Club photos copyright question..

Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by Chi, Dec 5, 2015.

  1. sim667

    sim667 Licking windows on the 303 bus.

    Dressing up a dog that is dressed up and selling it, is not the same as photographing a painting, or and created image with the purpose of selling it.
     
    editor likes this.
  2. Stanley Edwards

    Stanley Edwards 1967 Maserati Mistral.

    You make no sense whatsoever.

    The guy made a costume relevant to the environment with the intent of giving tourists a photo opportunity for a donation. It was he who created the scenario, the scenario is subject to Copyright. You can't get away with photographing and profiting without being liable to a court ruling.

    Copyright existed long before digital photograaphy and the internet. As much as the laaw is having to evolve, fundamentally it remains the same as ever. You cannot steal other peoples creative realisations for the purpose of making profit.
     
  3. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Does a city planner own the copyright on a street scene because they also "created the scenario"?
     
  4. sim667

    sim667 Licking windows on the 303 bus.

    I disagree. Ill check it out in beyond the lens when I get a moment.
     
  5. laptop

    laptop Freudenschade

    Once more, SE is spouting about how he thinks things should be, not how they are.

    The main point to bear in mind is that in this multimedia age, most "works" contain more than one copyright.

    The exception would be a poem in manuscript. In this post there are "thin" copyrights in the font and the forum design as well as the main rights I have in my words.

    So in SE's made-up example: there are copyrights in the photo, the dressing of the dog, the patterns on the clothes in which it is dressed...

    He's about to cry that he's right. He's not.

    In principle, if someone took a photo of the dog and sold it for profit, the designer of the dog could sue.

    BUT they'd be asking a court to decide whether it was a photo OF the dog or a photo that included the dog. All relevant rights in photos that "incidentally" include copyright objects belong to the person who took the photo, you see.

    Much also depends on the use of the photo. Almost everywhere there's some kind of "news and current affairs" exception - in the UK it applies to reproductions of all copyright objects - except photos, for reasons that a moment's thought will clarify.

    For a court to decide these interesting questions will cost a fucking fortune. So much that the alleged right of the dog-owner must remain forever moot.

    Right, that's enough pandering to SE's attention-seeking.
     
    editor likes this.
  6. mhendo

    mhendo Aussie in San Diego

    You are, once again, flat out wrong, at least for the United states, and you have shown nothing in the law that would support you for the UK. Not a single thing. All we have is your own hidebound certainty, backed by no evidence whatsoever.

    As i've said repeatedly, i'm always willing to concede that i might be wrong for the UK, because my knowledge of copyright and fair use is not as well developed for the UK as it is for the US, but i'll need more than your word that your legal "analysis" is correct. Hell, even the one useful link that you have actually provided in this thread doesn't help you because it (a) is for the US, not the UK, and (b) supports my argument a lot more than it supports yours.
     
    editor likes this.
  7. mhendo

    mhendo Aussie in San Diego

    Emphasis mine.

    is this true in the UK? Because in the US my reading of the law and of subsequent rulings suggests that you couldn't claim copyright on a dressed-up dog. Costumes and clothing themselves are, as i noted earlier in the thread, defined as "useful articles," and are not subject to copyright protection, and simply putting a useful article on a dog does not transform the dog into a copyright-protected piece of work, especially as it does not, under US law, constitute a "fixed medium of expression."

    Everything else you've written—regarding the ability to sue, the "photo of dog" vs "photo including dog," as well as the news and current affairs issue—would apply about equally in the US.
     
  8. laptop

    laptop Freudenschade

    My understanding is that in the UK you could claim it... [E2A: it's "fixed" as much as a stage set is] - and my point is that you could do this only if you had limitless resources and the other side none.

    There's no "useful articles" exception (or other let-out) [E2A: made explicit] in the UK. Here, clothing designs most certainly can be subject to copyright (as well as one or more of the design rights).

    Sort of makes up for the lack of character rights in the UK. (E2A: pending some deep-pocketed writer getting the courts to change the law :) )
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2015
  9. Stanley Edwards

    Stanley Edwards 1967 Maserati Mistral.

    Of course not. They are paid under contract to design a public space for public use.
     
  10. Stanley Edwards

    Stanley Edwards 1967 Maserati Mistral.

    There is no real difference between US Copyright law and UK Copyright law. The only difference is that civil legal matters are much more about business and money in the US. The link I posted to very clearly states that costumes are subject to Copyright. That was a link to a quote from a highly respected, international Copyright lawyer.
     
  11. laptop

    laptop Freudenschade

    So you're completely unaware of the US "work for hire" doctrine, just one of the major differences between US and UK copyright law?

    You revel in making yourself look stupid, yes?
     
    editor likes this.
  12. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  13. laptop

    laptop Freudenschade

  14. Stanley Edwards

    Stanley Edwards 1967 Maserati Mistral.

    Whilst the Code has some relevance in the UK,

    Whilst the Code has some relevance in the UK, it references US copyright law. Differences in our legislation mean that certain reproductions of copyrighted artworks which are permitted in the US could conversely be treated as infringements in the UK, depending on the circumstances.

    The UK and US have based their copyright legislation on similar policy objectives; generally, to balance the rights of copyright-owners with a range of other rights, interests and freedoms.
    ----------------------------

    All from the link you provided. There is no real difference other than money/business.

    It pretty much says the laws only differ on wording. UK='fair dealing'. US='fair use'.
     
  15. Stanley Edwards

    Stanley Edwards 1967 Maserati Mistral.

    When is copyright infringed?
    Copyright is infringed when someone carries out one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights without their permission, and an exception to copyright does not apply.

    This can be in relation to the whole or a substantial part of the artistic work. What is "substantial" is determined by a qualitative test, not a quantitative one, which means that there may be an infringement even if a small but distinctive portion of the original artwork is copied.
    -----------------------

    There you go.
     
  16. snadge

    snadge metal alchemist

    Good trolling Stanley, too cold for sexpesting this time of year eh?
     
  17. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    And too cold for physically-assaulting disabled people.
     
  18. Chi

    Chi New Member

    Thanks for all the replies folks :)
     
  19. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  20. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  21. Hocus Eye.

    Hocus Eye. Snap, crop, scrap crap

    I hope you don't do texting on your mobile while piloting. :D
     
  22. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  23. mhendo

    mhendo Aussie in San Diego

    I just looked up this case in the federal court system. It was filed in February, and there have been no hearings yet.

    I did find something interesting, however: in looking up the case, I used the name of the photographer, Alexander Wild, and the search came back with at least 20 cases over the past four years in which he has been the plaintiff. Wild is a well-respected entomologist who works at the University of Texas at Austin as the Curator of Entomology. He takes lots of photos in his work and his research, and his photos have appeared in places like National Geographic and the Smithsonian Magazine.

    Almost every single case I found is against a pest control, lawn care, or similar company. They are located in all parts of the United States, and he has filed suits in various federal districts. The companies themselves seem to range from relatively small operations to large, nationally-known companies like Orkin. I didn't read all of the complaints, because after a certain number the court system starts to charge money to view documents, but I looked at four or five, and they're all pretty much the same. These companies nicked his photos, he tried to get them to stop, and when they ignored his efforts, he filed a lawsuit.

    There's something else that every case I look at has in common: they all ended in a "voluntary dismissal" by Wild. What this means, generally, is that he stopped the lawsuit after reaching some sort of settlement agreement with the companies in question. I'd be willing to bet that every one of these companies goes through just about exactly the same process in this case. I reckon it looks something like this:

    1. You need a picture for your website, so you go and find a cool photo on the internet.
    2. You nick the photo for your website.
    3. When the photographer asks you to take it down, you ignore him, or tell him you're looking into it
    4. You leave the photo on your website.
    5. When the photographer asks you again, ignore him again.
    6. You get served with copyright infringement lawsuit.
    7. You laugh at the lawsuit. "I took two or three pictures. What's the penalty going to be? 50 bucks?"
    8. You send lawsuit to lawyer so he can make it go away.
    9. Lawyer tells you that, because the photographer has registered his image with the US Copyright Office, you could be on the hook for typical usage fees, PLUS legal fees AND up to $150,000 per image in statutory damages. Lawyer also tells you that the fact that the photographer sent you a Cease and Desist notice and you ignored it, and the fact that you're a for-profit company using the image to advertise its services, will probably make the judge more likely to award a large statutory damages amount.
    10. You frantically ask the lawyer what you need to do next.
    11. The lawyer gets in touch with Wild, who says that you need to pay him for use of the images, plus extra for his time, effort, and legal costs.
    12. You pay, because you're going to lose in court if you don't.
    13. Wild dismisses the lawsuit.​

    I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the people who run these companies find out that they can't just take what they want off the internet without paying for it. I wonder how they'd feel if people used their services and refused to pay the bill?

    Wild's website even has a page of images that he's placed in the public domain, and that can be used by anyone for no fee.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2018
    editor likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice