Does all these infringe copyright?

[vince123123]

I don't think the purpose of use makes a difference in whether there is infringement or not; the only difference it may make is the quantum of damages payable.

are you using it in a commerical ground or do you intend to send it up for publishing or competition? i think that makes the single most important difference.

 

[hanz170]

I saw a photo that has nice composition. I copy the way the photo is composed and apply in my shooting style.

I saw a professional photographer posed a model which I think is very creative. I copy the way he posed her and ask my model to do the same.

I saw how a professional setup and arrange the subjects. I copy it and also setup the same settings.

Do all these infringe copyrights? I'm not saying I did them, I'm just asking.

Once I was helping to take graduation photos, the event photographer was from Australia, he had put up the backdrops and studio lightings for the shoot.

So, what I needed to do was to shoot using my camera with the studio lights, since I was helping him naturally I was ok to do that. But, he was stopping everybody else using their PnS from shooting... he said it is his backdrop and they should not be allowed to do that.

This thread reminded me of that incident.. at that time I didn't care, but could he be stretching it just too far?

TIA

 

[Octarine]

So, what I needed to do was to shoot using my camera with the studio lights, since I was helping him naturally I was ok to do that. But, he was stopping everybody else using their PnS from shooting... he said it is his backdrop and they should not be allowed to do that.
This thread reminded me of that incident.. at that time I didn't care, but could he be stretching it just too far?

That depends on the T&C of the contract. If it is clearly stated that he is the only photographer and he doesn't allow anybody else taking pictures (either in total or just of a certain scene / setup) and the couple has signed then he is right to do so.
If it's not in T&C then it's a very rude and unprofessional attitude. Words go around and reputation is one major pillar of business.
Just had something similar at company's D&D: the hired guy had setup a muslin and studio light. Be he didn't mind at all that a lot of people came taking pictures with own camera using the backdrop (just not connected to the studio lights). Really nice chap and we had a good conversation.

 

[zoossh]

I don't think the purpose of use makes a difference in whether there is infringement or not; the only difference it may make is the quantum of damages payable.

i think it makes a difference on how likely and how worthy it is to pursue.

 

[vince123123]

That is true, but I read your original answer as answering the TS's question on whether they infringe. If the question is only infringement, then it makes no difference.

i think it makes a difference on how likely and how worthy it is to pursue.

 

[zoossh]

That is true, but I read your original answer as answering the TS's question on whether they infringe. If the question is only infringement, then it makes no difference.

yap, sorry. could have phrase better....

 

[leejay]

I saw a photo that has nice composition. I copy the way the photo is composed and apply in my shooting style.

I saw a professional photographer posed a model which I think is very creative. I copy the way he posed her and ask my model to do the same.

I saw how a professional setup and arrange the subjects. I copy it and also setup the same settings.

Do all these infringe copyrights? I'm not saying I did them, I'm just asking.

That's called 'learning'. If it is like what you said, I would have infringed all the styles of professional masters of Taiwan and China.

Grammatical error in title: it should be 'do' instead of 'does'.

 

[zoossh]

That's called 'learning'. If it is like what you said, I would have infringed all the styles of professional masters of Taiwan and China.

actually many things done by a professional is not invented by themselves either.

these things are like cooking, and a chef who makes the best salt fish can neither stop others from using salt, using fish, or making salt fish. he can however come up with a unique name for his dish, patents it and stop you from copying that title. he can also stop you from entering his kitchen.

most of the time, it is not photographic components that you cannot copy as they are mostly generic components that all photographers can use. it is rather a commerical concept that one would restrict others from using, e.g. cover of a CD album. If the overall feeling is that the first is unique, and the 2nd is too similar within reasonable perception, then it may be seen as an infringement. but like vince say, it is not easy to judge, and probably goes by a case by case basis.

 

[two200]

I think some things just cannot be patented. How can a pose be patented? It it can be, then I would patent my walking, etc.

I remember many years ago F&N sued another softdrink company for using the word Sarsi. The suit was thrown out because the judge felt that Sarsi, which is also a type of plant, is a generic name and not a brand name.

Hence, I think copying poses should be alright.

PS: I know nuts about law :bsmilie:
PS2: I took the photo of the avatar myself. Wait, is there an infringement here? :think:

 

[vince123123]

Actually, there are more things that cannot be patented than things that can You can read up at the IPOS site for some basic information on what things can be patented.

Using of the word Sarsi falls under passing off or trade mark rights. A lot of laymen confuse the difference between the various types of IP, namely copyright, patents, trade marks, confidential information, passing off etc etc.

I think some things just cannot be patented. How can a pose be patented? It it can be, then I would patent my walking, etc.

I remember many years ago F&N sued another softdrink company for using the word Sarsi. The suit was thrown out because the judge felt that Sarsi, which is also a type of plant, is a generic name and not a brand name.

Hence, I think copying poses should be alright.

PS: I know nuts about law :bsmilie:
PS2: I took the photo of the avatar myself. Wait, is there an infringement here? :think:

 

[CYRN]

Actually, there are more things that cannot be patented than things that can You can read up at the IPOS site for some basic information on what things can be patented.

Using of the word Sarsi falls under passing off or trade mark rights. A lot of laymen confuse the difference between the various types of IP, namely copyright, patents, trade marks, confidential information, passing off etc etc.

so is there such thing as a trade mark pose? :think:

 

[vince123123]

Copyright wise, the points I've brought up earlier will apply.

If you want to file a trade mark registration for a representation of a human being in a particular pose, sure, you can as well.

so is there such thing as a trade mark pose? :think:

 

[Octarine]

so is there such thing as a trade mark pose? :think:

Ian Flemming and the producers of "007" had a good chance... or Mr Spock from Vulcan.

 

[jimbok]

Etically is not right to copy, well an example by some large companies.
Apple and Sony, like peas in an iPod