"Amateur Photographer magazine has published an interesting story about a copyright infringement case of similar, but not directly copied, images. The issue of copyright is thorny, contentious and often misunderstood but this case sheds some light on the current attitude of courts in the UK. Despite significant differences between the two images (there was no implication that the second image was a duplicate of the first), the court found that the second image copied substantially from the 'intellectual creation' of the first (that is the elements that can be protected by copyright in the original image, including a consideration of the composition, lighting and processing of the image).
Amateur Photographer quotes photographic copyright expert Charles Swan as saying: 'The judgement should be studied by anyone imitating an existing photograph or commissioning a photograph based on a similar photograph.'
Meanwhile, Jane Lambert - a barrister specialising in intellectual property law - has written an excellent blog post on the case, in which she concludes 'although I follow the logic I feel very uneasy at Judge Birss's decision in Temple Island. It seems to come very close to protecting copyright in an idea as opposed to expression.'"
"By Holgs (Jan 30, 2012 at 17:03:47 GMT)
In case anyone is still interested in this topic, I've done up a bit of a summary of the case and what it actually means, minus some of the hype:
I don't think most people noticed that the second image here isn't actually a single photo, but is a photoshopped collage made up of 4 photos from the defendant, and a stock image from istockphoto of the bus.
If all you're doing is photographing a similar scene, then you've got nothing to worry about."
Yeah, it's all about the intent. There was a huge discussion about this recently, and honestly - I'm not really worried unless it is used as case law far too loosely down the track.
I only saw this today. Sorry about the duplicate post but the titles of the threads are not often very clear so it's hard to tell looking through the posts. They also move quickly.
http://365project.org/discuss/general/9283/same-same-but-different
"Yesterday I posted my shot and later on the popular page noticed a much better photograph with the very same title. This morning I noticed a shot on Week 77 Top 20 and thought that reminds me ...... and had something similar a couple of weeks ago when 2 365 friends posted photos which had been taken in the same place on the same day. Anyone want to play SNAP!!! "
@dmortega
Oh good grief! If that won the case I hang my head in shame! Not only is the "copied" image better o.O! But I swear I took that same photo back in 99.
If you click on the link Dorrena posted then sort the comments to most popular about 10 posts down a guy called Karl explains it more. Basically the defendant tried to use the original shot commercially, the guy who took the shot said he couldn't without paying for it, so the defendant went out and purposefully 'copied' the shot which he then used commercially, so essentially the guy admitted to nicking the creative concept behind the shot.
@jinximages --- Those pictures are great. I'm not sure about those kind of pictures fitting this type of situation. It's a slippery slope.
I really think the two pictures taken at the same place are not the same picture with the exception of the selective coloring applied. Even if it is a composite it's still not the same picture. Our photo group takes pictures that are similar but still not the same picture. Favorite tourist spots are repeatedly photographed by many people but still not the same picture.
I don't see how the courts could stop anyone from selling their own pictures no matter how many others have taken similar pictures of the same thing.
Makes me wonder about paparazzi. Many people are trying to sell their pictures and there can be a hundred people taking the same picture and selling them.
@dmortega The reason I linked that, is the intent. In the OP case, it became clear that the defendant intended to create a similar image. In the case of my link, that is clearly the intent also. Satire in the film and music industries has caused legal action in the past...
Well, I guess there is always going to be a fine line between protecting works and stifling creativity.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
In case anyone is still interested in this topic, I've done up a bit of a summary of the case and what it actually means, minus some of the hype:
http://travelphotographyreview.com/uk-copyright-case-different-same-same
I don't think most people noticed that the second image here isn't actually a single photo, but is a photoshopped collage made up of 4 photos from the defendant, and a stock image from istockphoto of the bus.
If all you're doing is photographing a similar scene, then you've got nothing to worry about."
http://365project.org/discuss/general/9283/same-same-but-different
"Yesterday I posted my shot and later on the popular page noticed a much better photograph with the very same title. This morning I noticed a shot on Week 77 Top 20 and thought that reminds me ...... and had something similar a couple of weeks ago when 2 365 friends posted photos which had been taken in the same place on the same day. Anyone want to play SNAP!!! "
Oh good grief! If that won the case I hang my head in shame! Not only is the "copied" image better o.O! But I swear I took that same photo back in 99.
come on!
http://thechive.com/2012/02/09/a-few-more-then-and-now-photographs-by-irina-werning-27-photos/
I really think the two pictures taken at the same place are not the same picture with the exception of the selective coloring applied. Even if it is a composite it's still not the same picture. Our photo group takes pictures that are similar but still not the same picture. Favorite tourist spots are repeatedly photographed by many people but still not the same picture.
Makes me wonder about paparazzi. Many people are trying to sell their pictures and there can be a hundred people taking the same picture and selling them.
Well, I guess there is always going to be a fine line between protecting works and stifling creativity.