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

I can see this just being a mess. You can't go anywhere in the world as a photographer without taking a photo that's already been shot the same way a thousand times.

This is bullshit.

Can't wait to witness gene patenting. "Sir, you're too genetically similar to your brother. No I don't care that he's your twin."

When will it end

brb copywriting the camera in mirror picture and suing every facebook user

Do I have a right to create a logo? And if I create a logo and make a successful product using that logo, do I have to allow others to put that logo(that I created a market value for) on their products and use it to sell their products too? That's how I see this case. It's not just a photograph. It's an EDITED photograph that has been copied right down to the use of a doubledecker bus and the color scheme.

How is this copyright infringing? It not even the [B]identical[/B] model of the bus for fuck's sake!

Say goodbye to photography and cinematography if this keeps up.

[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;34392313]Can't wait to witness gene patenting. "Sir, you're too genetically similar to your brother. No I don't care that he's your twin."[/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_patent"]You mean this?[/URL]

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;34392502]Do I have a right to create a logo? And if I create a logo and make a successful product using that logo, do I have to allow others to put that logo(that I created a market value for) on their products and use it to sell their products too? That's how I see this case. It's not just a photograph. It's an EDITED photograph that has been copied right down to the use of a doubledecker bus and the color scheme.[/QUOTE] But it's been simplified to photography, and not just ads. Do you not see how this is a problem?

[QUOTE=MightyMax;34391775]I blame apple[/QUOTE] You talk negative things about Apple so much now that you can't even help yourself but talk about them in threads that don't have anything to do with them. Stop it.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;34392580]But it's been simplified to photography, and not just ads. Do you not see how this is a problem?[/QUOTE] Simplified by who? The judge ruled that [quote]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'.[/quote] The importance here is it is NOT about someone snapping a photo of something and getting in trouble because someone else took a picture of that first. If I sat in that spot and waited for a similar bus and took a picture of it, it's impossible for that picture to look anything like that original photo. Why? Because the original has been created in editing, not in photography. The only way for someone to generate a photo that would look similar to the original is to take the time and trouble to not only take a similar photo, but then edit it specifically so that it looks the same. The second company went out of their way to make it look like the original- that's the point. It didn't just happen by itself, it was a deliberate effort. The only counter argument that makes sense to me is if the second company didn't even know about the first photo. Then you could argue it was a coincindence that two artists had the same concept. In this case though it sounds like the second company had heard from the first company that it was a copy and they needed to license the rights. So they can't claim they didn't know better. This kind of thing happens in written form too. You can't copy someone else's book and sell it as your own. Something you claim to write can't be a duplicate of something when someone else already has the copyright for it. The 'intellectual property' part kicks in when it's a creation, whether a visual creation or written it doesn't matter.

Well in that case, I'm going to copyright the duckface.

[quote] 'His honour Judge Birss QC decided that a photograph of a [B]red London bus[/B] against a [B]black and white background[/B] of [B]Big Ben[/B] and the[B] Houses of Parliament[/B], with a [B]blank sky[/B], was similar enough to another photograph of the same subject matter to [B]infringe copyright[/B].' [/quote] lololololololololo Fuckoff. Copyright is a joke, a massive massive joke.

God dammit.. as a photographer this really does upset me :(

And here I thought my government had pulling derp-ass shit with regard to copyright all to themselves...

Have the existing political systems just lost it, or have the private corporations just decided to dig deeper into their own pockets for a bit more [B]bribe cash[/B]?

Copyright infringement is gonna be the new ticket to the electric chair.