MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: how would you feel? Images removed b/c of copyright infringement  (Read 6894 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

saniphoto

« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2009, 03:12 »
0
This fact that some 'big guys' from macro stock could one day start to hunt down microstock for copyright infringements is something that in fact was crossing my mind earlier today...  maybe another way to take back the money they lose because of microstock?   ;)



I just can't see this. As you've said yourself you can't copyright ideas so the complaining photographer really shouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.

About the only similar instance I can recall was about 4 years when an IS contributor uploaded some 'classical' b&w images of a reclining girl. They made the guy AOTW until it was pointed out that the images were near-identical set-ups of the works of a famous photographer. IS removed the guys account if I remember correctly.


Correct. I can't copyright a concept or idea but if someone shoots what may be a replica or nearly identical setting and shot, it can be infringing. How specific is the original shot? Two people on a park bench? Not very uncommon. Two people sitting on a red and white stripped pole with one arm hanging down, holding candy canes, back lighted. That's pretty specific.

Another shot was a couple kissing on a merry-go-round. Claim was, it's co-incidence. Similar? The polka dot dress was the same, lighting the same, hair the same, head angles the same... Some things are way beyond co-incidence. The original photographer won the case.

Since we can't see the photos, it's all guessing and hypothetical discussion. Kind of like the giant invisible purple frog that lives out in my back yard. Prove that it doesn't exist? I see it nearly every day.  ;D

Sorry Wiseguy but unnamed agency, invisible photo, someone who isn't a microstock contributor, talks of lawyers and who's right and wrong and closed account, but it's all just words on a forum. If you could link to his photo and your photo, it would make for a more intelligent guess. There's no evidence that anything exists at this point.

Interesting decision in photographer, Penny Gentieu vs Getty, please read. Not that it's right but it does point out some of the obstacles to claiming someone owns the concept of an image. Her case is the extreme for the other side, agency vs photographer. But it points out what someone may need to prove to say they own a particular shot style or setup.

http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00135
 



Thank you Racephoto, the link was very useful and the story instructive. I repeat once again I cannot show the images because of other persons involved, but promise to keep posted about the case if there will be developments.
Maybe I expressed badly, but my main interest was to hear opinion about a situation that basically involve copyright of ideas/concept. Then is true that a lot depends on how much similar the images are, because that can arise doubts.
I have told that honestly one of mine is similar (comparing to that Gentieu case, say the babies on white is pretty good as example of similarity), but how to prove that I didn't even know the work of this photographer? That is the main point.
My conclusion at the moment is that my portfolio should speak (if shown to a judge or jury) for itself, and demonstrate that I'm not one that have problem to have ideas... on the contrary. But this is really not a fair discussion, rightly, because we speak about 'nothing' if you cannot see my images and the images in this dispute.
I again thanks all for your interesting comments, point of view and insights about such a case. Will keep posted about developments. Still nothing from the agency...  just a short email to tell me that other images will be taken down as well (on the same case), this is the only answer they gave me still now.

P.S. the funny thing is that doing a quick search in the agency I found still several other images similar to mine (and by consequence to the one that photographer claim is his copyright...). I don't know where this whole story will bring, but the implications of it will make me change my approach to microstock. That is a sure thing.   :(


Uncle Pete

  • Evidence please...

« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2009, 03:24 »
0
Thanks I was hoping that it helped and I didn't come across being too negative.

Opinion? The person making the claim is full of beans.  ;D

Agencies are pretty good about investigating things and protecting their interests. Most of the time it works in our favor, especially when they are protecting us. Sometimes it appears unfair, but hopefully the situation will be resolved in your favor.

Please do keep us informed.


« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2009, 05:06 »
0
Quote
Intellectual Property
Copyright legislation is part of the wider body of law known as intellectual property. The term intellectual property refers broadly to the creations of the human mind. Intellectual property rights protect the interests of creators by giving them property rights over their creations.


Quote
Unlike protection of inventions, copyright law protects only the form of expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. The creativity protected by copyright law is creativity in the choice and arrangement of words, musical notes, colors and shapes. So copyright law protects the owner of property rights against those who copy or otherwise take and use the form in which the original work was expressed by the author.


Quote
Since the legal protection of literary and artistic works under copyright, by contrast, prevents only unauthorized use of the expressions of ideas


Quotes from here: Understanding Copyright and Related Rights

In short if you copied the original artists 'expressions of ideas' then you violated their copyright, so as said a handshake can not be IP protected as their is nothing original, there is nothing wrong in looking at other artists work for inspiration then using a number of inspirations to produce your own unique works that will identify you, but if the Photographer is know for a style of content or a particular image, if you then copy that and people could think that the work is from the original artist, you have infringed on their Intellectual Property.

There are many iconic photographs where the photographer can be identified just by the content and style, you would not copy them, just because a photographer shoot stock does not mean they should not get the same respect and protection.

Only you know how close your work was to the original, and you are correct not to link to or show this work, as public display could be a further infringement, it may be wise just to be happy that a Cease and desist route was chosen by the Photographer and not one of compensation, there are many that would have asked for a settlement.

David  ::)
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 05:19 by Adeptris »

« Reply #28 on: December 10, 2009, 05:10 »
0
It might be useful to read what PACA wrote about "stealing" concepts and derivative work. This was considered derivative:


(I wrote something about it a couple of years ago, scroll down till bottom).
("It is not permissible to re-shoot a photograph of a person in the same pose with a different model.")

The PACA PPT presention is here.
Notice the paragraph there about the "faut faire": some concepts are so common (e.g. girl with headset) that they are considered public domain.

Also check this concept: businessman, hammer, PC

Mine:


Copycat (he even copied most of my title, description and keywords):


Of course if you are first, you'll get most of the downloads if the search engine is sensitive to that factor.
Not much to do about it, I guess.  :-[
In love, war and microstock, all is fair.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 09:42 by FD-amateur »

saniphoto

« Reply #29 on: December 10, 2009, 05:43 »
0
Quote
Intellectual Property
Copyright legislation is part of the wider body of law known as intellectual property. The term intellectual property refers broadly to the creations of the human mind. Intellectual property rights protect the interests of creators by giving them property rights over their creations.


Quote
Unlike protection of inventions, copyright law protects only the form of expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. The creativity protected by copyright law is creativity in the choice and arrangement of words, musical notes, colors and shapes. So copyright law protects the owner of property rights against those who copy or otherwise take and use the form in which the original work was expressed by the author.


Quote
Since the legal protection of literary and artistic works under copyright, by contrast, prevents only unauthorized use of the expressions of ideas


Quotes from here: Understanding Copyright and Related Rights

In short if you copied the original artists 'expressions of ideas' then you violated their copyright, so as said a handshake can not be IP protected as their is nothing original, there is nothing wrong in looking at other artists work for inspiration then using a number of inspirations to produce your own unique works that will identify you, but if the Photographer is know for a style of content or a particular image, if you then copy that and people could think that the work is from the original artist, you have infringed on their Intellectual Property.

There are many iconic photographs where the photographer can be identified just by the content and style, you would not copy them, just because a photographer shoot stock does not mean they should not get the same respect and protection.

Only you know how close your work was to the original, and you are correct not to link to or show this work, as public display could be a further infringement, it may be wise just to be happy that a Cease and desist route was chosen by the Photographer and not one of compensation, there are many that would have asked for a settlement.

David  ::)


Thank you Adeptris for your ulterior information on this topic. Very very useful. I can pretty much say that no, my image is not taken from a photographer that has a unique style or unique vision. His image is particular, yes, but he has few conceptual images on his website. Surely I should not be accused of copying his style at least.

Another question arise in my mind now, because I have same images in other two microstock agencies... what should I do about them? Just sit and wait what happens?
In fact I never got a direct communication from him or his attorneys, only communication came through the agency, informing me of why they deleted some my images.

I'm still not so sure that he is not determined to go for something more than cease and desist. That is the step he took toward the agency, but about steps he could be taking then toward me personally? My images after were also sold already, so even who bought them could be at risk of some action from his part, isn't that possible?

Thank again very much for your expertise, information and advice. Must say that this thing is making me a bit anxious. Never imagined that could arise such problems from being a 'creative' person. But we always learn something in life...

 

saniphoto

« Reply #30 on: December 10, 2009, 05:48 »
0
It might be useful to read what PACA wrote about "stealing" concepts and derivative work. This was considered derivative:


(I wrote something about it a couple of years ago, scroll down till bottom).
("It is not permissible to re-shoot a photograph of a person in the same pose with a different model.")

The PACA PPT presention is here.
Notice the paragraph there about the "faut faire": some concepts are so common (e.g. girl with headset) that they are considered public domain.

Also check this concept: businessman, hammer, PC (or on=1&filters[content_type%3Aillustration]=1&filters[content_type%3Avector]=1&filters[content_type%3Avideo]=1] Fotolia)

Mine:


Copycat (he even copied most of my title, description and keywords):


Of course if you are first, you'll get most of the downloads if the search engine is sensitive to that factor.
Not much to do about it, I guess.  :-[
In love, war and microstock, all is fair.



Thank you very much FD-amateur, another good piece of information. I will read your writing about copyright as I'm reading everything possible to increase my awareness of the risks involved in this profession. I am not a long time stock photographer, so in this field I'm more like a beginner (but I'm not a beginner in photography) and something need more consideration from my part as well. Ignorance is not an excuse, how they say...
thank again for your asnwer.

bittersweet

« Reply #31 on: December 10, 2009, 10:11 »
0
I would love to see the declaration from the copyright office that includes the registration number and the length of copyright.  Since his photo is copyrighted and all  ;D

It is not necessary to register with the copyright office in order to receive copyright protection. As soon as the work is in a fixed, tangible form, the rights are in place. Registered copyrights can, however, have an advantage in the amount of damages that are awarded in infringement cases.

« Reply #32 on: December 10, 2009, 12:09 »
0
FD-amateur: your hammer guy is better, IMHO for what it's worth.

KB

« Reply #33 on: December 10, 2009, 13:28 »
0
FD-amateur: your hammer guy is better, IMHO for what it's worth.
Way, way better! No offense to the copier intended (in case I know him/her), but they just didn't do a very good job, compared to FD-amateur's.

ap

« Reply #34 on: December 10, 2009, 13:44 »
0
Way, way better! No offense to the copier intended (in case I know him/her), but they just didn't do a very good job, compared to FD-amateur's.

i know, the copier's model seem so half-hearted about it. does he really want to kill his computer?

« Reply #35 on: December 10, 2009, 14:33 »
0
And in the spirit of constructive criticism, the angle of the hammer should have been turned. It's hard to tell that it is a hammer at all. As a buyer, I can see where both images would be useful, but the execution of FD-amateurs shot is just far better.

KB

« Reply #36 on: December 10, 2009, 14:57 »
0
And in the spirit of constructive criticism, the angle of the hammer should have been turned.
Exactly.

Plus, the expression on FD's model is perfect (well, maybe 1% overdone), whereas there almost is no expression on the other model's face. To be honest, I can't see the "copy" as being very useful, at least when side-by-side with FD's.

« Reply #37 on: December 10, 2009, 16:09 »
0
Oh, will I be sued for copying thumbtacks on white background or for a top view of a loose red satin sheet? :D

bittersweet

« Reply #38 on: December 10, 2009, 16:51 »
0
Way, way better! No offense to the copier intended (in case I know him/her), but they just didn't do a very good job, compared to FD-amateur's.

i know, the copier's model seem so half-hearted about it. does he really want to kill his computer?

It looks like he's just posing for his web cam.  :D

« Reply #39 on: December 10, 2009, 20:44 »
0
Plus, the expression on FD's model is perfect (well, maybe 1% overdone), whereas there almost is no expression on the other model's face. To be honest, I can't see the "copy" as being very useful, at least when side-by-side with FD's.
The credit for this shot goes entirely to the model, it was his concept too. In fact he's a heck of a photographer and also a member on this forum. KB: I also tend to overdo expressions since they can make or break a shot.

To stay on topic: what if his copy was better? Of course you will have the advantage of being longer online, but that effect will fade out after a while. The fact stays that with the crowd-sourcing model in Microstock, derivative images as defined by PACA are de facto "legalized", so there is not much you can do against it. That's why the OP (that doesn't reveal his material) probably belongs to the Macro/RM world.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 20:50 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #40 on: December 10, 2009, 20:49 »
0
It looks like he's just posing for his web cam.  :D

It's a self-shot. Those are very difficult to do. For instance, you can't judge composition well and he couldn't probably judge the angle of the hammer well. The only one I'm aware of that makes great self-shots is Rui (Rolmat) on DT.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 20:52 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #41 on: January 21, 2010, 09:09 »
0
Well, it's about a month later and I see wiseguy has not returned. I wonder what the outcome of his problem was?

« Reply #42 on: January 21, 2010, 12:29 »
0
Ideas, methods, or systems are not subject to copyright protection. Section 102 of the copyright law, title 17.

This sections states ...  "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."


alias

« Reply #43 on: January 21, 2010, 18:38 »
0
IS have hinted more than once that the whole business of people copying ideas is something which they are planning to address. I'm looking forward to that.

Forget the law etc - this is just about playing nice. And a company like IS is big enough and community minded enough to be able to put something in place.

Even some of the biggest contributors are likely to do a "one of those" if they see something obvious which they did'n think to.

You know who you are ....

« Reply #44 on: January 21, 2010, 18:49 »
0
In some european countries ya can be sued for plagiarism, if the concept copied is specific enough. And I thik it is rigth. Don't know about the USA.

Microstock InsiderPhotoDune

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
3785 Views
Last post May 10, 2008, 02:41
by DanP68
23 Replies
5055 Views
Last post May 27, 2009, 03:25
by MichaelJay
9 Replies
2844 Views
Last post September 08, 2009, 02:49
by cardmaverick
3 Replies
1780 Views
Last post May 26, 2010, 16:25
by litifeta
1 Replies
933 Views
Last post February 10, 2014, 06:42
by Ron

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors