone wants to check is probably already on the internet and think people can easily master having two tabs open but I know from experience that some people when told to drag something from a folder into a program's window can't even work out how to have both windows on screen at the same time.
User_Removed 10 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 11:31AM

Quote:Copyright doesn't apply to publicly displayed pieces of art generally

What makes you think that Glenn because I think you're totally wrong, at least in this country. Where does the law differentiate between a painting and a photograph and between a billboard and a wall? Copyright is automatic as soon as the creator makes some art, displaying it publicly doesn't revoke the right.
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
18 Dec 2012 11:40AM
I looked into it a little, although obviously I can't comment on all the legal subtleties. You can photograph a statue, for instance, if it's displayed in a public park, and you're within your rights to photograph a stand full of paintings, although in most instances it wouldn't be worth getting into a scrap over. I'm not talking about blatantly copying an artwork, however, because then you're implying that you're the original creator. In the UK and France I think copyright lives on for 70 years after the creator's death.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 11:49AM
I agree with Chris. The artist still has copyright, but art 'reproduction' is a very tricky field as we all know.


Quote: All this talk of copyright theft makes me wonder if, by taking the following photograph, I breached the copyright of the graffito(s) who painted the artwork on the wall?



There is much discussion about this - especially if the graffiti is illegal. If there is a right to copyright, what about the people who wash it off the wall - have they committed an illegal act in destroying the work? If the wall belongs to someone else (the council for example) who has the rights over the work. I think it is unlikely the court would ever uphold a claim on such work.
I'm struggling to think of a direct example in other areas that would offer some help and so it seems is anyone else.
User_Removed 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
18 Dec 2012 12:06PM

Quote:

Copyright doesn't apply to publicly displayed pieces of art generally, .



So are you suggesting that images displayed on a publicly-accessible website are in some way in less of a public place than those drawn on a wall?

For once I agree with Chris in doubting the veracity of that statement.
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
18 Dec 2012 12:10PM
I'm not sure I'm disagreeing with Chris, as I'm not saying that the 'artist', or vandal if you prefer—a subjective thing—is spurning his or her copyright. If I took a photo and pinned it to a tree in a public park, I wouldn't expect to be able to leverage any copyright in a subsequent 'picture of a picture', which might include the tree. However, If someone took it home and created a flat copy of it edge to edge, and then proceeded to market the photo as their own—then I think they'd be on shaky ground.
thewilliam e2
6 4.9k
18 Dec 2012 12:15PM
An artwork may be legally copied if its inclusion in a new work is "incidental". A portait taken in a gallery where artworks are in the background is one example but the point of focus mustn't be on the background.

The example at the top of the page is almost certainly a breach of copyright unless the photographer also did the painting on the wall or the artist has been dead for the requisite time.

Never, ever think that a Court wouldn't give a judgement that sane folk would consider to be ridiculous!
pulsar69 10 1.6k 6 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 12:20PM
We are though wandering off track here as the original post concerns 'commercial companies' blatantly stealing other peoples photos for commercial gain on their websites - this is no shady area of law its quite simple , they should have asked permission and did not ( or i am presuming not ? ) in which case they have broken the law and if it were my photo they would now be receiving an invoice for past and present use which i would chase through the courts if necessary. Forget about muggy areas and protect your work from thieves that's what i say.

Oh and on the same note - the designer who looks to have made the work for a few sites will have known very well what they were doing when they stole the image - which is why the artists logo is cropped out in some and actually cloned out in another.
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
18 Dec 2012 12:25PM
Surely your argument though William is somewhat dependent on the medium? If you're right about the photo at the top of the page, I certainly find it difficult to imagine. It's very much a derivative work of something on public display - and everything I've ever read suggests that the artist can't protect against that. I'd imagine it to hinge on whether or not your photo had the potential to undermine the commercial value of whatever you were photographing.
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
18 Dec 2012 12:43PM

Quote:We are though wandering off track here as the original post concerns 'commercial companies' blatantly stealing other peoples photos for commercial gain on their websites


That's true, but the author of the photo became irate and made an exit. The photo he was discussing appears to have featured on a 'best-of' Flickr page once - one of those hot-linked Flickr galleries that seem to be rife. Some places on the internet you shouldn't venture if you don't want photos to be stolen, especially if your photos are of the 'hot cake' variety likely to attract all and sundry. That said, changes in UK law and photographers' improved access to it is likely to wake a few people up. In America this game is virtually like fishing - so the sooner UK business websites become aware of copyright issues the better for them.
thewilliam e2
6 4.9k
18 Dec 2012 1:09PM
When it comes to theft of images, the legal outcome seems to depend on the financial clout of the victim.

People unwise enough to steal from Getty will get whacked but large organisations can steal from the little fellow with impunity. One famous judge said that the Law was just like the Ritz Hotel in that it's open to everybody.
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
18 Dec 2012 1:15PM

Quote:People unwise enough to steal from Getty will get whacked but large organisations can steal from the little fellow with impunity. One famous judge said that the Law was just like the Ritz Hotel in that it's open to everybody.


Certainly was the case, but hopefully improvement is in motion. The 'Guide to the Patents County Court Small Claims Track' says this:


Quote:Following on from the proposals set out in the Review of Civil Litigation Costs by Lord Justice Jackson and in response of a further recommendation made in the Hargreaves Review, a small claims track within the Patents County Court was set up. The small claims track came into effect on 1 October 2012.

The small claims track is intended to benefit SMEs and entrepreneurs with the lowest value IP claims, for example, a photographer who finds his image reproduced without consent.

User_Removed 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
18 Dec 2012 2:29PM

Quote:When it comes to theft of images, the legal outcome seems to depend on the financial clout of the victim.

People unwise enough to steal from Getty will get whacked but large organisations can steal from the little fellow with impunity. One famous judge said that the Law was just like the Ritz Hotel in that it's open to everybody.



I hadn't seen that judge's quote before, William, but I rather like it. (or, rather, I like it being quoted)

What the whole thread really does is explain why so many lawyers are running about in Aston Martins, BMWs, Volvos and suchlike.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.