Online photo theft... again

[Stanley Edwards]

"This country"? I thought you were in Spain?

Oh yeah, so I am. My mind was virtually transposed back to London for a short while last night.

As it happens, just the other day I was talking to someone about a very respected and established UK artist who died not to long ago. One of his works was nicked. He knew nothing until his son bought home a CD featuring the image on the cover. He tried to sue. Lost. No breach of copyright apparently.

Copyright isn't nearly as clear cut or, clearly defined as it once was.


Sun is still shining. Wine is still cheap. People are still beautiful. Yep - I'm definitely still in Spain.

 

[laptop]

about a very respected and established UK artist who died not to long ago. One of his works was nicked. He knew nothing until his son bought home a CD featuring the image on the cover. He tried to sue. Lost. No breach of copyright apparently.

I'm intrigued: if this happened, I need to know. Can you post or PM the artist's name and the name of the entity he sued? If, that is, it actually got to court...

 

[equationgirl]

If it is. However, it would be very difficult to argue that someone else didn't take a very similar shot, if not the exact same shot.

Copyright is supposed to protect an artists original idea or, concept. However, it never has done. Only an image is copyrightable(?). How anyone has the audacity to take a two second snap of a piece of public art and claim ownership of that art is beyond me.

Copyright laws need a complete overhaul IMO. We need to recognise the idea as the original concept. Not the image.

In this case, a work of art was created using several images. The idea and the concept was the installation of story cubes. The original idea of story cubes and the display as a collection far outways any original creativity from any single image used. On their own, they are very mundane, everyday snaps. As a collective concept they say much more. The concept and idea should be protected by Copyright.

No. Copyright protects the EXPRESSION of an idea in a literary, artistic, dramatic and musical works.

The photographer will still have employed some form of creative effort in taking the photograph (composition etc) and so copyright will exist in the photograph of the graffiti as well as the graffiti itself.

You can't go around around trying to protect ideas that haven't been expressed. It would be impossible to regulate - akin to thought police almost!

 

[equationgirl]

Images are no longer valuable commodities. Ideas are. And, ideas should be protected above easy get images.

Rubbish. That's why photographers use image licences, and why Jack Vettriano' images are so popular - because he licensed them.

 

[snadge]

As it happens, just the other day I was talking to someone about a very respected and established UK artist who died not to long ago. One of his works was nicked. He knew nothing until his son bought home a CD featuring the image on the cover. He tried to sue. Lost. No breach of copyright apparently.

If his work was nicked and later on a picture appeared on a cd cover that would lead the police to the recovery of his work, would it not?

He also would be covered by copyright ( as long as the work was owned by him).

 

[equationgirl]

I'd like to see the case law details for that case, Stanley.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

I'm intrigued: if this happened, I need to know. Can you post or PM the artist's name and the name of the entity he sued? If, that is, it actually got to court...

I'll PM you with details tomorrow. Don't want to go into stuff here as it involves a personal friend of artist and like I say, he died not that long ago. Possibly complicated. Possibly not.

 

[Tricky Skills]

Giles speaks...

********

We do not believe that we have 'stolen' your images at all, but created a commentary (or visual essay) on how people's use of new media is changing the way we see and experience the world.

We believe that our use of the images on the cubes is covered by the 'fair use' exemption, and that the photographs of the assembled cubes on the blog (being documentary images of the cubes themselves) are also covered in this way.

********

These arty farty types - full of shit, eh Stanley?

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Giles speaks...

...

These arty farty types - full of shit, eh Stanley?

He actually knows what he speaks of. He's also probably fully confident that you're a little tyke from the ghetto who could never afford to challenge him in court.

If I was you I would be considering a little bit of 'fair use' of his cubes to create a totally new creative experience.

Possibly.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I think you'll also find that as 'your' pic of someone else's art is part of a collection and plays so significant part in the entire image your claims would be groundless even if you had the audacity to fight your corner.

as usual you are talking utter bollocks... why do you do this..

copyright of any imagwe which can be proveably to have been taken by a named photographer regardless of the subject matter this copyright is retian unless it is given up or surrendered to a thrid party or is sold on.

Please stop giving out this erronious information about photgraphic copyright within the UK it is not helping people or informing them of their rights...

regardless of you personal opinion of photographers taking photos of other art works it still isn't right to proclaim a legal postition based on them...

http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/bridge.htm

"... as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law, and that is so irrespective of whether ... the subject of the photographs is more obviously a three dimensional work, such as a sculpture, or is perceived as a two dimensional artistic work, such as a drawing or a painting ..."

please check your facts in future thanks...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

He actually knows what he speaks of. He's also probably fully confident that you're a little tyke from the ghetto who could never afford to challenge him in court.

If I was you I would be considering a little bit of 'fair use' of his cubes to create a totally new creative experience.

Possibly.

if iwere you i'd shut the fuck up about allowing peoples artisitic works of any kind to be ripped off...

you the bloke whose trying to make it as a struggling artist and you arer happy for others to be ripped off..

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I'm intrigued: if this happened, I need to know. Can you post or PM the artist's name and the name of the entity he sued? If, that is, it actually got to court...

it would have been a photograph of his art work which is totally legal...

 

[equationgirl]

The 'fair use' exemption covers the following:

1) research & private study;
2) criticism, review and new reporting;
3) incidental inclusion of copyright material;
4) things done for instruction or examination;
5) anthologies for educational use;
6) playing, showing or performing in an educational establishment;
7) recordings by educational establishments;
8) reprographic copying by educational establishments;
9) libraries and archives (but not a library or an archive ina company, for example).

So, they may be claiming 'fair use' under 3) - incidential inclusion of copyright material. Definition (from 'Intellectual Property Law' by hart & Fazzani) is 'Incidental inclusion of a copyright work in an artistic work, sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme will not be an infringement'.

However, 'the fair dealing defence can now only be made out where there has been a sufficient acknowledgement under section 178, the fairness being derived from the act that the party copying is not seeking to assert rights of ownership over the work' ('Cavendish Lawcards Intellectual Property Law').

I would also tentatively say that Giles and Alice may have breached your moral right to be identified as the author of your photograph, reagrdless of where it is used.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Bollocks. Was just about to give-up and go out. But, but, but...


Look - if someone nicks your car (photographer nicks artists work), then someone else steals it from the thief (website twat takes a screen grab), and the police catch them (Giles and Alice), should they say, 'well, it was already stolen, fair play, let's not bother with it'?

Well, yes, perhaps they should because the police should always be there to protect the public regardless of commercial law.


Now I'm definitely going out.

ok you are totaly mental...

 

[laptop]

I would also tentatively say that Giles and Alice may have breached your moral right to be identified as the author of your photograph, reagrdless of where it is used.

If they didn't credit it, and since their exhibition is neither a newspaper nor a magazine nor reporting current affairs, I'd say that's a definite breach.

And then there's the question of whether their exhibition is utter shite, and if so whether that's a breach of the moral right to object to "derogatory treatment"

 

[equationgirl]

Moral rights of an author of a copyright work are:

1) right to object to derogatory treatemnt of the copyright work;
2) False attribution of a copyright work;
3) Privacy in films & photos;
4) right to be identified as the author of a copyright work.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

as usual you are talking utter bollocks... why do you do this..

copyright of any imagwe which can be proveably to have been taken by a named photographer regardless of the subject matter this copyright is retian unless it is given up or surrendered to a thrid party or is sold on...



please check your facts in future thanks...

I've got my facts straight thanks. You don't have to believe what I write here. No one does.

Read it again in the way a lawyer might read it.

 

[equationgirl]

By the way, for future reference, just becasue a copyright work is sold, unless there is an assignment (written document) transferring the copyright, the author will retain the copyright.

For example, if a designer is contracted to design a company logo, it is essential to ensure that copyright in the logo is also transferred. There were a few red faces at my last employer after I pointed out we didn't actually own the copyright to the logo we had just commisssioned as no copyright assignment had been put in place.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Gosh Stanley, despite law being quoted, from several different sources, you still have this very strange twisted idea of what is going on in your head.

I am hoping you are sitting at the other end of your computer grinning at the furoré you are stirring up - that you are doing it on purpose - and that you don't actually believe the craziness you're coming out with.

 

[equationgirl]

If they didn't credit it, and since their exhibition is neither a newspaper nor a magazine nor reporting current affairs, I'd say that's a definite breach.

And then there's the question of whether their exhibition is utter shite, and if so whether that's a breach of the moral right to object to "derogatory treatment"

Well, I'd say they were on dodgy ground because a) their work is a commercial work obviously intended for sale and b) they did not seek the author's permission or acknowledge tricky as the author in their work.

But I'm not a IP lawyer, just someone who works in the field of IP.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I've got my facts straight thanks. You don't have to believe what I write here. No one does.

Read it again in the way a lawyer might read it.

NO YOU HAVEN'T

YET AGAIN YOU ARE GIVING INACCURATE, BOGUS ADVICE PLEASE STOP DOING SO
gottit yet

 

[equationgirl]

Especially for Stanley:

(From the cavendish book quoted earlier)
Unfair uses:
1)reproduction without acknowledgement
2) to save time, labour and effort
3) merely reproducing
4) exploitation or profit without licence
5) malicious motive

And:

Is it a pure idea? - No = NO COPYRIGHT
Is work in material form - No - NO COPYRIGHT

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

read it again in the way a lawyer might read it.

btw i did my advice legally would be to issue a cease and disisst followed by sueing for copyright breech more over they'd win ...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Actually fuck it

for reffernce EQ girl works in law Laptop works in law Stanley Edwards paints for cash in hand in spain who'd you take copyright advice from...

 

[equationgirl]

We-ll, Garfield, the likelihood is that they may well win, BUT I don't think you can say for sure that they would.

No IP lawyer would - the best you'd get would be 'you've got a good case', I suspect.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

We-ll, Garfield, the likelihood is that they may well win, BUT I don't think you can say for sure that they would.

No IP lawyer would - the best you'd get would be 'you've got a good case', I suspect.

i'm no lawyer i'd say you'd win, every time...

 

[equationgirl]

Actually fuck it

for reffernce EQ girl works in law Laptop works in law Stanley Edwards paints for cash in hand in spain who'd you take copyright advice from...

Well, technically I work in technology transfer which involves a huge amount of IP law, but I'll let you off.

BTW, if anyone has copyright questiosn they want to ask me, feel free to PM me if you want, and I'll do my best to answer or direct you to the right place.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

if iwere you i'd shut the fuck up about allowing peoples artisitic works of any kind to be ripped off...

you the bloke whose trying to make it as a struggling artist and you arer happy for others to be ripped off..

No. I'm not really. Some cunt takes a photo of a piece of my art and then claims that someone else has breached HIS Copyright I'd probably twat him full on in the face.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

NO YOU HAVEN'T

YET AGAIN YOU ARE GIVING INACCURATE, BOGUS ADVICE PLEASE STOP DOING SO
gottit yet

Oi! You fucking stupid cunt.

I am not giving advice. I am NOT a legal professional.


I know what my rights are as an artist and photographer. I keep up to date with what changes and why.

Now please fuck off with your aggressive language and posting manner.

Buy yourself a penis enlargement instead.


FYI and for everyone else's, I am going to check the case history of the incident mentioned and report back here tomorrow if I'm told it's OK to report. If it's not, I'll PM someone and they can change names and dates etc before they post it.

Fuck. You're a tosser.

 

[equationgirl]

Ah, but you haven't actually replied to ANY of my posts quoting the actual law, Stanley.

Just Garfield's 'comments'.