Save 69% on inPixio Photo Studio 11 Ultimate (discount applied at checkout)

image copyright and the internet. your thoughts.


keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
7 Aug 2014 9:32PM
Well if we take as an example, Joe Cornishes Elgol shot of the round rock in the view to the Cullins. Hundreds of photographers have put themselves in that same position and taken shots which might be construed as being so similar as to infringe copyright. There are many other examples. Sticking with Joe, I've seen his solitary stile and gate at the top of Sutton Bank pretty much replicated and offered for sale on postcards in Helmsley. Each of these may be called 'similar' and plenty of them are offered for sale.

In the London Bus case, the defendants set out to deliberately replicate the image, there had even been a history between the two parties involving its use. As the judge pointed out to them at the time; they could have employed a photographer to take his own individual version of the scene and it would most certainly have involved the same set of subjects but the viewpoint, the timing and the processing would have been dissimilar enough for it to be an original work.

The word similar is very hard to take to court.
Chris_L 7 5.5k United Kingdom
7 Aug 2014 9:43PM
The chart advises that if it's "so similar to someone else's that it might be thought of as theirs" then you probably shouldn't be selling it. I think it has to say that - I suppose that it could say something along the lines of "you'll probably get away with it because they won't have the funds to risk taking you to court (like red bus people did)".

What the law says and what you can actually do about it are often two different things. I've been in dodgy shops before who were flat refusing to give me a refund for a faulty product and will only exchange, I can quote the Sale of Goods Act til blue in the face but I can't call a policeman to help me. I'm unlikely to feel much satisfaction if I then have to take them to the small claims court, get judgement in my favour, employ bailiffs to get my money (if the shop still exists) and I only break even if I'm lucky.
mikehit 11 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
7 Aug 2014 10:20PM

Quote:
In the London Bus case, the defendants set out to deliberately replicate the image, there had even been a history between the two parties involving its use. As the judge pointed out to them at the time; they could have employed a photographer to take his own individual version of the scene and it would most certainly have involved the same set of subjects but the viewpoint, the timing and the processing would have been dissimilar enough for it to be an original work.

The word similar is very hard to take to court.



At the risk of going over old ground, it was not just the scene - it was the processing and the fact the original had been used commercially so already had a commercial identity. It is a minefield and I totally agree with Chris's last comment in that it is not so much taking the photo as having the pockets to be bothered to take a law case. Novels apparently have 7 basic story lines but a gazillion variations and you can be sued for plagiarism. The same with music. So why not photography?
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
8 Aug 2014 5:52AM

Quote:but the viewpoint, the timing and the processing would have been dissimilar enough for it to be an original work.


Yes I know. My point was the fact that the chart was wrong on its point of similarity.
Chris_L 7 5.5k United Kingdom
10 Aug 2014 11:56PM
Anyone see the Monkey Selfie guy on ITN? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQBefFWUFOo#t=69





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.