MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Image Sleuth => Topic started by: saniphoto on December 09, 2009, 11:52
-
suppose somebody threat to take legal action against agency XX claiming that one concept/idea is his copyright and the agency decide to avoid 'troubles' and delete your images that are even related to this concept. How would you feel about it?
Obviously is a personal case, that involve a few of my images, but I feel the whole thing is wrong, because doesn't exist copyright on ideas or concept.
As support for discussion, read this passage from Dan Heller book about copyright and trademark, that i find supportive of my idea about copyright:
It's the use of your actual image (or a portion of it) that requires permission, not the contents of the image, or even the idea behind it. Even if you are very well-known for a particular image, if someone else took a photo of the same thing, they own the copyright to their image and can license it without compensating you.
I am curious about your opinions about this case, as I think it can be of general interest.
-
So they just deleted your images without a reason? You need to tell us a bit more If you need support on this.
-
You need to show us the images that were deleted and the images that were supposedly copied.
-
the reason is told in my post. Somebody (a photographer) claims that one concept/idea is his copyright. Not an image, the concept. Photo were deleted and then I was informed by the agency (by the way, agency said the think he is wrong, but deleted my images and somebody other as well, with similar concept, to avoid 'troubles').
I will not tell which agency, no names here. I am interested in the question from a legal point of view and in view of what could happen to anybody, if tomorrow a guy would claim that 'hand shaking' concept is his copyright... all images of hand shaking would be deleted by that microstock agency (one of the main)?
I am not interested now in disputes and probably at the end will let it go, despite I am without any doubt damaged by this cancellation of my images. But the argument interest me and should interest all as involve the always slippery subject of copyright.
-
You need to show us the images that were deleted and the images that were supposedly copied.
here is not a question of showing images. I cannot show images, because this involve also other photographers than me (as the agency has told me), whose images were removed too. The matter here is if one can claim rights that one concept/idea is of him. I hope now is more clear.
-
Yes, you are right. You can't copyright an idea. But, I think a lot goes into it, so it is not very clear without seeing. I like iStock's use of the term abusive inspiration because I think that describes some of the practices employed by contributors. In the end, it really doesn't matter if you violated another person's copyright. If the agency felt you weren't playing by the rules, it may just be easier for them to get rid of your images. It may not be fair, but it is their right to run their business how they see fit.
P.S. I'd feel terrible by the way if I was accused of this, so I feel for you.
-
Not only are you not showing us the images involved, which makes it impossible for us to know 'how we would feel', you haven't actually stated whether or not you did copy the concept from others. It might be one thing using the idea but quite another if the execution has also been closely copied too.
Let's try your question the other way around __ if you came up with a useful genuinely new concept, which started earning you plenty of money, how would you feel if others just copied it?
-
Yes, you are right. You can't copyright an idea. But, I think a lot goes into it, so it is not very clear without seeing. I like iStock's use of the term abusive inspiration because I think that describes some of the practices employed by contributors. In the end, it really doesn't matter if you violated another person's copyright. If the agency felt you weren't playing by the rules, it may just be easier for them to get rid of your images. It may not be fair, but it is their right to run their business how they see fit.
P.S. I'd feel terrible by the way if I was accused of this, so I feel for you.
I know that you are right, cthoman, Sure they have a right to run their business as they please. But there is another way of looking at this. We are running a business too. We HIRED the agency to sell our product. There SHOULD be some consideration for the rights of the contributor's business, even those of us who have tiny portfolios. Unfortunately, we are too divided to force such an issue.
Again, I know that I am in the minority. Just making more noise and continuing to shoot myself in the foot. ::)
-
This discussion is too theoretical to be interesting without knowing the specifics. I'm going to guess that it's more than the concept that was copied. Maybe the agency was out of line; maybe they weren't. Without seeing the original and the copy, it's a case of "he said, he said".
-
Clearly this is a gray area, one that would require specific examples to review.
The example of a generic handshake is clearly one that should NOT be considered infringement. But if you had two businesspeople shaking hands on top of a big blowup of the word DEAL, then the image is much more specific and if someone were to create a pic with similar looking businessmen at the same angle, same colors, fonts, etc., many of us would feel that the concept of the original image was copied and the duplicates should not be allowed in the microstock sites.
I think defining copyright infringement in cases like this is similar to how a US court famously defined pornography... "you know it when you see it."
-
There SHOULD be some consideration for the rights of the contributor's business, even those of us who have tiny portfolios. Unfortunately, we are too divided to force such an issue.
Again, I know that I am in the minority. Just making more noise and continuing to shoot myself in the foot. ::)
I didn't mean to insinuate that we shouldn't have rights as well, but contributors that just copy ideas from the best sellers seem kind of predatory. These people may not have violated any copyright, but their practices aren't necessarily what the agency or contributors want. Obviously, I'm not accusing the original poster of this, but I'm trying to point out that something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong.
-
"you know it when you see it."
That's what I was going to write originally, but I decided to blab on instead. :D
-
I didn't mean to insinuate that we shouldn't have rights as well, but contributors that just copy ideas from the best sellers seem kind of predatory. These people may not have violated any copyright, but their practices aren't necessarily what the agency or contributors want. Obviously, I'm not accusing the original poster of this, but I'm trying to point out that something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong.
Agreed. There's a whole lot of room between violation of Federal statutes and behavior an agency wants to discourage before it leads to an exodus of frustrated suppliers. It doesn't have to be illegal to be bad.
-
If you have done nothing wrong, and did not copy another photographers picture, then why do you have a problem showing us the image? I don't understand your reluctance.
-
This discussion is too theoretical to be interesting without knowing the specifics. I'm going to guess that it's more than the concept that was copied. Maybe the agency was out of line; maybe they weren't. Without seeing the original and the copy, it's a case of "he said, he said".
Agreed. When comes to choosing sides ... I tend to be Ready Fire Aim. :P
-
Not only are you not showing us the images involved, which makes it impossible for us to know 'how we would feel', you haven't actually stated whether or not you did copy the concept from others. It might be one thing using the idea but quite another if the execution has also been closely copied too.
Let's try your question the other way around __ if you came up with a useful genuinely new concept, which started earning you plenty of money, how would you feel if others just copied it?
I know, I know... but you must forgive me if I cannot show images, because as said, there are other photographers involved, apparently (in the email sent to me, that was said) and my was more a curiosity about the fact that one photographer with platoon of attorney menaced to bring to court the agency, evidently, so they have removed my images and others. Now reading the kind answers and thoughts posted here, the problem is not that simple as I was at first thinking. Thank you for having made my mind more clear about it.
Oh, I notice that I forgot completely to tell that the photographer claiming the copyright infringement is not a microstocker.
I cannot honestly say that one of my images wasn't similar in concept, to the one he claim I have copied (but I haven't copied). The problem is that I know I didn't copy because I didn't know his work at all. But rightly the coincidence' would make anybody doubt my words. I recognize that. I feel like that criminal in prison, that was set up and we see in so many movies or tv series... :)
One fact I would say in my defense, is that he has in his website 5-6 concept idea, very old. I have a microstock portfolio with dozens of creative ideas. It should be a small proof that I usually do creative work by my own mind and I haven't problem to create often new ideas, so why stole others ones? With this I answer the question: no I wouldn't mind if they would copy my concepts/ideas. I'm not happy when they do, but I move on because I have no problem to have tomorrow another idea and the day after another one... the problem is for who cannot have ideas.
What lead me this experience anyway is that now I am a bit freaked out to produce original concepts, if the risk is so high. Better shoot a red apple or my dog! :(
Thanks again for your insights and opinions about this subject. When I will have answers from the agency, I will follow up updating on the case and his development.
-
If you have done nothing wrong, and did not copy another photographers picture, then why do you have a problem showing us the image? I don't understand your reluctance.
I make you notice that in my post above I wrote that the agency itself declared to me that they think he is not right.
I don't want to show images for reasons I have tried to explain and I consider I'm right in doing so for respect of other persons involved (it it was just me, I wouldn't have problem, believe me)
-
Oh, I notice that I forgot completely to tell that the photographer claiming the copyright infringement is not a microstocker.
That is interesting. Sounds to me that this guy is going to have a big job on his hands trying to hold back all microstock sites though!
Actually I'm pretty disgusted that a 'major microstock agency' has caved in on this issue __ their access to legal advice/action is going to be far greater than any individual photographer. Which agency was it? I think we should be told.
-
Oh, I notice that I forgot completely to tell that the photographer claiming the copyright infringement is not a microstocker.
That is interesting. Sounds to me that this guy is going to have a big job on his hands trying to hold back all microstock sites though!
Actually I'm pretty disgusted that a 'major microstock agency' has caved in on this issue __ their access to legal advice/action is going to be far greater than any individual photographer. Which agency was it? I think we should be told.
Hi gostwyck
I will not reveal at this moment any names, but as this matter will unfold I will see if to tell the whole story or not (depends also on the agency behavior, if they will comply to my requests for explanations and answer to my questions for example).
I can say the agency is one of the big 3... that should be anyway enough to say that sometimes even them are without a clue as what to do in such cases. This is my impression at least.
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? ;)
-
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.
-
My question is what if a photographer comes up with some great "Original Idea" and submits it only to find out (due to lack of research) that someone else has previously submitted a nearly identical image?
This new photographer did not "copy", as they thought that their shot was original. Some concepts are just so easy to visualize that some repetition becomes inevitable even without copying.
-
My question is what if a photographer comes up with some great "Original Idea" and submits it only to find out (due to lack of research) that someone else has previously submitted a nearly identical image?
This new photographer did not "copy", as they thought that their shot was original. Some concepts are just so easy to visualize that some repetition becomes inevitable even without copying.
this happens all the time, with artistic creations, writings, and inventions. it would really be down to a race with time in terms of not only who originated it first, but can prove it with registered copyright and patents or simple publication.
in this case, the macrostocker who hired the attorney obviously feels he has the proof in terms of a much older portfolio.
-
I think wiseguy is trying to say that the agency took his photos down while they do more investigating. The agency doesn't think he copied, but they must do the investigating before making any decisions.
This topic comes up every couple of months. We are all human beings, experiencing relatively the same events in the same world. Sure, some are more creative than others, but for the most part, a lot of contributors are going to shoot the same thing someone else has already shot, just by accident, not because they copied.
I see stuff pass through the queue all the time that looks pretty much exactly like something in my port. Nothing I can do about it. Keep shooting, try to be more creative, use backgrounds/fabrics/props/models that bring a different look to the photo.
Without seeing wiseguys' photo and the one this photographer claims he copied, I would never be able to make a decision or take sides.
-
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 (http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00135)
-
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
-
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.
[url]http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00135[/url] ([url]http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00135[/url])
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. :(
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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 (http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/909/wipo_pub_909.html)
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 ::)
-
It might be useful to read what PACA wrote about "stealing" concepts and derivative work. This was considered derivative:
(http://cjoint.com/data/mkk1bebg4n_pacaimg.jpg)
(I wrote something (http://bit.ly/5EyhwD) 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 (http://www.pacaoffice.org/copyrightPresentation.shtml).
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 (http://www.dreamstime.com/search.php?srh_field=businessman+hammer+pc&firstvalue=businessman+hammer+pc&lastsearchvalue=doctor+worried&s_ph=y&s_il=y&s_sm=all&s_rf=y&s_ed=y&s_st=new&memso=y&s_cf=1&s_catid=&s_cliid=&s_colid=&memorize_search=1&s_exc=&s_excp=&s_sp=&s_sl1=y&s_sl2=y&s_sl3=y&s_sl4=y&s_sl5=y&s_color1=FFFFFF&s_percent1=10&s_color2=FFFFFF&s_percent2=10&s_rsf=0&s_rst=7&s_clc=y&s_clm=y&s_orp=y&s_ors=y&s_orl=y&s_orw=y)
Mine:
(http://www.dreamstime.com/frustrated-pc-user-thumb3175881.jpg)
Copycat (he even copied most of my title, description and keywords):
(http://www.dreamstime.com/fustrated-businessman-in-his-office-thumb5847396.jpg)
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.
-
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.
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.
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 ([url]http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/909/wipo_pub_909.html[/url])
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 ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desist[/url]) 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...
-
It might be useful to read what PACA wrote about "stealing" concepts and derivative work. This was considered derivative:
([url]http://cjoint.com/data/mkk1bebg4n_pacaimg.jpg[/url])
(I wrote something ([url]http://bit.ly/5EyhwD[/url]) 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 ([url]http://www.pacaoffice.org/copyrightPresentation.shtml[/url]).
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 ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/search.php?srh_field=businessman+hammer+pc&firstvalue=businessman+hammer+pc&lastsearchvalue=doctor+worried&s_ph=y&s_il=y&s_sm=all&s_rf=y&s_ed=y&s_st=new&memso=y&s_cf=1&s_catid=&s_cliid=&s_colid=&memorize_search=1&s_exc=&s_excp=&s_sp=&s_sl1=y&s_sl2=y&s_sl3=y&s_sl4=y&s_sl5=y&s_color1=FFFFFF&s_percent1=10&s_color2=FFFFFF&s_percent2=10&s_rsf=0&s_rst=7&s_clc=y&s_clm=y&s_orp=y&s_ors=y&s_orl=y&s_orw=y[/url]) (or on=1&filters[content_type%3Aillustration]=1&filters[content_type%3Avector]=1&filters[content_type%3Avideo]=1] Fotolia ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/search?k=businessman+hammer+pc&search.x=10&search.y=11&filters[/url][content_type%3Aphoto))
Mine:
([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/frustrated-pc-user-thumb3175881.jpg[/url])
Copycat (he even copied most of my title, description and keywords):
([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/fustrated-businessman-in-his-office-thumb5847396.jpg[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
FD-amateur: your hammer guy is better, IMHO for what it's worth.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Oh, will I be sued for copying thumbtacks on white background or for a top view of a loose red satin sheet? :D
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.dreamstime.com/Rolmat_info)) on DT.
-
Well, it's about a month later and I see wiseguy has not returned. I wonder what the outcome of his problem was?
-
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."
-
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 ....
-
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.