Interesting siimilarly composed photo copyright ruling in the UK.

[sharpshot]

This caught my eye yesterday.  Could be interesting if the US adopt this policy.  As I'm in the UK, I wonder if I could use this against the people that have made very similar versions of some of my original concepts?  Copycats beware.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/25/create-a-similarly-composed-photo-in-the-uk-risk-copyright-infringement/

[fotoVoyager]

It seems nonsense on the face of it, but if you dig deeper it appears the judgement is based partly on the argument that the tea company had previously seen the original image then went out and deliberately copied it rather than licence the original.

[luissantos84]

absurd basically! thats not a concept! its a pic of a bus and parliament! it will be there forever, shall we stop shooting what have been shoot before??

[lagereek]

Its a deliberate copy, just the bus have moved a few meters. Things like this needs to weeded out, especially in micro stock and we wouldnt be in all the trouble we are.
In this case I fully agree on the infringements. Just too deliberate.

[kuriouskat]

Its a deliberate copy, just the bus have moved a few meters. Things like this needs to weeded out, especially in micro stock and we wouldnt be in all the trouble we are.
In this case I fully agree on the infringements. Just too deliberate.

Do you really think so? Happy tourists, with their Point & Shoots, stand on that stretch of road every day just waiting for a bus to come past the Houses of Parliament.  It's just two London icons in the same shot. Re the red on black and white, that's hardly a new idea and we've seen it thousands of times on book covers, in films (Schindler's List springs immediately to mind) and in photos.

Proving that one party copied another is fine but surely, the person screaming 'he copied my idea' should be protecting something truly original. I don't see how that can be the case in this instance.

[gostwyck]

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.

[rubyroo]

I have to say I'm surprised at that one.

Given the iconic nature of London's red buses and phone boxes, it seems to me the most obvious and predictable thing in the world to greyscale the rest of the image and let the red stand out.

I wouldn't have thought the vantage point was similar enough to call it a copy, without standing there myself and analysing how many positions you could logically take to include a bus and the Houses of Parliament in the shot.  I don't think I've ever stood at that particular point, so I'm not sure on that.

ETA:  Oops!  Gosty and I posted at the same time!

[Microbius]

Very odd ruling of the face of it. Maybe there was evidence that the companies were in negotiations for the rights? that could explain it, as always it's very difficult to judge without all the facts

[kuriouskat]

Very odd ruling of the face of it. Maybe there was evidence that the companies were in negotiations for the rights? that could explain it, as always it's very difficult to judge without all the facts

Agreed. I think there has to be more to this than we are aware of.

[gostwyck]

Very odd ruling of the face of it. Maybe there was evidence that the companies were in negotiations for the rights? that could explain it, as always it's very difficult to judge without all the facts

True. More details of the case here;

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling_update_26_Jan_includes_pic_news_311191.html

The actual judgement;

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2012/1.html

[lagereek]

Its a deliberate copy, just the bus have moved a few meters. Things like this needs to weeded out, especially in micro stock and we wouldnt be in all the trouble we are.
In this case I fully agree on the infringements. Just too deliberate.

Do you really think so? Happy tourists, with their Point & Shoots, stand on that stretch of road every day just waiting for a bus to come past the Houses of Parliament.  It's just two London icons in the same shot. Re the red on black and white, that's hardly a new idea and we've seen it thousands of times on book covers, in films (Schindler's List springs immediately to mind) and in photos.

Proving that one party copied another is fine but surely, the person screaming 'he copied my idea' should be protecting something truly original. I don't see how that can be the case in this instance.

but we are not refering to tourists with their point/shoot for their family album, are we?  we are talking about pics being used commercially.

On one hand its absurd, ofcourse, on the other hand, its protective. This thing has happend to me personally, twice, in 20 years, once with a fryingpan and once with a V8-engine. I think this is something you yourself has had to go through to really understand it.

In the above case, look at it!  even the washed out background, the periferi of the parliament is copied, you have to draw the line somewhere, right, especially when its for commercial gain.

Look at this forum, all the negative postings of copycats, well?  whats the differance?

I have one guy at IS, trying desperatly to copy everything I shoot for the oil-industry, everything.  Fortunately my models are working with the right protective-gears, his models are staring into the camera, like robots, and with smiling colgate-teeth. Just one of my shots ( now deactivated) have outsold all his 50 shots,. three times over.
My point being, if he did somehow manage to copy them to say 90%, a crazy agency like IS, would definetely accept them and thereby killig off, both shots.

[ShadySue]

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.

[microstockphoto.co.uk]

absurd basically! thats not a concept! its a pic of a bus and parliament! it will be there forever, shall we stop shooting what have been shoot before??

Unless it's absolutely clear that it's a deliberate copy of a single picture, I agree with Luissantos here. I took a very similar picture some 20 years ago the first time I 've been in London, and 15 years before even knowing about the existence of stock photography. And tens of other tourists were waiting for a bus for a similar photo, and it happens every day. Not that you need to wait long, since there's a double decker passing every other minute. The b&w background isn't very original as well: I've seen hundreds of pictures of red telephone boxes over desaturated bg. If every tourist is trying to "copy" that shot, it's a proof that it's not so original.

They'd better not shout too much, unless they want London Transport claim copyright on the bus from both photographers and New English Teas as well.

[lagereek]

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.

Sue, you wouldnt like it if it happend to you, would you?  thought not. Lets not be naive, its not the actual house of parliament or the red bus, thats the issue here, its the entire ouline of the picture, the bleak background, the silhoutte like outline of the house against the background, etc. Thats why the judge ruled in favour.

[ShadySue]

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.

Sue, you wouldnt like it if it happend to you, would you?  thought not. Lets not be naive, its not the actual house of parliament or the red bus, thats the issue here, its the entire ouline of the picture, the bleak background, the silhoutte like outline of the house against the background, etc. Thats why the judge ruled in favour.

I have one pic on iStock which was the only one of a particular place from a particular angle I'd ever seen (which doesn't mean there aren't gazillions of them out there), and I came across the angle by sheer chance, and it sold better than I'd expect of the location.
About a year later, a similar appeared: how would I know whether they'd looked at my picture and worked out where it had been taken from or if they had just 'happened' on the spot as well? Now the sales are split - the photos are far more similar than the ones in these London photos.
I'd just like to know how the original photographer established without doubt that they were the first to come up with that idea (mono-red). Without seeing the original, I've got some pics from that angle, though I didn't do the mono/red thing. I have done the mono/yellow taxi/Manhattan thing, though it's as much a cliche as the London-mono-red bus thing
When I started on iStock, I was going to upload a particular photo of another well-known place, then I saw there was one very similar already on iStock. Mine had been taken a couple of years before the iStock one, but as it was originally a slide, probably no way other than forensic to prove it. Anyway, I didn't upload it, but several have been uploaded since, and have sold well. My naiveity - it's probably the only sensible angle to photograph it from.

[gostwyck]

If you read the actual judgement then the reasons for it become much clearer.

The New English Teas had been (caught?) using the Island Temple image and had belatedly agreed to pay royalties of 5% of trade selling price of the products on which it was used. That was in March 2010.

Then, in Oct 2010, New English Teas decided to compose their own image from a photo (of the Houses of Parliament) taken by the owner and an image of a bus from Istock.

In other words New English Teas deliberately went out to reproduce the image to avoid paying the agreed royalties. That puts a slightly different slant of the matter.

[ShadySue]

If you read the actual judgement then the reasons for it become much clearer.

The New English Teas had been (caught?) using the Island Temple image and had belatedly agreed to pay royalties of 5% of trade selling price of the products on which it was used. That was in March 2010.

Then, in Oct 2010, New English Teas decided to compose their own image from a photo (of the Houses of Parliament) taken by the owner and an image of a bus from Istock.

In other words New English Teas deliberately went out to reproduce the image to avoid paying the agreed royalties. That puts a slightly different slant of the matter.

Ah, sorry, fools rush in. 
That's quite a different matter, not simply a 'similarly composed' issue. That was just 'wide'. Wonder how it would have gone had they instead done a similar treatment of a bus passing a different London landmark, which IMO would have been almost as cheeky in the actual circumstances. Or left the photo in colour or full mono.

[kuriouskat]

If you read the actual judgement then the reasons for it become much clearer.

The New English Teas had been (caught?) using the Island Temple image and had belatedly agreed to pay royalties of 5% of trade selling price of the products on which it was used. That was in March 2010.

Then, in Oct 2010, New English Teas decided to compose their own image from a photo (of the Houses of Parliament) taken by the owner and an image of a bus from Istock.

In other words New English Teas deliberately went out to reproduce the image to avoid paying the agreed royalties. That puts a slightly different slant of the matter.

It puts a completely different slant on things!

The link that Sharpshot provided in his OP didn't mention any of these pertinent details. Original article was entitled: 'Create a Similarly Composed Photo in the UK, Risk Copyright Infringement' but maybe 'Steal an image, and then try and cover your tracks by creating a Similarly Composed Photo in the UK, Risk Copyright Infringement' would have been a bit more informative. Typical case of the media only presenting the information that they want the reader to see.

[RT]

I've scanned the ruling and believe that this is nothing more than a personal conflict over an image between two parties that has ended up in court.

Neither the claimant or the defendant were the first to create an image such as this, either by content, composition or photographic/photoshop technique, the judge has been able to make a ruling because the defendant was legally proved to be aware and in possession of the claimants work before they created they own, as was proved by evidence of a previous settlement between the two parties.

So for those of you who are worried or to the folk who are scaremongering others into believing that you will be sued if you take a similar photo to somebody elses, don't:

As quoted from paragraph 57 of the case papers in the above link:  If Mr Houghton had seen Mr Fielder's image, decided he wanted to use a similar one, found the Rodriguez or Getty photographs and put one of those on his boxes of tea, there would be no question of infringement.

I wonder if the claimant got property and model releases from the bus company, advertisers on the bus, creators of the ads on the bus, people in the photo etc - in order to sell his image on all these tourist products. This case might come back to bite him!!

[sharpshot]

Thanks for the extra info.  This case is obviously different to someone making a near identical copy of an image that was an original concept.

I still think some of the stock images copycats go too far and the sites don't usually take this seriously.  The music industry seem to handle this well but I think it's easier to be more objective with music.  With images, there doesn't seem to be a good way to identify near copies and when the original artists copyright has been infringed.  It would be great if there was software that could be used to aid those legal decisions.

[lagereek]

Thanks Gostwyck, yes differant slant isnt it.

Ironically, many of us here are subjected to similar "infringements" every single day, I mean Micro has got to be the Mecca of the copycats. We put a blind eye to it, we have to because the agencies dont care and just pass everything in sight.
Cant remember but somebody said that if you deleted all copies, the entire micro industry would be around 50%, short of total amount.

[Microbius]

With the further info it seems like it makes a lot more sense and was a pretty fair ruling.
It always turns out that there is more(/less) to these stories than it first appears.
I think that when it comes to the court system and copyright they are actually much better at applying commonsense than we sometimes give them credit for.

[cidepix]

Using an image that similar to another image, is almost never innocent..

[lagereek]

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.

Sue, you wouldnt like it if it happend to you, would you?  thought not. Lets not be naive, its not the actual house of parliament or the red bus, thats the issue here, its the entire ouline of the picture, the bleak background, the silhoutte like outline of the house against the background, etc. Thats why the judge ruled in favour.

I have one pic on iStock which was the only one of this place from this angle I'd ever seen (which doesn't mean there aren't gazillions of them out there), and I came across the angle by sheer chance, and it sold better than I'd expect of the location.
About a year later, a similar appeared: how would I know whether they'd looked at my picture and worked out where it had been taken from or if they had just 'happened' on the spot as well? Now the sales are split - the photos are far more similar than the ones in these London photos.
I'd just like to know how the original photographer established without doubt that they were the first to come up with that idea (mono-red). Without seeing the original, I've got some pics from that angle, though I didn't do the mono/red thing. I have done the mono/yellow taxi/Manhattan thing, though it's as much a cliche as the London-mono-red bus thing
When I started on iStock, I was going to upload a particular photo, then I saw there was one very similar on iStock. Mine had been taken a couple of years before the iStock one, but as it was originally a slide, probably no way other than forensic to prove it. Anyway, I didn't upload it, but several have been uploaded since, and have sold well. My naiveity - it's probably the only sensible angle to photograph it from.

Yes! thats the only angle, really, there is also another one but not so used. There is a statue of Churchill on the other side, on the green, many shoot from that angle, although its the house, Big-Ben and Westminster-bridge that is the most sold angle.

[ffNixx]

I hope the tea company appeals the ruling as it's blatantly wrong (and the judge in his comments got as close as he could to admitting his incompetence in the matter). The concept has clearly been copied, but not the expression. It matters not one iota that the two parties had a deal previously.