Judge: "Photographers who compose a picture in a similar way to an existing image risk copyright inf - Polidicks

[img]http://i.imgur.com/QgeQE.png[/img][img]http://i.imgur.com/HUlai.png[/img] [quote]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. UK souvenir maker Temple Island Collection Ltd has won a ruling against New English Teas which it had accused of breaching copyright by using a photo of a London bus on its packaging. Welcoming the news, Temple Island Collection's managing director Justin Fielder – who shot the image in August 2005 and then manipulated it using Photoshop – said: 'As creator of the Red Bus image, and originators of the product concept, we gave New England Teas the opportunity to license with us and work collaboratively, but this was declined.' The case, heard at the Patents County Court in London on 12 January, could have serious implications for photographers, according to photographic copyright expert Charles Swan, a lawyer at Swan Turton, who said: 'His honour Judge Birss QC decided that a photograph of a red London bus against a black and white background of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament, with a blank sky, was similar enough to another photograph of the same subject matter to infringe copyright.' He added: 'The decision is perhaps surprising, given the commonplace subject matter of the photographs. The judge himself admitted that he found it a difficult question, but in the end he decided that a substantial part of photograph one [Temple Island's image] had been reproduced in photograph two [New English Teas'].' Swan warned: 'The Temple Island case is likely to herald more claims of this kind. The judgement should be studied by anyone imitating an existing photograph or commissioning a photograph based on a similar photograph. '“Inspiration' and “reference” are fine in themselves, but there is a line between copying ideas and copying the original expression of ideas which is often a difficult one to draw.' Though, in the past, the cost of such court actions has made them 'uneconomic to pursue' this is all about to change, added Swan. 'The UK government has accepted a recommendation in the Hargreaves Report that the Patents County Court… should operate a small claims procedure for intellectual property claims under £5,000.' Though the images are not identical, the judge ruled that Fielder's composition of the image, to include such features as the 'visual contrast' of the bright red bus and monochrome background, were the photographer's 'intellectual creation'. Philip Partington, an intellectual property expert at law firm McDaniel & Co, added: 'The action for copyright infringement was the second made by Temple Island Collection against New English Teas. 'Action was first taken in 2010, on discovering a range of products by New English Teas showing a red bus design, which Temple Island Collection and their lawyers felt was a copy of their famous image.' In a further possible twist, Nicholas Houghton, the owner of New English Teas which is based in Coventry, told Amateur Photographer on 25 January that the legal process was ongoing. 'We can't comment I'm afraid,' he said. In a follow-up phone call, the firm declined to say whether it plans to appeal the decision and refused to discuss the matter further. [/quote] [url=http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html]SOURCE[/url]

not sure if (almost) good or just very bad/stupid why would they feel the need to sue over this?

Fuck you. I'll photograph any way I want.

Jesus fuck what's with people being so incredibly anal about copyright? OH NO IT'S SIMILAR HE'S COPYING ME RAGE RAGE Whatever happened to common sense.

Oh for the love of everything that's good and sensible. They're not even THAT similar.

WHAT THE FUCK? SERIOUSLY? ok if any other judge talks about copyright infringement should go and kill himself against wall.

Define "similar way".

I swear, "copyright infringement" is ALL I fucking hear about these days.

You don't need to trump up copyright, surely this is a matter for stronger trademarking terms and conditions? This is empirically stupid.

Clearly this judge has seen too many people taking "artistic" pictures of trees and run them through photoshop and wants to punish people.

Copyrighting photos of public places shouldn't be allowed [to an extent]. It's fucking ridiculous if you go and take a photo of a public structure but get in trouble because some dumbass "professional" photographer copyrighted it.

this is fucking dumb.

Why is the entertainment industry slowly debasing it's own income source?

Oh shit, stock image photographers will shit their pants. Look up how many pictures of lemon slices you can find. Good luck finding the only single person who ever had this idea. Or would this ruling only count if it's a pic of the same lemon slice but from slightly different angles?

[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;34390062]not sure if (almost) good or just very bad/stupid why would they feel the need to sue over this?[/QUOTE] How could you think this is even possibly good? This is an abomination.

If your ass looks similar to someone else's you risk copyright infringement.

Isn't all art, movies, music or any type of media somewhere a copy of another persons work with a new spin or twist? People get influence from other people, it does not mean they're criminals. The movie industry should be suing the shit out of each other seeing as most plots, themes and storylines are copied.

I sense a lot of lawsuits will center around this landmark and this particular pose: [img]http://flyadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/The-Leaning-Tower-of-Pisa.jpg[/img]

It's a picture. You're taking a snapshot of life from your eyes. [B]What the hell is happening to the world.[/B]

Step 1: Find the oldest picture you have of a portrait shot Step 2: [i]World domination[/i]

deviantart is going to be happy

Intellectual Property is becoming more dangerous. This is what happens when you value money over artistry. [editline]25th January 2012[/editline] This isn't even insulting, this is just fucking twisted.

Brb patenting "portrait" and "group photo" and getting rich.

Guys, this is good. Now we only have to sue all those girls doing duckface poses, so we'll get rid of them! Also, we should find a way to assure judges have a working brain.

[QUOTE=rosthouse;34391367]Also, we should find a way to assure judges have a working brain.[/QUOTE] Do they even have [i]one[/i]?

[quote]UK souvenir maker Temple Island Collection Ltd has won a ruling against New English Teas which it had accused of breaching copyright by using a photo of a London bus on its packaging. [/quote] In this context it makes sense. The pictures look remarkably similar and it could create brand confusion. Individual photographers, photography as art, and that sort of thing shouldn't be held to the same standard as a brand is.

All this copyright bullcrap lately starts to get on my nerves, let's file a copyright on filing copyrights and get zillions of dosh as a massive mafia-like entity ruling the planet with an iron fist. Dickwaving is scheduled 24/7 by the way.

I blame apple

Jesus fucking Christ, RIP common sense homo habilis - homo infringis.

Oh man, all those sunset photographers better find a different cliche.