Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
Stanley Edwards said:
Oh don't worry about me Stanley, the convictions have already been carried out.
I really do want this to be my last word on the matter.
Online photo theft... again
- Thread starter Tricky Skills
- Start date
Oh don't worry about me Stanley, the convictions have already been carried out.
I really do want this to be my last word on the matter.
untethered
For industry & decency
Stanley Edwards said:
Is that relevant to this case?
Tricky Skills said:
"Coat Hanger". That's two words.
You should have gone for a career in law. However, even the best lawyers need some creativity and originality. Fuck - if we were all copying our peers the world would stagnate into a huge cesspool of shit and Fascism and Capitalism.
It would you know.
If you think you have a right to stand up for then fucking well stand up for it.
Of course you can go on forever on this 'Who is the originator of the work?' question. I think that the graffiti artist has no claim for copyright. He/she put it into the 'public domain' when the graffito was made and there is no sign of a claim to copyright; it is an anonymous work.
Looking further you can see that the original image is made with a stencil. It looks to me as if the stencil itself was made by drawing around a real coat hanger. The manufacturer of the coat hangar will have a copyright on the particular appearance of that specific coat hanger (not a patent though I would think).
If I was Tricky Skills I would settle for a picture credit from these self confessed 'scavengers'.
Looking further you can see that the original image is made with a stencil. It looks to me as if the stencil itself was made by drawing around a real coat hanger. The manufacturer of the coat hangar will have a copyright on the particular appearance of that specific coat hanger (not a patent though I would think).
If I was Tricky Skills I would settle for a picture credit from these self confessed 'scavengers'.
snadge
metal alchemist
Stanley Edwards said:No - I haven't
I argue that Copyright should be overhauled to protect ideas as much as images. I will always. Especially as ideas are becoming the more valuable 'commodity'.
absolute bollocks, copyrighting an idea, especially in art is utter foolishness.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
snadge said:
Artistic stagnation writ large, surely?
snadge said:
Why?
How are you going to materialise that idea and guarantee recognition (financial or, intellectual). Stick it on a wall for some blag to come along and snap it and claim ownership?
The idea is the essential.
The law is an arse. So, I'm told.
Barking_Mad said:
Opened up as far as I'm concerned.
There are many ways to express an idea that can't currently be Copyrighted. Simply talking about that idea without witnesses for one. Performance poetry say. Someone expresses the idea to you verbally. No one else is around. You write it down and claim Copyright. That's not right - is it?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Surely that's the choice of the graffiti artist who, it has to be said, has decided to display his art in a public place without proviso and has thus (if I remember rightly from some research I did about public sculpture) ceded some rights over mechanical and human reproduction of images of said art.Stanley Edwards said:
Surely if your view is taken to it's extreme, you would be violating an architect's rights with reference to his "ownership" of his own design if you painted a picture of his building or photographed it?
The concretely-realised idea or the vague assemblage of thoughts that haven't yet been realised?
It's also an ass.
ViolentPanda said:
Thankfully someone else has told me. I didn't take it as gospel and my hearing is pretty shit. Tar.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
Ahem.
surely the relevant term here is 'derivative work'?
The author of each work derived from another has rights to his part.
The graffiti artist for his graffito.
The photographer for his photograph, derived from the first work.
Neither are mutually exclusive to each other. The graffiti artist's rights to his design do not negate the photographer's rights to his photograph of that design. Otherwise publishers would not have to pay photographers for the rights to use modern photographs of paintings by long-dead artists.
As it happens, there is a specific copyright exemption for photographs and two-dimensional representations of buildings and sculptures under British copyright law, provided they are permanently sited in a public place. I'm unclear whether this would have any bearing on the matter of a photograph of a two-dimensional graffito design.
The London Eye have consequently resorted to Trademark law to protect themselves against misuse images of their wheel.
In France, I believe the position might be different regarding copyright and buildings. However, the specific issue surrounding the Eiffel Tower is that of the lighting design, so infringement only occurs when photographs are taken of it at night.
surely the relevant term here is 'derivative work'?
The author of each work derived from another has rights to his part.
The graffiti artist for his graffito.
The photographer for his photograph, derived from the first work.
Neither are mutually exclusive to each other. The graffiti artist's rights to his design do not negate the photographer's rights to his photograph of that design. Otherwise publishers would not have to pay photographers for the rights to use modern photographs of paintings by long-dead artists.
As it happens, there is a specific copyright exemption for photographs and two-dimensional representations of buildings and sculptures under British copyright law, provided they are permanently sited in a public place. I'm unclear whether this would have any bearing on the matter of a photograph of a two-dimensional graffito design.
The London Eye have consequently resorted to Trademark law to protect themselves against misuse images of their wheel.
In France, I believe the position might be different regarding copyright and buildings. However, the specific issue surrounding the Eiffel Tower is that of the lighting design, so infringement only occurs when photographs are taken of it at night.
http://mokk.bme.hu/centre/conferences/reactivism/bio/giles
can we e_snaiL-mail him and tell him what a wanker he is yet?
can we e_snaiL-mail him and tell him what a wanker he is yet?
disco_dave_2000
la la lapland
Really interesting discussion here. I'm of the opinion that it in theory it's breach of photographers' copyright, but the pursuit of it is a little rich.
Quite a lot of stock libraries have policies on photographs of other peoples 'art' and this includes graffiti. Some completely ban images that cover graffiti, while others specify that only a part of the work, from which you can't identify the whole, is allowed.
Moving away from graffiti and photographs, there is an good article on the Editorial Photographers site about visual plagiarism http://www.epuk.org/The-Curve/456/visual-plagiarism
Quite a lot of stock libraries have policies on photographs of other peoples 'art' and this includes graffiti. Some completely ban images that cover graffiti, while others specify that only a part of the work, from which you can't identify the whole, is allowed.
Moving away from graffiti and photographs, there is an good article on the Editorial Photographers site about visual plagiarism http://www.epuk.org/The-Curve/456/visual-plagiarism
Paul Russell
Psychogeographer
Leaving aside the graffiti photo, which everyone is debating, don't you think it's a bit cheeky of the lad Giles to just plunder loads of copyrighted photos from different photographers from the "The way we see it" website for his radical StoryCubes.
And call it a "collaboration" (albeit "almost anonymous") and stick it in a gallery.
http://urbantapestries.net/weblog/archives/000193.html
Giles says
"Recently we came across the Londonist and through them the photoblog, The Way We See It. It occured to us that this evolutionary mapping of London as seen through the eyes of the TWWSI contributors could be the basis of a remote, asynschronous and almost anonymous collaboration.
Tonight we will be revealing a new kind of 'map' – London As We May See It – as part of our presentation at the British Library for Uncharted Territories: The Brave New World of Mapping. London As We May See It is the city re-imagined through a landscape of 105 StoryCubes. Each one has 5 associated with a particular street (as well as an image of the street sign) selected from the thousands contributed to TWWSI. In this way the 'map' is organic and can grow alongside the photoblog, adding new StoryCubes as new streets are photographed and 'mapped'."
Later:
"In line with our emerging media scavenging philosophy this model does not require massive investment or specialist technologies – the StoryCubes themselves are cheap and easy to acquire..."
And call it a "collaboration" (albeit "almost anonymous") and stick it in a gallery.
http://urbantapestries.net/weblog/archives/000193.html
Giles says
"Recently we came across the Londonist and through them the photoblog, The Way We See It. It occured to us that this evolutionary mapping of London as seen through the eyes of the TWWSI contributors could be the basis of a remote, asynschronous and almost anonymous collaboration.
Tonight we will be revealing a new kind of 'map' – London As We May See It – as part of our presentation at the British Library for Uncharted Territories: The Brave New World of Mapping. London As We May See It is the city re-imagined through a landscape of 105 StoryCubes. Each one has 5 associated with a particular street (as well as an image of the street sign) selected from the thousands contributed to TWWSI. In this way the 'map' is organic and can grow alongside the photoblog, adding new StoryCubes as new streets are photographed and 'mapped'."
Later:
"In line with our emerging media scavenging philosophy this model does not require massive investment or specialist technologies – the StoryCubes themselves are cheap and easy to acquire..."
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
Yes, I think he's having a laugh. Doesn't sound like he's putting a whole heap of effort in to create original 'artwork'.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
Paul Russell said:
Indeed. I'd suggest that 'collaboration' usually requires some form of consensual dialogue between the collaborating parties at the very least.
Ironically enough, his photos on Flick are posted under an 'All Rights Reserved' licence
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gileslane/381133336/
Maybe I'll try 'collaborating' some of his photos onto my flickr site and see what happens...
I think he is just a verbose fringe-arts equivalent of a 'bag lady'. The language of his output reads like a cross between a New Labour policy statement and an online advertisement for a new company that has no product but wants to create a presence.
Paul Russell
Psychogeographer
Just seen this post right at the top of the thread.
Mrs Magpie said:
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
Stanley Edwards said:
I am a camera man, people pay me to film things. St Pauls was built by Wren. If I film that does it mean anyone can use my footage because anyone could have filmed it?
untethered
For industry & decency
I really hope no-one registers giles-lane.co.uk and points it to this thread. Places like www.123-reg.co.uk are selling names like that for less than £6 for two years.
ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
An absurd comparison.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
Stanley Edwards said:
An absurd comparison.
Why?
ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
Isn't it obvious?
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
Stanley Edwards said:
Performance isn't copyrightable under UK law - which is why theatres have contractual bindings on you not to take photos.
Opening up copyright to ideas would be an IP minefield.
While one restricts copyright to a work (a particular expression of an idea) it's readily testable. You can readily compare a two pieces of text to determine whether they are the same, for example.
An artist may paint a view of Montmartre and claim copyright over his painting. Any other artist is at liberty to sit at the same spot and paint the same view, but if he sits in front of the first artist's painting and copies that, he is in breach of copyright.
Copyright of ideas would mean that once an artist has painted a view of Montmartre, no-one else could legally paint that same view (if it remains substantially the same) for the life of the original artist, plus 70 years. The idea of painting from that spot would be his, and his alone for the term of his copyright.
Yes I would love to take out a copyright on photographing the Houses of Parliament from halfway across Westminster Bridge. I could have a man with a little booth there on the pavement issuing tickets.
cybertect said:
That's not the way I would see it working. If someone copied the painting exactly and copied the signature it would be a forgery or, a copy. If the same view was painted with even the slightest bit of different expression it would still be an unique (an unique or, a unique???) work. The scene would change day to day also.
I suppose I mean being able to protect a creative concept rather than an idea, but it would be very murky and even more open to interpretation than current Copyright laws are. And, they ARE open to interpretation.
Similar threads
