Have you ever taken a photograph?

[Kaotik]

Chances are, you're breaking someones copyrights
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...t_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html

British judge has ruled that a photograph taken by someone else was "similar enough" to infringe copyrights of the one who took the first picture.

The images can be seen at least here if the link doesn't work for you
http://fin.afterdawn.com/uutiset/ar...nkaltainen_kuva_voi_rikkoa_tekijanoikeuslakia

 

[Bludd]

That's a huge can of worms. Is he appealing? Because that is crazy.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Not quite that simple. Company A takes a picture and manipulates it for use as it's symbol/logo/packaging. Company B working in the same industry as Company A takes a very similar picture with the same elements, colouring, manipulation, and nearly the same composition, and uses it as symbol/logo packaging. You would look at it as "passing off" at the very least.

 

[Bludd]

But then it is a trademark issue and not copyright!

 

[Kaotik]

But then it is a trademark issue and not copyright!

Exactly, but this was judged as copyright, not trademark issue

 

[Bludd]

Exactly, but this was judged as copyright, not trademark issue

Which is why he should appeal for all he's worth.

 

[hoho]

Let's sue the police and security services for pretty much any security video they've taken in public. They are bound to get tons of stuff that is similar to existing videos. Just take any movie with random people scene.

 

[Davros]

Is he appealing?

Yes, he's bloody lovely.....

 

[V3]

I think the ruling is right. As long as people need to make money from photography they need to be able to protect their work from copycat.

 

[Kaotik]

I think the ruling is right. As long as people need to make money from photography they need to be able to protect their work from copycat.

Seriously? So first professional photographer ever to take photo of, say, the pyramids from the usual angle, should be able to collect money from everyone who ever took a photo from the pyramids from similar direction?

 

[Humus]

Neither of the involved photos are particularly creative artistic pieces in need of protection.

 

[Alexko]

Yes, he's bloody lovely.....

 

[V3]

Seriously? So first professional photographer ever to take photo of, say, the pyramids from the usual angle, should be able to collect money from everyone who ever took a photo from the pyramids from similar direction?

If he can proved to be the first photographer to take the photo, sure why not. If people don't want to pay him to use the photo professionally, wait a hundred years or take it using different composition.

 

[V3]

Neither of the involved photos are particularly creative artistic pieces in need of protection.

That goes to most pos that are copyprotected or even patented. As long as the piece can make money, it will be disputed when copied.

I still think the protection should be shorten to ten years to make things more competitive and develops faster.

 

[Sxotty]

It is foolish sorry. You should not be able to copyright a photo angle and content.

 

[Grall]

If he can proved to be the first photographer to take the photo, sure why not. If people don't want to pay him to use the photo professionally, wait a hundred years or take it using different composition.

Ludicrous. Since he doesn't own all of what is shown in the photograph (and probably not even one single thing), there's no way he should be awarded copyright for the contents either.

 

[Simon F]

It is foolish sorry. You should not be able to copyright a photo angle and content.

There are better summaries here: and here.

In essense, AFAIU, the judge was not saying that there was a problem with the original content of the photos (i.e. subject & angle), but that artistic work was then applied to both pictures (removal of people, colouration) afterwards, and it was the combination of all of these that was looked at.

If, of course, one could find "prior art" examples, which I think is fairly likely as I'm sure I saw similar on sale in markets in the mid-90s, then maybe a successful appeal can be made.

 

[Sxotty]

If, of course, one could find "prior art" examples, which I think is fairly likely as I'm sure I saw similar on sale in markets in the mid-90s, then maybe a successful appeal can be made.

That is actually what I was going to say next, but such things are going to get so fuzzy so fast it will be ridiculous. I mean how close do they have to be?

 

[jlippo]

That is actually what I was going to say next, but such things are going to get so fuzzy so fast it will be ridiculous. I mean how close do they have to be?

Apparently not very..

I would love to see what kind of problems this will cause for nature photographers.. (IE. Closeup of a little bird on a tree..)

 

[zed]

Neither of the involved photos are particularly creative artistic pieces in need of protection.

yes sad to see its not just software patents, that are granted retarded IP