Author Topic: Interesting siimilarly composed photo copyright ruling in the UK. (Read 11817 times)

Karimala · « **Reply #25 on:** January 26, 2012, 11:13 »

Interesting stuff. I've had the exact same thing happen to me with my #1 selling image. Not much difference, except his image has more of the ground than mine and he just cut out the marquee (while I painstakingly removed all the letters by hand).

Mine:

...and...

His:

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** January 26, 2012, 11:27 »

That illustrated the problem: without having seen your photo before now, if I'd seen that entrance, I'd have probably shot and submitted it.

lagereek · « **Reply #27 on:** January 26, 2012, 11:37 »

Quote from: Karimala on January 26, 2012, 11:13

Interesting stuff. I've had the exact same thing happen to me with my #1 selling image. Not much difference, except his image has more of the ground than mine and he just cut out the marquee (while I painstakingly removed all the letters by hand).

Mine:

...and...

His:

Good example but not the same, you did not land in court, did you?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #28 on:** January 26, 2012, 12:02 »

its only the same place, cannot see how it can have copyright unless its some big bad ass photographer, have one too

luissantos84 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 26, 2012, 12:12 »

Quote from: lagereek on January 26, 2012, 11:37

Good example but not the same, you did not land in court, did you?

her file is OLDER

lagereek · « **Reply #30 on:** January 26, 2012, 12:17 »

I put it down to lack of experience. No landmark, visited by millions can enforce a copyright, neither the photographer, none of your examples mirrors the reality of the OPs posting and none of you landed in court.

Everyone here at this forum, can Im sure come up with millions of examples, million pictures, etc. Ask yoursel, how can anybody impose copy on a cinema house or a freaking bridge. Exept the building-contractor and thats only if the actual bridge is used for commercial gain or showing their logos, trademarks, etc.

Karimala · « **Reply #31 on:** January 26, 2012, 12:43 »

Quote from: lagereek on January 26, 2012, 11:37

Good example but not the same, you did not land in court, did you?

You're right...it's not the same thing, but it's nevertheless frustrating, because this guy's image is cutting into my sales. As Luis said, mine has been online much longer than the other guy's...by several years, in fact. At Dreamstime where my image is ranked at Level 5, it's really cut into my sales, because it's priced lower than mine due to having fewer sales. That's not cool.

Also, it hasn't landed in court, because I haven't pursued it. No reason to, because I can't prove he ripped off my idea. But I could probably pursue having the image removed from the various agencies.

ShadySue · « **Reply #32 on:** January 26, 2012, 12:52 »

The bridge example is iffy. Although the lighting is a bit different and there are some clouds, the cropping seems to be identical, though I haven't exactly counted the number of arches in the background. Seems weird that the left hand crop and the sizing are the same - just count the cables and note the position of the little dot things on the cables.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #33 on:** January 26, 2012, 12:55 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 26, 2012, 12:52

The bridge example is iffy. Although the lighting is a bit different and there are some clouds, the cropping seems to be identical, though I haven't exactly counted the number of arches in the background. Seems weird that the left hand crop and the sizing are the same - just count the cables and note the position of the little dot things on the cables.

sure, her/his version is wider and also almost twice the size but like Karimala don´t like that those 20 sales aren´t into mine.. nothing I can do

m@m · « **Reply #34 on:** January 26, 2012, 14:38 »

Quote from: Karimala on January 26, 2012, 12:43

Quote from: lagereek on January 26, 2012, 11:37
Good example but not the same, you did not land in court, did you?

Also, it hasn't landed in court, because I haven't pursued it. No reason to, because I can't prove he ripped off my idea. But I could probably pursue having the image removed from the various agencies.

Even if you did, all you'll get is a big bill in attorneys fee. If I'm not mistaken your Tower Theater entrance photo is a part of several renovated theater houses in South Florida (could be wrong about the location), and photos of those have being milked to death by local as well as international photographers for their art-deco design.
As far as getting photos removed from other agencies...good luck with that one!!!

Now, if you where talking about a creative, original, concept photo, that would be a different story...but a landmark?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #35 on:** January 26, 2012, 15:34 »

Quote from: m@m on January 26, 2012, 14:38

Now, if you where talking about a creative, original, concept photo, that would be a different story...but a landmark?

exactly! you have a good point, its a * landmark!

Karimala · « **Reply #36 on:** January 26, 2012, 16:47 »

FYI...I'm not planning to do anything about my competitor's image. Just wanted to show an example of two nearly identical photos on the micros, because someone else had mentioned it being a problem. I didn't mean to compare them to the UK case, because obviously it's not the same thing.

However, it would be nice if the agencies would protect against outright duplication in order to encourage originality, but it's not gonna happen. All I can hope for is buyers like mine better with its pretty deep blue sky.

Tower Theater is located in Sacramento, California...pretty well-known landmark in part because of its association with the late, great Tower Records.

m@m · « **Reply #37 on:** January 26, 2012, 17:23 »

There's another theater with the same name and appearance west of Downtown Miami, Florida, that's why I gather the photo was taken there...but hey, good to know, that way I can go downtown and get a photo of this other theater in Florida without copying any ones landmark...lol

OM · « **Reply #38 on:** January 26, 2012, 17:26 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 26, 2012, 05:31

Absurd ruling. What about the hundreds of shots of a red telephone box against a desaturated background (in London or a rural location)?. These images are not 'unique concepts' but 'cliches'.

The defendant must have had lousy legal counsel as 10 minutes research should have destroyed the argument.

Exactly my thoughts too. Had the defence looked for picture postcards from say 20 or 20 years ago, they would have found the same views using the same techniques............substitute red telephone box for London bus at will.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #39 on:** January 26, 2012, 17:51 »

Totally absurd. Perfect example of IP laws working against you more than they help you.

lagereek · « **Reply #40 on:** January 26, 2012, 17:52 »

Quote from: OM on January 26, 2012, 17:26

Quote from: gostwyck on January 26, 2012, 05:31
Absurd ruling. What about the hundreds of shots of a red telephone box against a desaturated background (in London or a rural location)?. These images are not 'unique concepts' but 'cliches'.

The defendant must have had lousy legal counsel as 10 minutes research should have destroyed the argument.

Exactly my thoughts too. Had the defence looked for picture postcards from say 20 or 20 years ago, they would have found the same views using the same techniques............substitute red telephone box for London bus at will.

Forget the telephone box, forget the red bus and forget the house of parliament, these criteria are not the issue here. Thought some people would have understood that by now.

fujiko · « **Reply #41 on:** January 27, 2012, 02:44 »

The ruling is not about a photography inspired by other photography.

It's about a company trying to avoid paying a commercial license by creating an alternative photography after they already infringed the first photography and got caught.

gillian vann · « **Reply #42 on:** January 29, 2012, 20:32 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 26, 2012, 06:44

This is just bizarre. The composition is only vaguely similar. The black and white with the red bus is similar, but I'd be interested to know how the original photographer can prove they came up with the idea first. I've seen that sort of thing in photo mag tutorials and photo club competitions for many years. Another very popular one is Manhattan in mono with only the yellow cabs yellow.

exactly what I was going to say.

In fact, we wouldn't have dreamed of doing a shot like this when I was at photography school cos it's just sooooooo cliched.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #43 on:** January 29, 2012, 20:56 »

Quote from: fujiko on January 27, 2012, 02:44

The ruling is not about a photography inspired by other photography.

It's about a company trying to avoid paying a commercial license by creating an alternative photography after they already infringed the first photography and got caught.

And what's wrong about creating your own alternative? This is where IP laws enter the realm of not just absurd, but start endangering the entire business. Imagine how far you could take this crazy logic.

travelstock · « **Reply #44 on:** January 30, 2012, 11:41 »

The problem with this case is really how badly its been reported.

Its only when you read the case that you find out that the second image isn't even a photo, but a photoshopped collage from 4 different photos, and a 5th one from iStock which is of part of a bus put over the top.

If anyone's interested, I've done up a bit of an article hopefully explaining what this all means: http://travelphotographyreview.com/uk-copyright-case-different-same-same

For those who produce conceptual images, if there is a copycat that reproduces a lot of your catalog, this is the sort of case that can help you. The difficult part in most of these cases for people alleging copyright is to prove that the copycat actually had knowledge of your image and set about re-creating it, rather than it being an independent creation of similar ideas.

For general photography around and about the place, it means very little.

kuriouskat · « **Reply #45 on:** January 30, 2012, 11:57 »

Quote from: holgs on January 30, 2012, 11:41

The problem with this case is really how badly its been reported.

Its only when you read the case that you find out that the second image isn't even a photo, but a photoshopped collage from 4 different photos, and a 5th one from iStock which is of part of a bus put over the top.

If anyone's interested, I've done up a bit of an article hopefully explaining what this all means: http://travelphotographyreview.com/uk-copyright-case-different-same-same

For those who produce conceptual images, if there is a copycat that reproduces a lot of your catalog, this is the sort of case that can help you. The difficult part in most of these cases for people alleging copyright is to prove that the copycat actually had knowledge of your image and set about re-creating it, rather than it being an independent creation of similar ideas.

For general photography around and about the place, it means very little.

Very helpful and informative article. Thank you.

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #46 on:** January 30, 2012, 12:42 »

Great post.

I fear you might be the lone voice of sanity shouting in the copyright jungle!

Quote from: holgs on January 30, 2012, 11:41

The problem with this case is really how badly its been reported.

Its only when you read the case that you find out that the second image isn't even a photo, but a photoshopped collage from 4 different photos, and a 5th one from iStock which is of part of a bus put over the top.

If anyone's interested, I've done up a bit of an article hopefully explaining what this all means: http://travelphotographyreview.com/uk-copyright-case-different-same-same

For those who produce conceptual images, if there is a copycat that reproduces a lot of your catalog, this is the sort of case that can help you. The difficult part in most of these cases for people alleging copyright is to prove that the copycat actually had knowledge of your image and set about re-creating it, rather than it being an independent creation of similar ideas.

For general photography around and about the place, it means very little.

lisafx · « **Reply #47 on:** January 30, 2012, 17:52 »

Agree ^^ Really helpful and illuminating article

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #48 on:** January 30, 2012, 20:23 »

+1 on how helpful your blog post was Holgs - thanks

OM · « **Reply #49 on:** January 30, 2012, 20:54 »

Quote from: holgs on January 30, 2012, 11:41

The problem with this case is really how badly its been reported.

Its only when you read the case that you find out that the second image isn't even a photo, but a photoshopped collage from 4 different photos, and a 5th one from iStock which is of part of a bus put over the top.

If anyone's interested, I've done up a bit of an article hopefully explaining what this all means: http://travelphotographyreview.com/uk-copyright-case-different-same-same

For those who produce conceptual images, if there is a copycat that reproduces a lot of your catalog, this is the sort of case that can help you. The difficult part in most of these cases for people alleging copyright is to prove that the copycat actually had knowledge of your image and set about re-creating it, rather than it being an independent creation of similar ideas.

For general photography around and about the place, it means very little.

Thanks. Very informative.
"The problem with this case is really how badly its been reported." Yes indeed.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Interesting siimilarly composed photo copyright ruling in the UK. (Read 11817 times)

Karimala

ShadySue

lagereek

luissantos84

luissantos84

lagereek

Karimala

ShadySue

luissantos84

m@m

luissantos84

Karimala

m@m

OM

cardmaverick

lagereek

fujiko

gillian vann

cardmaverick

travelstock

kuriouskat

fotoVoyager

lisafx

Jo Ann Snover

OM

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors