The new British standard for copyright infringement...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The new British standard for copyright infringement...

Magnus Manske-2
...photos that somehow look similar:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html

The servers are safe (well, relatively speaking) in the U.S., but
should people in the UK be concerned when uploading images?


Magnus

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The new British standard for copyright infringement...

James Forrester-5
On 25 January 2012 19:18, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...photos that somehow look similar:
>
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html

Good heavens. That's bonkers; there's possibly a trademark argument,
but copyright?!

> The servers are safe (well, relatively speaking) in the U.S., but
> should people in the UK be concerned when uploading images?

It may be a bit to early to say - it's still apparently on-going (appeal?)...

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
[hidden email] | [hidden email]
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The new British standard for copyright infringement...

Harry Burt

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:24 PM, James Forrester <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 25 January 2012 19:18, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...photos that somehow look similar:
>
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html



It is worth having a glance at the images themselves:

http://www.swanturton.com/multimedia/docs/Temple%20Island%20v%20New%20English%20photographs.pdf

I can understand why "Amateur Photographer" magazine are worried, but the language they use in the article makes the two images sound far more different than they actually were IMHO.

--
Harry (User:Jarry1250)


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The new British standard for copyright infringement...

geni
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
On 25 January 2012 19:18, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...photos that somehow look similar:
>
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html
>
> The servers are safe (well, relatively speaking) in the U.S., but
> should people in the UK be concerned when uploading images?
>
>
> Magnus

Nothing new here. Its always been understood that in theory if you see
a photo and take another photo that is similar enough to it to be
considered a derivative work that that is a copyright violation.
However in most cases it would be extremely hard to prove and people
don't care enough to try.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The new British standard for copyright infringement...

Rich Farmbrough
I wonder if
http://www.popartuk.com/photography/london/red-bus-on-westminster-bridge-ph0408-poster.asp 
would have been considered enough to make the idea non-novel.

On 25/01/2012 22:23, geni wrote:

> On 25 January 2012 19:18, Magnus Manske<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> ...photos that somehow look similar:
>>
>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html
>>
>> The servers are safe (well, relatively speaking) in the U.S., but
>> should people in the UK be concerned when uploading images?
>>
>>
>> Magnus
> Nothing new here. Its always been understood that in theory if you see
> a photo and take another photo that is similar enough to it to be
> considered a derivative work that that is a copyright violation.
> However in most cases it would be extremely hard to prove and people
> don't care enough to try.
>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The new British standard for copyright infringement...

Harry Burt
That might actually be licensed, though.

--
Harry

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Richard Farmbrough <[hidden email]> wrote:
I wonder if http://www.popartuk.com/photography/london/red-bus-on-westminster-bridge-ph0408-poster.asp would have been considered enough to make the idea non-novel.


On 25/01/2012 22:23, geni wrote:
On 25 January 2012 19:18, Magnus Manske<[hidden email]>  wrote:
...photos that somehow look similar:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html

The servers are safe (well, relatively speaking) in the U.S., but
should people in the UK be concerned when uploading images?


Magnus
Nothing new here. Its always been understood that in theory if you see
a photo and take another photo that is similar enough to it to be
considered a derivative work that that is a copyright violation.
However in most cases it would be extremely hard to prove and people
don't care enough to try.



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The new British standard for copyright infringement...

Roger Bamkin
I'm not surprised by this. Copyight is about the interpretation of an idea. If Marcel Duchamp claims copyright on putting a moustache on the Mona Lisa then I can see that I am stealing his idea by putting a moustache on another similar famous painting by da Vinci.

In this case the idea is the red bus against a black and white image. Actually I think the first one is "obvious" having seen Schindlers list, but I can see that others may not consider it "obvious" (You are allowed to infringe another person's copyright if their idea is obvious - I believe).

This is not about  the images being similar its about stealing? the red bus v. black and white parliament image background idea. There was a similar case with the classic guinness ad where someone had already shot a man dancing around a pint of beer. Then Guinness created their own version and refused to credit/pay the man with the original idea (if I remember right)

On 1 February 2012 14:45, Harry Burt <[hidden email]> wrote:
That might actually be licensed, though.

--
Harry


On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Richard Farmbrough <[hidden email]> wrote:
I wonder if http://www.popartuk.com/photography/london/red-bus-on-westminster-bridge-ph0408-poster.asp would have been considered enough to make the idea non-novel.


On 25/01/2012 22:23, geni wrote:
On 25 January 2012 19:18, Magnus Manske<[hidden email]>  wrote:
...photos that somehow look similar:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html

The servers are safe (well, relatively speaking) in the U.S., but
should people in the UK be concerned when uploading images?


Magnus
Nothing new here. Its always been understood that in theory if you see
a photo and take another photo that is similar enough to it to be
considered a derivative work that that is a copyright violation.
However in most cases it would be extremely hard to prove and people
don't care enough to try.



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org




--
Roger Bamkin
01332 702993
0758 2020815
Google+:Victuallers
Skype:Victuallers1
Flickr:Victuallers2


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The new British standard for copyright infringement...

Rich Farmbrough
Not under this ruling.  The ruling adduces several features to establish "copying" - as far as I remember

* A red bus
* A monochrome background
* A white (or clear) sky
* The riverside frontage of the HoP
* The top of the bus being in line with the top of the building
* The bus being "framed" by the building
* The bus being on a bridge

The implication is that as well as the subject and the "popped" colouring,  compositional elements were required to meet the threshold.  The judge also remarked that the plaintiff's definition of what was covered by their copyright was overbroad. See the WP article.

On 01/02/2012 21:56, Roger Bamkin wrote:
I'm not surprised by this. Copyight is about the interpretation of an idea. If Marcel Duchamp claims copyright on putting a moustache on the Mona Lisa then I can see that I am stealing his idea by putting a moustache on another similar famous painting by da Vinci.

In this case the idea is the red bus against a black and white image. Actually I think the first one is "obvious" having seen Schindlers list, but I can see that others may not consider it "obvious" (You are allowed to infringe another person's copyright if their idea is obvious - I believe).

This is not about  the images being similar its about stealing? the red bus v. black and white parliament image background idea. There was a similar case with the classic guinness ad where someone had already shot a man dancing around a pint of beer. Then Guinness created their own version and refused to credit/pay the man with the original idea (if I remember right)

On 1 February 2012 14:45, Harry Burt <[hidden email]> wrote:
That might actually be licensed, though.

--
Harry


On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Richard Farmbrough <[hidden email]> wrote:
I wonder if http://www.popartuk.com/photography/london/red-bus-on-westminster-bridge-ph0408-poster.asp would have been considered enough to make the idea non-novel.


On 25/01/2012 22:23, geni wrote:
On 25 January 2012 19:18, Magnus Manske<[hidden email]>  wrote:
...photos that somehow look similar:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html

The servers are safe (well, relatively speaking) in the U.S., but
should people in the UK be concerned when uploading images?


Magnus
Nothing new here. Its always been understood that in theory if you see
a photo and take another photo that is similar enough to it to be
considered a derivative work that that is a copyright violation.
However in most cases it would be extremely hard to prove and people
don't care enough to try.



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org




--
Roger Bamkin
01332 702993
0758 2020815
Google+:Victuallers
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="Skype:Victuallers1">Skype:Victuallers1
Flickr:Victuallers2



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org