To infringe copyright, just need to be similar


area0404

New Member
Nov 10, 2011
95
0
0
#2
Wait till SOPA comes along, every single picture of any of us can be infringing some random media company's copy right without being remotely similar to any of their pictures... All they need is to suspect us and we need to take our entire blog/portfolio site down. How's that? :bsmilie:

On topic: Yea, I do know about this for quite some time but hey... Who can ever avoid it... :(
 

JasonB

Deregistered
Jun 2, 2009
871
9
0
#4
The judge had judged wrongly.

He should be ashamed of himself.

I suspect he is Mr Bean in disguise.

What a joke!
 

ssdesign

New Member
Jan 28, 2009
177
0
0
Singapore | Bishan
#5
Hi,
This is a landmark judgement for photographers around the world.

Create a Similarly Composed Photo in the UK, Risk Copyright Infringement

Have a look at the two images, although they are similar, they are not identical.

Such a ruling can have adverse effect on the way you click pictures.

Do you agree with the ruling? Whats your say on this subject?

Although this case is very specific because there is a defenite visual treatment of B/W vs Red colour which is edited in Photoshop.
Would the ruling be same if it was a coloured photograph? Maybe not...

But it is interesting that such a high profile courtroom battle occurred over this picture.
 

diver-hloc

Moderator
Staff member
Apr 17, 2007
5,213
13
38
Somewhere North
#8
Like dat die lor... How many people visit Angkor Wat in any given day... how many photos will look alike...
 

spree86

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2009
4,774
0
0
Bishan
www.flickr.com
#9
diver-hloc said:
Like dat die lor... How many people visit Angkor Wat in any given day... how many photos will look alike...
Like that the cityscape shot from the esplanade also gone case liao. Everyone shoot the angle at one point or another.
 

Sep 17, 2008
3,656
0
0
#10
remember boys and girls... Eiffel tower's lighting is copyrighted... dun anyhow shoot it
 

Sep 17, 2008
3,656
0
0
#11
some extra reading material, on how similarity does not really bother much...
De minimis

De minimis is a Latin expression meaning about minimal things, normally in the locutions de minimis non curat praetor ("The praetor does not concern himself with trifles") or de minimis non curat lex ("The law does not concern itself with trifles").
i believe that case of similarity has to do with also the previous case between the 2 parties. that was treated as a casual relationship. for without it, case ruling can be very different.

this i believe was the clincher
He also took into account the evidence that Mr Houghton was aware of Mr Fielder's image (the two had previously been to court when they had failed to reach a licensing agreement over Houghton's previous infringement of Fielder's copyright), to conclude the similarities were causally related.
and remember, it is the processing method plus the way the objects are rearranged.
Mr Houghton explained how the defendants' work had been produced by Sphere Design. 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.
put it this way. 2 soccer photographers shot a same shot at the same angle and the same effect.


the guy beside me was SPH's sports photographer. his shot, same angle, went onto the news. big big peekture.

i'm waiting to be sued:) but i'm sure it ain't gonna come.
 

Last edited:

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#13
I think you need to understand the context... It looks like they saw the original photo, copied the design/concept, then used it for a commercial purpose. That's the real reason.

Simply taking the same picture is NOT the issue. The issue is deliberately imitating someone else's creative work for a profit.
 

Sep 17, 2008
3,656
0
0
#15
I think you need to understand the context... It looks like they saw the original photo, copied the design/concept, then used it for a commercial purpose. That's the real reason.

Simply taking the same picture is NOT the issue. The issue is deliberately imitating someone else's creative work for a profit.
yep. which is why i'm agreeing with the judge's decision. its not a landmark case. far from it. its pretty clearcut.
 

Mar 20, 2003
478
0
16
51
Singapore
Visit site
#16
The concern here is more for the professionals who are doing advertisment shoots.

Does that mean that you'll have to make sure your "ideal and creation" wasn't created before by another person?
 

sinned79

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2009
10,868
3
0
Singapore
www.aboutlove.sg
#17
Does that mean that you'll have to make sure your "ideal and creation" wasn't created before by another person?
this is real tough. in actual fact, there is alot of "copying" with modification. very hard to find one original idea on this globe that you are the first to think of.
 

sjackal

Senior Member
Jul 9, 2008
4,490
10
38
#18
Such judgement is going to limit the freedom and expression of art severely.

In many cases throughout history, art and creativity are often inspired by past works and spinoffs to greater heights.

Dumb judge.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#19
Such judgement is going to limit the freedom and expression of art severely.

In many cases throughout history, art and creativity are often inspired by past works and spinoffs to greater heights.

Dumb judge.
Inspiration is different from imitation.
 

kei1309

Senior Member
Apr 12, 2010
7,314
23
38
Earth
www.facebook.com
#20
apparently the defendant is an old nemesis of the complainant. it seems like he purposely copies his rival to irk him or for his own financial gain.
 

Top Bottom