I don't see the problem. two very different angles, different elements. The only thing the same is the selective color bus. The only crime I see is someone whining in a kangaroo court.
It seems part of the issue may be that the defendant created the image (partly from stock photos - the bus) in such a way as to resemble the complainant's image. There was far more intent (implied by those actions) than there would be in a typical photograph, perhaps.
Still, it will be interesting to see what other suits are filed in the near future, citing this as a precedent.
Actually I understand why the judge ruled the way he did. If you read sections 8 and 10 in the case the defendant pretty much admits that he liked the original photo and knew it was copyrighted so to avoid infringement he took 4 photos and put them together to look like the original photo.
I also think the case was complicated by the fact that these two had been involved in a previous copyright infringement case.
In the decision the Judge deals with similar photos.
"I sympathise with Mr Houghton in his wish to use an image of London landmarks. He is free to do so. There are entirely independent images of the same landmarks available to be used which predate publication of Mr Fielder's picture. But the defendants do not want to use those, no doubt for their own good reasons. Perhaps they did not look as attractive as the claimant's image? The defendants went to rather elaborate lengths to produce their image when it seems to me that it did not need to be so complicated. Mr Houghton could have simply instructed an independent photographer to go to Westminster and take a picture which includes at least a London bus, Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament. Whatever image was produced could then have been used on the tins of tea. Such an image would not infringe. It may or may not have the same appealing qualities as the claimant's image. Even if it did they would be the result of independent skill and labour employed by the independent photographer. Again however that is not what happened."
@jinximages@jasehoad in the interest of full disclosure, i have also been a culprit :P. this was a shot from my first ever photowalk upon taking up photography.
Time to hold my hand up too! When I 'reproduce' an image I try to make mine look the best I can and often get closer to the original than that. I don't try to sell mine though Hehehe :)
I've only been on here a few weeks but I'm seeing quite a few "copies" of other people's work...I guess there are only so many ways of taking a photo, especially of a stock item like an apple or a flower....but I've noticed a few copies of a photo that's been on the PP page....is this quite a common thing ?
@sharonaddison I think when someone sees one thing done on 365, they think 'ooh I might try that!' and so you get a wave of very similar images - I think it's kinda cool to see everyone's interpretation of whatever the subject/technique is :) Sometimes I even try it out too!
lol, I don't understand why the defendant went to the trouble of merging FOUR photos to create one that looked "similar" to the claimant's. Wouldn't it have been easier to just take the one photo? xD
oh hell that's bullshit! Then we are ALL guilty. Even unintentionally, many pictures will be similar to others. Sometimes I do even try to take my own that's very much like another 365r's picture. Imitation used to be a form of flattery, but I guess not anymore.
the concept is the same but its bound to be a different reg bus, its at a very different angle, both are somewhat naff and tacky thats about the only similarity lol
I'd have thought that image is something thousands of people might come up with - hardly original. Sounds like the two photographers involved had history..
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Still, it will be interesting to see what other suits are filed in the near future, citing this as a precedent.
Other than that, what @scatochef said.
I also think the case was complicated by the fact that these two had been involved in a previous copyright infringement case.
In the decision the Judge deals with similar photos.
"I sympathise with Mr Houghton in his wish to use an image of London landmarks. He is free to do so. There are entirely independent images of the same landmarks available to be used which predate publication of Mr Fielder's picture. But the defendants do not want to use those, no doubt for their own good reasons. Perhaps they did not look as attractive as the claimant's image? The defendants went to rather elaborate lengths to produce their image when it seems to me that it did not need to be so complicated. Mr Houghton could have simply instructed an independent photographer to go to Westminster and take a picture which includes at least a London bus, Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament. Whatever image was produced could then have been used on the tins of tea. Such an image would not infringe. It may or may not have the same appealing qualities as the claimant's image. Even if it did they would be the result of independent skill and labour employed by the independent photographer. Again however that is not what happened."