MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: sharpshot on January 26, 2012, 04:13
-
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/ (http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/25/create-a-similarly-composed-photo-in-the-uk-risk-copyright-infringement/)
-
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.
-
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??
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (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 (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2012/1.html)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Using an image that similar to another image, is almost never innocent..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/52593/52593,1162315722,2/stock-photo-vintage-movie-theater-with-neon-lights-in-sacramento-california-2088800.jpg)
...and...
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/52593/52593,1162315727,3/stock-photo-vintage-movie-theater-with-neon-lights-in-sacramento-california-2088802.jpg)
His:
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/73964/73964,1234163509,1/stock-photo-tower-theater-in-sacramento-at-night-24653365.jpg)
-
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.
-
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:
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/52593/52593,1162315722,2/stock-photo-vintage-movie-theater-with-neon-lights-in-sacramento-california-2088800.jpg[/url])
...and...
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/52593/52593,1162315727,3/stock-photo-vintage-movie-theater-with-neon-lights-in-sacramento-california-2088802.jpg[/url])
His:
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/73964/73964,1234163509,1/stock-photo-tower-theater-in-sacramento-at-night-24653365.jpg[/url])
Good example but not the same, you did not land in court, did you?
-
its only the same place, cannot see how it can have copyright unless its some big bad ass photographer, have one too
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NmkBc8UaO5Q/TyGHASczYrI/AAAAAAAAA7c/dRUSDKU0ibo/s1600/vasco.png)
-
Good example but not the same, you did not land in court, did you?
her file is OLDER
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 donīt like that those 20 sales arenīt into mine.. nothing I can do :)
-
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?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
Totally absurd. Perfect example of IP laws working against you more than they help you.
-
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. ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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: [url]http://travelphotographyreview.com/uk-copyright-case-different-same-same[/url] ([url]http://travelphotographyreview.com/uk-copyright-case-different-same-same[/url])
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.
-
Great post.
I fear you might be the lone voice of sanity shouting in the copyright jungle!
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: [url]http://travelphotographyreview.com/uk-copyright-case-different-same-same[/url] ([url]http://travelphotographyreview.com/uk-copyright-case-different-same-same[/url])
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.
-
Agree ^^ Really helpful and illuminating article :)
-
+1 on how helpful your blog post was Holgs - thanks
-
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: [url]http://travelphotographyreview.com/uk-copyright-case-different-same-same[/url] ([url]http://travelphotographyreview.com/uk-copyright-case-different-same-same[/url])
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.
-
With more of the background in this case it is making more sense. The issue is more complicated than it first appeared.
In general terms if your taking a photo of something you didn't arrange/create yourself. ie taking a landscape, architectural photo of popular landmarks etc then I don't think you have much hope in complaining about copying.
Unless you really go to some effort like renting a performing troupe of clowns to stand infront of the houses of parliment. (Can you hire politician's ?).
I'm not saying that I'd be happy if someone systematically copied my portfolio. Note to copiers spread your love around and you'll have less chance of being caught.
There are so many locations where every vantage point has already been shot. If I take a photo of say the Taj Mahl do I have to search every stock photo library and contact every professional photographer to check they haven't already taken a photo before me from the same spot.
I see more problems with the copying of ideas or concepts.
eg
house outlines made of tools
gold fish jumping out of fish bowls
chains and locks around money
girl blowing dandilion
pink piggie banks with people putting money in them, smashing with hammers
etc.
-
Wasn't there a slightly different case, but with some similarities to this one, a few years back where a photographer was commissioned to take photos of a baby/babies specifically to look like already existing babies? I think one of the Big macro agencies (Getty/Corbis?) was involved.
-
Wasn't there a slightly different case, but with some similarities to this one, a few years back where a photographer was commissioned to take photos of a baby/babies specifically to look like already existing babies? I think one of the Big macro agencies (Getty/Corbis?) was involved.
I'm not going to go digging, but if I remember right, the issue there was the style and set of the images, that the original artist said she had created. Something like babies floating on clouds. And I don't remember who won either. If that's the right one, she was claiming to have created that as her own style. I'd guess it lost as concept can't be copyrighted, while exact replication, can be. (ad with girl and guy on the merry go round in polka dot dress comes to mind. Copy cat lost.)
-
It's a really silly ruling. I think I might pop into London, do something similar and add it to my portfolio!