Interesting (perhaps!) case on photograph copyright

[samwilliams]

Just stumbled across a case where it was decided that this:



infringed the copyright from this:



Most people will probably find it incredibly boring but, in case you don't, here's the judgment: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2012/1.html

[K12beano]

Cheeses!!


That's a minefield! Why not extend the case further. Do the filmmakers (Schindlers List) then not have a claim as they are cited as the "inspiration" for the claimant's image?

I could go on..... Pffft!

[Nick Grant]

K12beano said:

Cheeses!!


That's a minefield! Why not extend the case further. Do the filmmakers (Schindlers List) then not have a claim as they are cited as the "inspiration" for the claimant's image?

I could go on..... Pffft!

website said:

Once the photograph was taken Mr Fielder manipulated it on his computer using a well know standard piece of software called Photoshop. He had the idea of making the red bus stand against a black and white background from the film Schindler's List. That film includes striking use of the technique in a different context

[Simpo Two]

Hmm, 'passing off' then really.

I wonder how much that case cost?

[K12beano]

Enough to keep some Lawyers in the manner to which they have become accustom....

[LongQ]

Not yet read the article but an initial reaction to the first image is that it certainly looks like a crime.

[Gemm]

What happened to the clock on the Big Ben?

[Nick Grant]

Wait until TFL see this, I think they might have something to say about who owns the iconic image of the bus.

[K12beano]

Gemm said:

What happened to the clock on the Big Ben?

Yeah - that was bugging me too. That wasn't copied!

[LongQ]

Now read the article - or at least the gist of it.

Relies a lot, it seems, on EU law and a judgement in an Austrian court about photographing grapes.

Barking.

And another reason why the influence of 'The Entertainment Industry' should be neutered. IMHO.

[samwilliams]

There's a fairly critical bit of commentary on the judgment here: http://nipclaw.blogspot.com/2012/01/copyright-in-p...

LongQ said:

And another reason why the influence of 'The Entertainment Industry' should be neutered. IMHO.

I'm not quite sure what that's got to do with this?

[K12beano]

samwilliams said:

There's a fairly critical bit of commentary on the judgment here: http://nipclaw.blogspot.com/2012/01/copyright-in-p...

This does seem to infer or place more emphasis on the relationship between the parties than the actual image dispute. I think their "history" has a lot more to do with it than I imagined on first read....

[LongQ]

samwilliams said:

There's a fairly critical bit of commentary on the judgment here: http://nipclaw.blogspot.com/2012/01/copyright-in-p...

LongQ said:

And another reason why the influence of 'The Entertainment Industry' should be neutered. IMHO.

I'm not quite sure what that's got to do with this?

SOPA, PIPA and Copyright cases like this are all driven by the need for the entertainment industry (in this case the makers or current rights holders for the film in question) to find as many ways as possibly to keep there overpaid 'stars', film company executives and legal teams living at the top of the pile.

In my view they have far too much influence (in many ways) that they do not deserve and that is, long term, not beneficial.

It's become very similar to the 'patents' farago in the US - too much to rehearse here but you may have stumbled across across it if you read the reports about all the mobile phone companies suing each other.

At some point I expect someone to claim they have the patent to air and copyright for breathing and will be charging everyone a daily fee. No doubt they will be able to find a legal team and judge or two soft enough to support the claims.

[baz7175]

I haven't looked at the link yet, but there is a couple of companies in Hamburg that specialise in photography cases like this, 3 times since I moved to Germany I've been contacted regarding images purported to be someone elses being live on my personal photography website.

Each time I have "politely" told them that I have all images from said trip in jpeg and raw format, all EXIF info intact, the camera used still in my posession, the ability to show a logical timeline before and after that image to prove my presence in said area at said time and any further nonsense claims after number 3 will result in me seeking a harrassment claim against them...

No further letters from them since, strangely enough

[Silver Smudger]

From reading the links, it seems the actual commission instruction was to make something similar to the well-known original, but not too similar, to use for marketing purposes. I suspect that they knew that what they were doing was at risk of infringing copyright from the off.

[LongQ]

Silver Smudger said:

From reading the links, it seems the actual commission instruction was to make something similar to the well-known original, but not too similar, to use for marketing purposes. I suspect that they knew that what they were doing was at risk of infringing copyright from the off.

Or they wanted a continuation (of sorts) of the previously successful image.

Irrespective of that I really don't see how how a commonly used image, with or without a routemaster included in some way (but especially badly included via photoshop) of a well know public place partly created with an extensively used digital editing tool (Selective colour) can possible be considered suitable for copyright in the first place.

However if we accept that the original image as it was should be protected that is fine. Anyone creating a similar image should also be able to prove that it is their own work and not a pixel for pixel total or partial copy.

The second image is clearly NOT a pixel for pixel or partial copy and, so far as one can tell, has been created using a completely different technique.

What next? A photo library entrepreneur somewhere builds a case that since they have the very first image ever taken of the Houses of Parliament (or some other well known public place with many visitors) they own the copyright to all similar photographic images and can demand a royalty for each of them?

Not likely to happen? Well, it's pretty much what HAS been happening with patents in the US for the past 20 years or so. It may only a matter of time ... especially with decisions like this.

[Simpo Two]

I think the point here was not that the image was identical or even trying to be identical, but had been taken with the express purpose of 'looking a bit like' the original for deliberate marketing purposes. So technically it's not a copyright fail but in practice it was, because of the way it was conceived and used.

My surprise is that they didn't get sued under the Bad Taste Act for spot-colouring a bus...

[LongQ]

Simpo Two said:

I think the point here was not that the image was identical or even trying to be identical, but had been taken with the express purpose of 'looking a bit like' the original for deliberate marketing purposes. So technically it's not a copyright fail but in practice it was, because of the way it was conceived and used.

Yep, I think you are right BUT that would be a conitnuation of the apparently successful 'branding' for selling T-shirts and stuff. As such - 'a bit like' seems reasonable as a creative instruction.

Sure there may have been a breakdown in what seems to have been a previously mutually beneficial arrangement for use of the original image (if I read it correctly) but that hardly seems to warrant a judgement on 'copyright' that will probably be used to twist things for years to come.

Simpo Two said:

My surprise is that they didn't get sued under the Bad Taste Act for spot-colouring a bus...

It's what the tourist public want - obviously!

More importantly I would have thought Adobe would have a claim for defamation of product based on the rest of the image hackery.

Still, it might work well on mugs and T-shirts.

I wonder if London Transport could claim Royalties from the Film makers for use of an iconic image? And maybe the film chaps could also sponsor Parliament for the same reason?

[Silver Smudger]

I am not sure how much protection is given, under copyright, to an idea or concept - but that is what was tried in this case.

I have seen a car photo which used a particular viewpoint on one car looking towards a following car, I have also seen another photographer copy this technique and camera position exactly on other cars.

If I was the original photographer, I would be miffed about this, but would my original idea for the technique be covered by copyright?

This article would seem to say no (which I think is a little unfair) but would seem to contradict the outcome in the case posted in the OP - So do we now have a precedent that changes copyright law?

[tim-b]

His Honour Judge Birss QC said:

In summary the manipulations Mr Fielder undertook were: the red colour of the bus was strengthened; the sky was removed completely by (electronically) cutting around the skyline of the buildings; the rest of the image was turned to monochrome save for the bus; some people present in the foreground of original photograph were removed (there was a small group on the stairs and a person at the top under the lamppost); and the whole original image was stretched somewhat to change the perspective so that the verticals in the buildings were truly vertical. Mr Fielder spent about 80 hours on this including the photography trips.

Unless he travelled from the moon, he really needs to work on his retouching skills! 80hrs=10 working days=2 weeks....