Jump to content

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, JeffGreenberg said:
> a. photos are copyrighted the moment they are created
> b. photos have protection from copying the moment they are created
 
 Your photograph is copyrighted the moment you take it BUT in a public space your photograph is just another photograph, it does not matter if a photographer next to you took a similar looking image, his image is different. I have photographed street scenes as news images many times, on one occasion i  took a series of images and as i was leaving i saw a photographer from one of the big alphabet picture agencies get out of his car and go and stand in the exact spot that i had i stood in and take a set of images. Did i complain, no because he did nothing wrong. I actually found it amusing.
 

 

Edited by Lynchpics
Correction
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:
> a. photos are copyrighted the moment they are created
> b. photos have protection from copying the moment they are created
 
One further point:
if, in fact (b) should instead be
photos have protection from copying the moment they are published-broadcast
then there is no infringement possibility before I posted to LiveNewsWeather
as I never showed-broadcast my image to anyone except the wifey...
 

If I take a photo of the White House from the exact same spot as a photographer did in 1967, am i violating copyright?

If I take a photo of Trump 1/500th later than the photographer standing next to me at a presser, am I violating copyright?

 

You are deluded man 

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The copyright applies to what it is produced on the film/memory card surely, not the subject? As Reyern points out, there would otherwise be infinite breaches of copyright!

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't possible for two photographers to take exactly the same photo at exactly the same time. They can capture the same instant in time, but there will always be a difference between the two photos because they aren't taken from the exact same location. It can be close, but there will be clues evident upon close examination: https://petapixel.com/2018/03/07/two-photographers-unknowingly-shot-millisecond-time/

 

Therefore, complaining about copyright to another photographer who is shooting the same thing you are is rather silly.

 

 

Edited by TABan
Wrong link.
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are two photos taken at nearly the same instant, taken by two different photographers on VJ Day in Times Square, NY....the top one, by the legendary Alfred Eisenstadt and was made famous by Life magazine.  The other was taken by a government photographer that got nowhere near the press.  Of course I think that Eisenstadt getting the full length of the sailor and nurse, made a big difference in the impact of the photo.  They could have very well used the same camera and lens but no two photos are ever alike when taken by two different people.

life-vj-day-soldier-kissing-girl_u-l-f8m

the-famous-kiss-in-new-york-city-s-times

Edited by Michael Ventura
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Setting up a shot and editing it to look like a previously taken shot is probably infringement and there have been several cases where this was the legal decision. Two photogs shooting the same scene or event from a few feet away from each other isn't infringement. If one can't discern the difference between the two scenarios, there is not much more to be said. In the U.S. and many other countries including the U.K. I believe, you establish copyright when you click the shutter. Since the photos are not exactly the same in the second scenario, each photog owns their respective photos.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

No one in this thread provides authoritative legal to support their lay assumptions-anecdotes.

BAM: (& its UK based)

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1166562748/imitated-image-copyright-case

If you read through the comments on that article you will see that it looks like the infringer photoshopped in a stock image of the bus. Note point 8 in the judgement:

"They combined and manipulated Mr Houghton's images as well as an iStockphoto image of a Routemaster bus. The bus was resized to fit and the road marks were changed to be consistent. The stock image was used for parts of the bus. Annex 2 was the result."

Annex 2 is the image at the bottom. This shows that the defendants intended to produce a similar image, which wasn't produced independently (which would've been a different matter).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see Alamy photographers in the future saying to any American shooter they come across in London "I think you're Jeff Greenberg and I won't tell anyone you're here provided you have coffee with me".

 

Alan

Edited by Inchiquin
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

No one in this thread provides legal cases to support their assumptions-anecdotes.

BAM:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1166562748/imitated-image-copyright-case

 

Without the post shoot manipulation of the photos being alike, this would not be a case at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

9 hours ago, Lynchpics said:

If you read through the comments on that article you will see that it looks like the infringer photoshopped in a stock image of the bus. Note point 8 in the judgement:

"They combined and manipulated Mr Houghton's images as well as an iStockphoto image of a Routemaster bus. The bus was resized to fit and the road marks were changed to be consistent. The stock image was used for parts of the bus. Annex 2 was the result."

Annex 2 is the image at the bottom. This shows that the defendants intended to produce a similar image, which wasn't produced independently (which would've been a different matter).

Re: the article referred to and the fact that : The judge concluded that the claimant (Justin Fielder)'s image is original and that the intellectual creation resided both in the compositional elements of the image and the contrast aspects. Specifically, Judge Birss QC highlighted two visual contrasts: 'one between the bright red bus and the monochrome background, and the other between the blank white sky and the rest of the photograph.'

 

Now I begin to wonder where this could end up: Many will recall the famous recurring intellectual creation and the compositional element in the movie Schindler's List where a little girl in a bright red coat is pictured going to her death in the gas chambers against the monochrome background of the masses being herded to their deaths. Did Steven Spielberg copy (Justin Fielder)'s intellectual creation etc or did Justin Fielder copy Steven Spielberg's intellectual creation etc.

 

.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert M Estall said:

I was always surprised this was pursued as a copyright infringement as it was really a shameful example of visual plagiarism. Doubtless lawyers considered their options

If you followed the case and read all the judgements it became clear that there had been a previous altercation between the parties with undertakings given. The defendant decided to sail close to the wind so HHJ Birss took some out of his sails.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff!

 

I thank you for your candour and your explanations even though my own recollection of our exchange is slightly different because I didn't catch the words may and if:

 

On 9/2/2018 at 01:49, JeffGreenberg said:

I said, "you (may) have infringed my photo if you've taken same photo."

 

But I don't wish to dwell on I said/you said. The Square is always noisy and distracting and as Funkyworm posted, it was indeed a great shame we didn't enjoy the benefit of speaking on better terms and for longer - though I respect your need to keep moving (we probably have more in common than you think) so perhaps, when you're next over you might message me and the two of us can enjoy a genuine handshake somewhere.  

 

And even more positively, this thread has added one more valuable forum discussion concerning copyright - so thanks to everyone for their continuing input.

 

Richard Baker (OP).

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.