Copyright: selective colour and blown skies

[Lss]

Here's a shocker/something to laugh/cry at:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...t_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html

 

[250swb]

All it now requires is for everybody to trawl through their images of London buses and find something to prove you had the idea even earlier. Could be a money earner.

Steve

 

[taskoni]

This is ridiculous... Brits...

But imagine if this happens in France!!!

 

[Ezzie]

Something similar has happened in France. The Louvre Pyramid is copyrighted with respect to pictures. Any commercial use of pictures of the pyramid needs to be cleared with the architect of the structure.

But I agree. The court can't have understood the ramifications of such a decision. This is ridiculous. The pictures may resemble eachother in concept, but to say one is an intellectual copy of the other is a bit far fetched. Red on B+W must be the most popular method of visual contrasting techniques ever. Its hardly new.

 

[Sparrow]

I normally laugh at these, but then they are normally not in this country ... and anyway the bridge, westminster and St Stephen's tower must be out of copyright by now ... what were they thinking

 

[j j]

Not what it seems... It was a fight about packaging and corporate image, not photography.

The case does not (of course!) mean that you can't take pics of buses and the Houses of Parliament (that would indeed be funny). It means that you can't set out to copy someone else's photo and use it commercially. The case kicked off because the two images were used on packaging seen side-by-side on the same shelf in a shop.

"The defendants went to rather elaborate lengths to produce their image when it seems to me that it did not need to be so complicated. Mr Houghton could have simply instructed an independent photographer to go to Westminster and take a picture which includes at least a London bus, Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament. Whatever image was produced could then have been used on the tins of tea. Such an image would not infringe." Said the be-wigged one.

I would have thought photographers would be all for this.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

Time to start striving for some original shots.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Time to start striving for some original shots.

Dear Andrea,

You mean you're NOT in favour of slavish copies of Ansel Adams shots?

Shame on you. Say three Hail Kodaks and go to the camera store on all Holy Days of Obligation until Easter.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MickH]

I am with His Honour on this one. With the second pic also being used for commercial purposes the usual defence of 'it's an artistic homage', or 'it's a coincidence' just don't stack up. I'm sure any pro photographer here who saw a similar copy of their own work would be crying 'Foul!' as loud as possible.

 

[jsrockit]

San Francisco has restricted the use of photos of the Golden Gate Bridge. They have been unable to restrict the use of aerial views. The restrictions -(copyright claim) come from the photos being taken on Bridge property, though the bridge district will not outline the property lines.

Anyone interested in taking photos from non district property is given a huge load of BS and threats from the district PR office.

Probably due to this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_(2006_film)

 

[kode]

Not what it seems... It was a fight about packaging and corporate image, not photography.

Which really should've made it a trademark case, not one of copyright.

On the other hand, I suppose it can be argued that the treshold of originality on photographs is sometimes a bit too low.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

Dear Andrea,

You mean you're NOT in favour of slavish copies of Ansel Adams shots?

Shame on you. Say three Hail Kodaks and go to the camera store on all Holy Days of Obligation until Easter.

Cheers,

R.

I will. And I shall be redeemed. 🙂