- This topic is empty.
Copyright of a scene
-
Saw this on another forum & was interested in what people here think of this. What affect will it have here (if any)?
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/01/uk-ruling-says-similar-composition-enough-violate-copyright” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;OMG what was the judge on at the time Q.1 if a wedding photographer set up a shot at a wedding now in England and a guest/guest’s took a shot of it as well , will the photographer clam infringement violation’s of the guest/guest’s from now on ?
Good to see that the important things in life have been sorted out and the courts can focus on such matters.
are they for real, i mean its nature you cannot stop someone from shooting the same thing as you, as for the pics in the article they have a red bus in them in london….. thats a rarity lol
Paragraph 31 of the judge’s summation stated that in this case, he considered that a deliberate attempt was made to duplicate the original image, thereby creating an infringement of copyright.
I finally looked at both images and thought about what I was seeing. The iconic Temple Island Collections image isn’t just a snap of a famous place. Some thought went into removing all the color but the red bus. You or I might try to do the same thing but not try to use it commercialy. Isn’t that appoximately what the judge said.
But this case does sound like the thin end of a long wedge.
I think that in this case, it wasn’t that the original photo was re-created per se (an exact copy), but that the concept of the original had been deliberately copied (including the processing) to be used commercially & was close enough in comparison for a person to believe that it was taken by the original photographer. There are many photos of red buses in this area which look similar, but this (new) image was a merge of three images to create a scene which after processing was close enough (in the judges opinion), to say that the original had been deliberately copied.
miki g wrote:
I think that in this case, it wasn’t that the original photo was re-created per se (an exact copy), but that the concept of the original had been deliberately copied (
But, you can’t copyright a concept.
I can see this case being appealed and overturned upon appeal.
It’s a crazy decision by the judge.
If you look on stock sites, or even flickr, you will see plenty of relatively similar images, which on that ruling would also be in breach of copyright.
I would be in complete agreement that a concept cannot be copyrighted & would be very surprised if this is not appealed & overturned.
You or I might try to do the same thing but not try to use it commercialy. Isn’t that appoximately what the judge said.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
