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

USA Landscape Photographer of the Year 2016 open to entries NOW!

Whose Photo is it anyway ?

Bonvilston

Hi everyone. I am Peter and I would love to hear your comments on any of my images. I am always keen to learn from others
...Read More
Profile

Whose Photo is it anyway ?

29 Jan 2013 5:24PM   Views : 686 Unique : 543

I have a question in this blog entry. It concerns, for example, this image.





The texture is borrowed. I had no hand in its creation at all. The photographs of the miner were mine, but the statue itself was, of course, nothing to do with me. Even the mask used was free from a CD on a photo magazine. So at the end of the day was it my photo at all ?

Here is another image from the same shoot.





This is another based on one of the images in the triptych, but a totally different image. The texture is not mine, the statue is not mine but given the differences between this image and the first one, is it fair to say that I have still created two separate images and these are specific to me ?

Suppose they were of a building. Would the photo have been partly the product of the architect, or would the builder take the credit. And the texture - based on leather, do I need to find a dead cow somewhere to giuve the credit to - or would the farmer do.

Not sure there is a definitive answer, but the question still puzzles me.


Peter

Comments


blastedkane 11 66 2
29 Jan 2013 5:46PM
I think that this is a fascinating musing on the nature of copyright which I wrestle with all of the time... I agree, I don't think that there is a definitive answer, although in theory the pictures of the statue belongs to you, the texture would belong to someone else, although I assume that it was released under some form of Creative Commons License. I think in the second image you are discussing "Derivative works" more than copyright as you did not take the original image.

"A derivative work is a work that is based on (derived from) another work; for example a painting based on a photograph, a collage, a musical work based on an existing piece or samples, a screenplay based on a book." http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works.en.htm

Copyright in the derivative work

Provided it is significantly different to the original work the derivative work will be subject to copyright in its own right, and you will own copyright to the new content you have created as a result of your actions. Bear in mind that to be subject to copyright the creation of the derivative work must itself be an original work of skill, labour and judgement; minor alterations that do not substantially alter the original would not qualify.

Any copyright in the original work remains unchanged; the creation of the derivative work gives no right to the original work being adapted. You cannot extend the duration of copyright in a work by creating a derivative work. If the original work is in the public domain, it will remain in the public domain; you cannot prevent anyone else using the same public domain work for their own purposes." (even posting this content may be viewed as a breach of copyright although I have referenced it. Maybe that is the answer - do you reference your original starting places.

Oh and to muddy the waters even more, certain buildings (National Trust for example) are copyright and therefore you need permission to do anything commercially with them. Oh and lets not forget the actual "idea" can be defended as shown here.......

TEMPLE ISLAND COLLECTION V NEW ENGLISH TEAS

and the images

IMage 1

image 2

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

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.