Somebody stole my photo

Status
Not open for further replies.
The thing to remember is we do not own the light we capture or the places we shoot. We only own the image on a piece of film. Also we do not own the concept or idea that goes into making the photo only the physical image and the rights of reproduction.

A few years ago the US federal gov. deceided they were going to charge photographers royalties for the stock images they sold taken in public federal parks. I think they found they didn't own the view and didn't own the light that falls on it. Also the issue of PUBLIC was a factor since technically we as tax paying US citizens own the public lands. Had they been able to enforce this I believe they would have done it.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
 
x-ray said:
Unless this is the ACTUAL image that you made there is no legal issue.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily:

http://www.nylawline.com/articlephotog1.htm

http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html

Q: If someone infringes my work, do I have to catch the infringer in the act?

A. No. It is not necessary to have finite proof that an infringer copied a work in order to prove copyright infringement. Infringement can be established simply by proving that the alleged infringer had access to the copyrighted work and that the offending work is substantially similar to the original.

The concept of substantial similarity is another tricky copyright concept. For example, making an illustration directly from a photograph without permission would be risking infringement. If the illustration were substantially similar to the photograph, there will be an infringement. The degree of similarity between an original work and a copy can cover a broad range from an exact copy to substantial similarity to some similarity to no similarity. The degree of similarity is a question for the court to decide. Common sense and good judgment must prevail.
Click to expand...

http://www.editorialphoto.com/resources/4-05_Legal News-Similars.pdf

The above is a pdf file - but read especially the bit about "substantially similar."

As I've said here before - I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. My opinion is that this is a grey area here in the USA, no idea how it is handled overseas.

But I don't think you can just say that if it is not an actual copy of your photo itself then it does not infringe - it very well may.

These are great questions, though. As photographers, it behooves us all to have some idea of what our rights are, where our ownership starts and stops, that kind of thing.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
x-ray said:
The thing to remember is we do not own the light we capture or the places we shoot. We only own the image on a piece of film. Also we do not own the concept or idea that goes into making the photo only the physical image and the rights of reproduction.
Click to expand...

Not true, not true:

http://www.photosource.com/cpyright/cpyjan01.html

The Court noted that while Leigh’s copyright does not cover the appearance of the statue or the association of the statue with the Midnight story, his copyright does protect elements of artistic craft such as "the selection of lighting, shading, timing, angle, and film." If the jury concludes that the photographer who took the Warner Brothers stills copied these protected elements from Leigh’s work, Leigh will win this aspect of his lawsuit.

* - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
* Leigh v Warner Bros. 10 F.Supp 2d 1371, 1998
Click to expand...

A few years ago the US federal gov. deceided they were going to charge photographers royalties for the stock images they sold taken in public federal parks. I think they found they didn't own the view and didn't own the light that falls on it. Also the issue of PUBLIC was a factor since technically we as tax paying US citizens own the public lands. Had they been able to enforce this I believe they would have done it.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045[/QUOTE]

Do you have a cite for this? I'm curious how it came up and was decided.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Bill beat me to pointing out that x-ray's information was incorrect on a number of points.

There's a short article in this month's PDN that covers some ground on infringement and the current status of court rulings.
 
Well, like I said, a gray area. Here's a good one:

http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/copyright/faq1.php

Q: How close is close when it comes to infringing on another photographer’s copyrighted image? If the best shot of a scene is from the same spot, at about the same time of day, and under the same conditions as another, already-copyrighted image, is it an infringement to take a similar shot and market this commercially?

A: The key word in your question is “similar.” To prove copyright infringement, a plaintiff would have to show that a new work constitutes “actionable copying” by being “substantially similar.”

For example, a recent case in Louisiana concerned a photographer, well known for a certain photo of a famous view of New Orleans’ Jackson Square, who sued an artist selling a view of the same site taken from almost the same spot. The two photos have many similarities: Both were taken at the same time of day. Both incorporate mist. Both have banana leaves framing the photo.

But one has rain puddles on the ground while the other does not. In one photograph, the elements are centered, while in the other they are off-center. The St. Louis Cathedral is more prominent in one than in the other. The depth of field in one photograph is focused on the gate to the Square, while in the other the focus is further back. The lighting and positioning of elements in each image are slightly different.

To the judge, the original seemed to be artistic, while the second did not achieve the same level of artistry. The judge ruled that no infringement had taken place — that while the photos were similar (even framed similarly), and even though the artist admitted he had seen the photographer’s original work before he photographed his, they were not “substantially similar.” If you are curious, you can read the complete ruling, but note that this decision is currently being appealed.
Click to expand...

It is really hard to say if Jon's copycat guy would be considered to have violated his copyright if the same thing happened here in the USA. It might come down to what the judge had for lunch that day and how he felt about it!

I still feel for Jon, it has to hurt to see what appears to be a direct rip off of your photo appear in a calendar. And x-ray was right about 'what if Jon's photo was made second and not first?'

Sticky wicket, eh?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
There is a difference between well-known tourist places photographed and between artistic images that have a small probability of being duplicated "by chance" alone. It is well-known that many texts advocate buying postcards at tourist locations and then going to the same places where the photos were taken and even using the same angles for photos.
 
Jon Claremont said:
I have a great photo and it's often used in tourism publicity and the like.

Now somebody has gone to almost the same location and replicated it for a calender.

Not a coincidence. The composition is exactly the same and he even has a hunched up old guy walking out of the frame too.

I walked into a bar and there was 'my' photo on a 2006 calender!
Click to expand...

Everytime I make a photograph I wonder - hasn't EVERYONE already done this shot?

Obviously when it comes to landmark shots such as doing an Ansel Adams at El Capitan in Yosemite - what can you do that's different (except the sky - and everyone else has done that too)? Nothing.

So we all try to be "unique" in a world where billions of images are shot everyday. Sorry truth is - oftentimes - there are going to be both inadvertant and deliberate "duplicates".

With your pic - sorry some one made a mimic of it - but was it that "unique" to begin with?
 
raid amin said:
There is a difference between well-known tourist places photographed and between artistic images that have a small probability of being duplicated "by chance" alone. It is well-known that many texts advocate buying postcards at tourist locations and then going to the same places where the photos were taken and even using the same angles for photos.
Click to expand...

The trouble starts when you sell an image as opposed to having a similar image for personal use. When money is involved people use copy right to protect themselves commercially.

Bob
 
I heard that Tuscany has copyrighted the landscapes there.

I think I can go and be ok. But if a big Hollywood studio wants to shoot a movie they have to pay a copyright fee to the Italian government.

This is the exact oppostite of many cities setting up film liaison units to encourage and help film makers. These cities know that people will watch the movie and want to visit the locations.

For example 'The Talented Mr Ripley' was shot on location in Capri and now people vacation there to see the locations.
 
Peter said:
Hi Jon,

Sorry to hear what happened. You have my empathy as I have something similar 2 years ago. I submitted a research proposal in my institution, only to be rejected by my supervisor. A year later at the annual scientific meeting, I was shocked to see my proposal being published under the name of the same supervisor who trashed it! I have since moved to another job and it is not difficult to understand why. Why the good guys always get the shit!

Regards,
Peter
Click to expand...

Peter

Sad but not the first time I've heard about something like that...

Nick
 
nickchew said:
Peter

Sad but not the first time I've heard about something like that...

Nick
Click to expand...

Hi Nick,

How's things going for you? You should be coming home soon? We must get the rest of the guys for the Durian buffet that we fantasised about! Happy New Year to you and your family! :)

Regards,
Peter
 
In germany we have a concept named "Schöpfungshöhe" basicaly this means how unique and creative your work is. Unstaged photographs are pretty low there. A green instead of a blue building is enough difference to justify a newly created work.
If I shoot a graffity on a wall that is not my work, my photo is not a unique work of my own but a document of the work of others. Anybody can reshoot the location.
If I rent or buy a wall to paint a graffity to shoot it, this is totaly different and I own both, the graffity and the photo. Especialy when I created the graffity to shoot the photo!
 
I just popped to to a cafe for a coffee.

An old guy there, a retired steel worker I think, said to me "We like your photo".

"What photo" I replied.

He went to the calendar and flipped through to November/December.

"No, that's not mine" I said.

He is an ordinary sort of guy and looked shocked that somebody could have replicated my image. I played it cool and told him that the building is there, and old guys are everywhere and I'm not the only one to see the possibilities. But he clearly thinks it's out of order and announced his thoughts to all the other retirees in the cafe.

That's nice that he can 'see' my style and not attribute the five other images to me, but just this one.

Off topic: went out this morning and ran into the communist candidate for president and his supporters with red flags. A little like my avatar. So some nice shots there.

Off topic again: then went out again this afternoon and came across an old couple in the central square. Him playing an accordian and her doing a word puzzle. About five teeth between them. They want some prints so here's hoping I managed to focus correctly!
 
Socke said:
In germany we have a concept named "Schöpfungshöhe" basicaly this means how unique and creative your work is. Unstaged photographs are pretty low there. A green instead of a blue building is enough difference to justify a newly created work.
If I shoot a graffity on a wall that is not my work, my photo is not a unique work of my own but a document of the work of others. Anybody can reshoot the location.
If I rent or buy a wall to paint a graffity to shoot it, this is totaly different and I own both, the graffity and the photo. Especialy when I created the graffity to shoot the photo!
Click to expand...

Having done work in multimedia and film projects, this concept is no different than US copyright laws for various media. I believe it's the concept of derivative work -- photographing a piece of art, whether it be a photo, sculpture, painting, grafitti, etc... the photographer cannot claim the photo as an original work -- it's a derivative work of something else... the original copyright still applies.

I think photos like this that are shot on the street are a little more difficult because unless it can be shown that the works themselves are original and created independently from one another, they could be chance creations. The likelihood of something like that happening in an area that is highly photographed is probably pretty high, and is probably going to be more likely with the "more than amateur" photographers who are applying composition rules.

I've come across several photos on flickr that have an uncanny resemblance to mine, but they are also taken in areas that are highly photographed. I think there are actually several instances or two where flickr users have ended up identifying that photos were either taken either at the same time, by chance, or within a small period of time from one another...

I haven't seen the calendar, but this one could go either way... I don't know the laws on re-interpretation of a photo, but I think that unless certain key elements are copyrighted, I think these types of works may be considered original works.
 
Last edited:
About 10 years ago there was a case in Kentucky centered around the design of the Kentucky License Plate. The image depicted a mare cantering with her foal. The image looks like the foal is superimposed on top of the mare. Someone had copied a well-known B&W photo, taken, incedently, using a Leica. I do not remember who the photographer was, but he sued and the state of Kentucky was forced to remove the image from its license plates.

Kevin
 
Not a good idea to put down other forum members with no foundation at all

Not a good idea to put down other forum members with no foundation at all

i know this is an old article, but you will never hear me say anything about another forum member AT ALL in a negative light. We all belong to this forum to learn from each other and have a good time. I do not appreciate the gentleman mentioning my name Edward A. Leskin in context with the issue at hand. I am a professional, and I have very high standards, and do not engage in character assassination. This is the one and only time I will respond to this issue. This person has too much time on his hands (he uses that time to project anger onto others, and blaming them for his own faults). I feel sorry for him, and wish him well. I am too busy doing good things in my life to put up web sites about others. Life is too short for this.
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial fund, the Steelworkers Archives, Touchstone
Theatre, Sands Casino, The Iron Pigs Baseball Team, Metropolis Magazine, Pratt Institute: They will all say the same thing about me and it is not negative at all. The green eyed monster must be put to sleep here once and for all.
 
If kragmeister lied in his post, then you have basis for legal action. If he didn't lie, then it's not character assassination.

Interesting resurrection of a 3.5 year old thread...
 
You know, almost every photo of a cat in calendars, and the like, look like photos I've taken. They often even use the same orange Tabby like ours.
 
OK, on a more serious note, we have many photos of Kinkakuji (gold) temple in Japan. Many are postcard and poster quality. Before taking these, we never (consciously) saw photos of this temple. Now we see the photos everywhere. Did someone copy our photos?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom