DSLRUsers.com

In the UK but...

Photographers who compose a picture in a similar way to an existing image risk copyright infringement, lawyers have warned following the first court ruling of its kind.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/ne ... 11191.html

When I read the headline I thought the images would be near identical but the article links to the two images in question and well I was surprised...

more:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25 ... right_Case

Interesting situation. Looking at the offending picture from the respondant, who apparently had been offered to purchase the license for the original picture and declined, there is little doubt that they tried to replicate the original photo. I am not sure this is going to set a dangerous precedent.

Reschsmooth wrote:there is little doubt that they tried to replicate the original photo.

Really? The link to the two photos in question is here as a PDF: Photos

The similarities are that the Houses of Parliament and BigBen are in the background, and the bus is red in an otherwise black and white photo.

The location of the photographer is quite different. The one at the top has a relatively wide view taken well away from the road and from some stairs possibly leading down to the Thames, that photo includes the arches of the bridge and the Thames, the other is a street scene taken from the footpath immediately adjacent to the road. The bus is in a different position relative to the photographer and the buildings within view. The photographer appears to be closer to the bus and buildings in the second shot, but this could be the result of using a longer lens.

These photos are not the same, but their photographic treatment of B&W with red bus is similar. They could be from a series I guess though, perhaps that is the problem?

Ok, I read the judgement, and I agree that this does not set a dangerous precedent. The differences I raised were covered in the judgement, and it appears that there is more to this than meets the eye.

It would appear that the copyright holder for the original has also previously collected from the defendant. The defendant appears to be quite poor at learning from their mistakes.

Reschsmooth wrote:Interesting situation. Looking at the offending picture from the respondant, who apparently had been offered to purchase the license for the original picture and declined, there is little doubt that they tried to replicate the original photo. I am not sure this is going to set a dangerous precedent.

wow. i mean thats surprising you would say that pat. if this kind of ruling gets legs, and i dont think it will, it sets a terrible precedent on photography. i have seen photos, and many of them, on this very board that are only slight variations to what i have seen elsewhere.

its right up there with SOPA/ PIPA etc.

I think the dangerous precedent isn't about the images being the same (they're patently not) - it's like they are trying to copyright the idea or technique and not the resultant art (i.e. took a photo and selectively processed it to monochrome (leaving one colour) and did it in high key). I know it may be taking things to extreme but can the person who came up with the idea of composing on thirds now claim copyright against all images which are composed this way? or taking images with artificial light? or how about the idea of taking portraits? or post processing images to black and white?

spot on rodney. the photo of a red bus in london is peripheral. this is limiting a technique or a concept. terrible ruling.

I am surprised by that ruling...for what it is worth, the offending image is my preference between the two

Sorry, I think what is being missed is that the respondent allegedly sought to replicate the claimant's image after the claimant offered to provide a license for a few.

This is very different to a photo of someone jumping over a puddle in front of a railway station.

From what I understand, the intention of the respondent is relevant.

Ok, in my profession, there is no copyright on the advice I give. But there is a copyright over the documents we produce (or at least I presume there is).

dpreview wrote:
He also took into account the evidence that Mr Houghton was aware of Mr Fielder's image (the two had previously been to court when they had failed to reach a licensing agreement over Houghton's previous infringement of Fielder's copyright), to conclude the similarities were causally related.

Correct.

My reading of the case is that the defendant was already in trouble with the claimant over using the image. The defendant then set about to reproduce the qualities and features of the original by using their own image and a stockphoto of the red bus photoshopped into the image, the bus being a type of bus no longer in use.

Basically, they couldn't use the original without paying license fees which they didn't want to pay, so they set about replicating the photo but changing minor features to avoid it being an exact copy.

They should have given up before that and used some other image, they were trying to ride on the coat tails of a successful tourist image plastered on souvenirs all over London.

appears to be a fairly specific case - imagine what the Sydney Harbour Foreshore could with some good lawyers