UK Court Says You Can Copyright The Basic Idea Of A Photograph

from the say-what-now? dept

Fri, Jan 27th 2012 8:25am — Mike Masnick

We've talked a lot in the past about the "idea/expression dichotomy." This is an important concept in copyright law that says you can only copyright the specific expression, and not the idea. This is supposed to protect people from getting accused of copyright infringement for basically making something similar to what someone else made. Unfortunately, as we've been noting with dismay over the past few years, the idea that there's some bright line between "idea" and "expression" has been slowly fading away, and courts are, increasingly, effectively wiping out the distinction. In the US, we've seen this with the ridiculous case between a photographer, David LaChapelle, and the singer Rihanna, because some of her videos were clear homages to his photographs. The expression was entirely different, but the judge didn't think so, and Rihanna ended up having to pay up.

Over in the UK, though, we have an even more ridiculous ruling, as pointed out on Boing Boing, where a judge has ruled that a photograph using a similar idea, but totally different composition is infringement. You can see the two photographs here:

As you can tell, the expression is totally different. Obviously, the idea is quite similar, but ideas aren't supposed to be protected. You can read the full ruling here, in which the court seems persuaded by the fact that the original photographer had to do some Photoshopping to the image. Now, it's true that European copyright laws are much more open to "sweat of the brow" arguments for copyright (which is not the case in the US), but even so, this ruling is ridiculous and troubling. The court even admits that the basic elements of the photograph (Big Ben, Parliament, London bus) are pretty common. It also admits that highlighting an object in color on a black and white background is pretty common. But it still finds that this is infringing.

I have not found this to be an easy question but I have decided that the defendants' work does reproduce a substantial part of the claimant's artistic work. In the end the issue turns on a qualitative assessment of the reproduced elements. The elements which have been reproduced are a substantial part of the claimant's work because, despite the absence of some important compositional elements, they still include the key combination of what I have called the visual contrast features with the basic composition of the scene itself. It is that combination which makes Mr Fielder's image visually interesting. It is not just another photograph of cliched London icons.

What troubles me here is that this seems to turn the judge into an art critic in order to determine how the different pieces are put together and what counts as expression vs. idea, and what parts are "copied." Perhaps even more troubling is the following sentence:

Mr Davis submitted that a finding of infringement in this case would give the claimant a monopoly which was unwarranted. He uses the word "monopoly" in a pejorative sense but it does not help. All intellectual property rights are a form of monopoly, properly circumscribed and controlled by the law. In any case I do not accept that a finding for the claimant in this case is unwarranted.

While he's right that all intellectual property rights are a form of monopoly, the question here is whether or not this is an appropriate monopoly. The reason Davis pointed out that this was a problem was because, as the court admitted earlier, the fact is that this would be creating a monopoly on commonly used photographic elements. That's the problem. Either way, it's yet another example of copyright law being used to lock up culture.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: big ben, copyright, expression, idea, london bus, photograph, uk

104 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:29am

Hmmm, smells like...
Wonder if the Judge would be so kind as to point out the (alleged) "artistic work" in the photographs.

I am just not seeing it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Duke (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 11:10am
  
  Re: Hmmm, smells like...
  The "artistic work" is the photograph. Rather confusingly, in UK Copyright law "[an] "artistic work" means a ... photograph... irrespective of artistic quality". It's artistic because it is a photograph - it doesn't have to be *good* to be protected by copyright.
  
  Onto the case itself; one thing a lot of commentators are missing on this is that the two photographs are causally linked; the defendant saw the claimant's photograph and said "I want something like that." He didn't just take a photograph of the same things, from a similar position (which there's an 1997 case on, involving an Oasis album cover, where the copyright claim was dismissed, despite taking a photo of a "set" prepared for the main photo), he knowingly and wilfully copied all the elements of the first work.
  
  A possible analogy would be to taking characters out of one book and using them in another, maybe renaming them and changing some minor details, but keeping the basic facts and figures the same; the expression is different, but it is still an act of copying (and a "parody" or "criticism" defence would only apply if there was actual parody or criticism, rather than just copying in this case).
  
  It's an odd ruling, and caught some people by surprise, but it isn't particularly outlandish. For a 21st century copyright case. In terms of common sense etc., it's a stupid ruling in many ways, but the judge is limited by the law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Almost Anonymous (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 12:27pm
    
    Re: Re: Hmmm, smells like...
    Bullshit. Sorry man, but that is total bullshit, I refuse to believe UK law made this ruling inevitable.
    
    He should have been able to recreate the photo using the exact same angle, lighting, composition, and photoshopping and STILL not be infringing because it is a new work, albeit derivative.
    
    Of course, after the Rihanna bullshit here in the U.S., we don't have much of a leg to stand on either.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Duke (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 4:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, smells like...
      But where does the judge's analysis of the law fail?
      
      There's copyright in the original photograph.
      The defendant took that photograph and copied all the major elements of it (i.e. a substantial part of it) to make his photograph.
      
      How is that not copyright infringement under current law?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2012 @ 7:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, smells like...
        Because he didn't make a copy of the photograph - he took his own photo, over which he would own the copyright.
        
        I'm in the States, but isn't copyright just that? The right to copy (or not copy) a specific work?
        
        If the guy made actual copies of the photo, like on a copy machine, I could see an actual infringement claim, but he didn't do that. He took his own photo. Elements in the photo shouldn't enter into it because then you're claiming what people see with their own eyes as part of infringement, and that's just ludicrous.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 28 Jan 2012 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, smells like...
        There's copyright in the original photograph.
        The defendant took that photograph and copied all the major elements of it (i.e. a substantial part of it) to make his photograph.
        
        By that reasoning, nobody could ever take a photo that's substantially similar to someone else's photo, because the first photo is copyrighted.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2012 @ 1:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, smells like...
        The 2nd photo is taken from a different location at a different angle of a (probably) different bus at a different position with (likely) different camera settings at a (likely) different time of day.
        
        The only similarity is the subject matter, location, and presentation (red on black/white background). Your presumption is absurd.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - wvhillbilly (profile), 30 Jan 2012 @ 10:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, smells like...
      Question: If this stands, can Joe Bloviator (for example) take a photo of a city skyline, then sue any and everybody else who takes a photo of a city skyline (any city anywhere) for infringing his copyright? It would seem so to me.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mark Dunn, 2 Feb 2012 @ 7:57am
  
  Re: Hmmm, smells like...
  The 'artistic work' is the photograph itself. It's defined in English law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blakey, 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:30am

Make London Buses red!
wish i'd thought of that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ken (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:34am

So now someone can copyright a scene and then no one can take a photo of that scene again? What about portraits? What about your kid standing by Mickey Mouse? What about two people taking a photo of the same event at the same time from similar vantage points? This is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Simon, 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:39am
  
  Re:
  I'm copyrighting the "Passport Headshot", but my licensing terms will be reasonable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Machin Shin (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    You can take that. I'm claiming rights to profile shots. As such I would like $1000 for every mug shot that gets taken.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      hmm, how about you two 'occupy' all that judge's public hearings and every time a cop/prosecuter/other critter/ tries to introduce a mug shot as evidence in various cases you intervene and claim that the photo is a copyright violation?
      
      since he decided himself that the photographer and subject in focus (it's NOT THE SAME BUS in those photos) don't matter much, let's see how much/long they can pay for copyright violations in mug shots :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Your attempt to copyright portraits violates my copyright on "photographing things in the real world." I want 95% of your licensing fees and my name on your copyright notices!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greevar (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Your copyright violates my copyright on captured light on a planar surface. Pay up!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - :Lobo Santo (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Planar Surface
        Well, really the 'planar surface' is mostly empty space--and I think NASA owns the copyright on mostly empty space.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - shadowgate (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 10:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well then, I would like to mention that your copyright on captured light on a planar surface violates my copyright on "Creating lasting light patter impressions on mediums based on physical realities on microscopic scales" Please pay $400 per 'Photon Imprint'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        wvhillbilly (profile), 30 Jan 2012 @ 10:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Children, chldren! Stop it!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:50am
  
  Re:
  The judge attempts to fudge this issue by insisting on the work having resulted from sufficient "intellectual creative effort" (see Mike's comments on the judge as an art critic) and also allows an independent creation defence (see my comment below somewhere), but, that apart, yes I believe you could.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:37am

Well in that case I know what I'll be doing to get rich, taking photographs of lots of random people and buildings and inventions!

If one of those people/things/locations becomes famous imagine the money I can make suing others for taking pictures of those things. I took a vaguely similar picture first damn it, so I demand to be compensated for it! Say $1,000 per photo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:35am
  
  Re:
  Sorry, i think you have to be the head of a major corporation to qualify
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- wvhillbilly (profile), 30 Jan 2012 @ 10:44am
  
  If this decision is taken to its ultimate conclusion...
  Get rich quick? No you won't. Only the lawyers will. They will all get filthy rich from everybody suing everybody else over infringing their copyright on every manner of photograph that can be taken, and we'll all be in jail for infringing everybody else's copyright on photographing everything imaginable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
hothmonster, 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:38am

Awesome, now if you excuse me I am on my way to Britian to collapse their stock photo industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason Huggins, 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:39am

Viewing this the wrong way ;) (semi-joking!)
With this ruling in place, we just have to find old, public domain expressions of currently copyrighted works, thus proving the new copyrighted work is infringing on the public domain.

>_>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:40am
  
  Re: Viewing this the wrong way ;) (semi-joking!)
  You, sir, are a genius.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:54am
  
  Re: Viewing this the wrong way ;) (semi-joking!)
  *eyes the entire Disney catalog and grins*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:55am
  
  Re: Viewing this the wrong way ;) (semi-joking!)
  Until they roll back the copyright law to include those old works. :/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - wvhillbilly (profile), 30 Jan 2012 @ 10:48am
    
    Re: Re: Viewing this the wrong way ;) (semi-joking!)
    Please, let's not give them any ideas.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:39am

Didn't you already do this story, or did I read it somewhere else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:25am
  
  Re:
  Someone, a couple of days back, linked this story in a comment. That's where I read it previously at least.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kam (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:26am
  
  Re:
  I read this yesterday somewhere as well, may have been a link off HackerNews.
  
  Anyway... the main story is not exactly as it has been reported here. The company that got taken to court sell smoe sort of tea and they had the first picture on there box. They then decided they didn't want to pay the photographer any money so they had a similar shot taken and used that thinking they could get away with it. The judge decided that since they had expressly gone out and take a similar shot for this purpose then they were in breach... I'll see if I can dig out the article since someone else made a comment and explained it much better than me :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 10:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    Even so, that just makes it a dick move on the part of the company. I still don't see how this should be considered a valid infringement of copyright.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 11:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If the judge is going to decide like that, there's a fetric muckton of amateur photogs that must be wetting their pants right about now.
      
      There is nothing original about either photo; each photog owns the copyright to his photo, neither of which is terribly original in concept or execution.
      
      What a weird decision!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Almost Anonymous (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 12:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Being in breach of contract is markedly different from a ruling of infringement. Can't see why the judge would have said the one if he meant the other.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:48am
  
  Re:
  Techdirt has had several similar stories of photographers suing other photographers over taking "similar" photos. This is the first time someone won the case that another photographer infringed their copyright though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:41am

Does this mean Google Earth has a copyright on the planet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 4:40pm
  
  Re:
  It does show the text "(c) $year google.com" in the pictures on streetview. So I guess it does.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:42am

the UK courts are getting as ridiculous as those in the US! the basic problem being, the judges are TOO OLD and dont understand modern technology or copyright! as soon as they see or are told that someone has done something somehow, they all think it has to be locked away for 150 years!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:52am
  
  Re:
  its not only them, its the officials who push for these laws and regulations, who take advantage of those with lack of knowledge by claiming that their course is the best and only course of action, and they lap it up
  
  So, old cronies and those who take advantage of the old cronies, one thing i dont wanna see is the former being replaced with latter
  
  We'd all like to see a shake up no doubt, but i get the feeling so would some of those in power, maneuvering a seemingly impartial official on to a place of power. In that situation, how would we recognise the snake in the grass
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:45am

One of the other things about the judgement that concerned me was the judge's reliance on independent design, noting that if the defendant had come up with his image without using the claimant's creation as a reference it would have been fine. Seems to be dangerously close to creating a 'first to publish' right with similar images for copyright. Though the judge apparently has no problem with the claimant being similarly 'inspired' by Schindler's List.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RobShaver (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:48am

Hurry and copyright the portrait
Who will hold the copyright on the portrait? Portrait with one person, two people, family, baby on bearskin rug. Can dance be copyrighted? How about fashion runway walking style?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:53am
  
  Re: Hurry and copyright the portrait
  Yes, dance can be copyrighted.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ken (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 8:59am

I am copyrighting my photos at the Grand Canyon lookouts. For all others that have a photo from the same lookout you will be hearing from my lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lavi d (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:01am

Crowd Sourcing
Where's the "Red Bus on Bridge in Front of Big Ben" tumblr?

I have a photo I need to submit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian, 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:02am

I call trees!

*copyrighted*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me Al, 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:04am

I was having this conversation with a friend of mine yesterday. It sounds terrible but I am becoming more and more convinced that once the current generation of politicians, judges etc at the top of the tree die off the world will improve immeasurably. They do not understand technology. They cannot cope with the speed at which things have changed and continue to change and so they are fossilised with outdated ideas, beliefs and prejudices.

Once they are gone then a generation of people who have grown up with ever changing technology will move into their places, hopefully with an at least partially instinctive understanding of the issues which really are so important in the modern era.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:23am
  
  Re:
  The thing is that by the time that happens we will be facing even newer, scarier technologies that are hard for that generation to get their head around. Imagine if 20 years from now, direct brain interaction with devices becomes common and mainstream - do you think all the people who are 20 now and 40 then are going to be completely comfortable and familiar with it? Or do you think they are going to be just as freaked out and confused by the kids-these-days-with-their-brain-phones as today's older generation is by today's younger generation?
  
  Maybe a little bit, actually - each new generation seems to have a slightly higher tolerance for the speed and scale of social change. But it's still an incremental process - and the fact is that you and I and everyone else, no matter how savvy they think they are, will probably catch ourselves scoffing at something we don't understand at least a few times as we get older. Worse still, there will be other times where we do it and don't catch ourselves. So I personally refuse to take it as granted that my generation will be less prone to cluelessness - and instead focus on making sure I, personally, don't start mocking the kids on my damn lawn no matter how tempting it becomes...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Almost Anonymous (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 12:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Can you imagine the MPAA in a world with replacement cybernetic eyes? Say with full ultra-hi-def recording capabilities hardwired to your internal peta-meta-terabyte wet-drive?
    
    Interesting side note, I read about a dude with a missing eye, he was having a "replacement" eye designed with a built in recording (or was it broadcasting?) device; he was going to record a documentary with it for that ultra-real POV feel.
    
    Ahh, found a link.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 10:07am
  
  Re:
  Similar sentiments were expressed in the '60s: that the legislators of the day were just too old and didn't understand the world anymore. That when the '60s youth entered the realm of politics, then these problems would evaporate like a morning mist.
  
  The thing is that the people in power right now are those '60s youth. I see no reason to think today's youth will represent a revolutionary change when they enter politics either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 27 Jan 2012 @ 10:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    Never underestimate the power of money to corrupt those in government.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nathanael, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Some of the problems of the 60s *did* evaporate.
    
    (Though actually the people in power now are almost all older than that, especially the judges.)
    
    Anyway, a more pertinent point is that copyright overreach leads to backlash. Total abolition of copyright becomes VERY likely.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ken (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:14am

I now claim copyrights for anyone making bunny ears in a photo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:30am
  
  Re:
  I wasn't making bunny ears, I was making a peace sign (copyrighted by me) and someone's head got in the way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AudibleNod (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:31am
  
  Re:
  Both left-handed and right-handed? Not fair!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AudibleNod (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:25am

Inspector Spacetime
There goes the Inspector Spacetime series we've all been hoping for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:27am

This is amazing!
I read about this last night on a photography blog. This is just amazing and even more ridiculous. So what if the 2nd guy "copied" the idea, his execution was actually better. That is the very definition of innovation, the refining of ideas to something better. Do we want to fully stop innovation now; was slowing it to a crawl with copyright and patents and lawsuit not enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Natalie, 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:27am

If dance can be copyrighted, I'm going to copyright a dance in which you use your lungs to exhale and inhale in a slow constant pattern for long periods of time. I'll call it breathe-stepping. Anyone who tries to perform this dance, aka breathe from now on must fork over $100 for every minute you perform my dance for the rest of your life. Apparently a judge will let me do this now, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 4:38pm
  
  Re:
  Sorry, but I patented thinking. And you thinking up this idea of a copyrightable dance infringes on my patent.
  I expect a sum of $150 per thought from you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:36am

You left out an important detail. The author of the second photo set out to copy the first photo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 10:09am
  
  Re:
  How is that an important detail? I think it's irrelevant.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 11:41am
  
  Re:
  I can take a photo of your photo and I will own the copyright on the photo I took of your photo.
  
  Is that not how it works?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re:
  So? As long as he didn't actually copy it, like on a scanner or photocopier, I don't see your point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 4:36pm
  
  Re:
  It used to be "imitation is the greatest form of flattery."
  But suddenly it's "imitation is the quickest way to litigation."
  
  Fuck any type of copyright laws. DO NOT WANT!
  No more governmentally imposed monopolies!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 6:25pm
  
  Re:
  And?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sneeje (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:37am

You know, this is where the judge faltered and I wish they would address this. Instead of focusing on what is similar, I think that the judicial system ought to determine if they could explain, in precise terms, what the second photographer would have had to do differently for his work to not infringe.

After these rulings we're all left wondering exactly how to avoid infringement in future situations because the logic is fluid and arbitrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- wvhillbilly (profile), 30 Jan 2012 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re:
  Perhaps could have colored the bus green? Or left the bus B&W and the rest of the picture in color?
  
  This seems more like a patent issue to me than a copyright issue, but there would be too much prior art on this idea for it to be patented. I think this judge must be confusing the rights of patents with the rights of copyright and applying patent rights to a copyright. They are not the same.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chinamonty (profile), 30 Apr 2012 @ 10:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I agree. This ruling is absurd. This extrapolates to mean that all works written for a symphony orchestra violate the copyright of the first tune performed by a symphony orchestra. This is the legal system gone mad. If it had been put up as a design patent issue then maybe I could agree in part but then prior artwork would have shot it to pieces. Every tourist that has ever been to London prior to the original photo used in this case should be looking at their photos and launching a suit for breach of copyright on the supposed copyright holder.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kam (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:42am

Read the comments, much more insightful than the journalism around this article...

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3508615

pbhjpbhj: "An analogue might be recreating Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans with the cans marginally rotated, basing the piece on the original work (trademark issues aside). Now I'd like to say that I think that piece actually would be a valid new work - and have quite a lot of substance - but nonetheless it would be derivative of the original beyond mere inspiration IMO."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 10:47am
  
  Re:
  After having read the ruling and the comments in the link that you provide, I disagree that the commentary is very insightful. Most of it is beside the point entirely.
  
  Disclaimer: I am a USian, and this is UK law about which I know nothing. But since I'm talking about what is right (in terms of the intent & purpose of copyright law in the US) rather than what is law, I think that doesn't matter as much as it might otherwise.
  
  The bulk of the commentary seems to revolve around intent, and it seems to me that intent isn't relevant. Either the photo is a copy or it isn't -- and it's very clear from just looking that it's not. It's a different photo. The photographer didn't take the original, run it through a duplicator, and attach his name to it. He took a new photo that differs from the original.
  
  Thus, in terms of copyright, there should be no violation. Yes, the purpose was unsavory, and if the original photographer had a reasonable contract then he could sure for contract violation, but it's not a copyright issue. To make it so distorts the purpose of copyright.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 11:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well said. My first reaction upon seeing the two pictures was that they are not the same picture! So how could one say, with a straight face, that one is a copy of the other?
    
    But that's where the judge farked it up, imo. I'm also a USian, btw.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:44am

It seems to me that the interpretation in this ruling could be used to make the argument that Copyright (and all other forms of IP for that matter) altogether would constitute a monopoly and therefore be invalid (or at least the act of bringing an infringement suit) under anti-trust statutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 10:49am
  
  Re:
  Monopolies are perfectly legal (in the US). Abuse of a monopoly position is what is illegal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 11:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hence the "(or at least the act of bringing an infringement suit)" part as the bringing of an infringement suit would constitute an abuse of monopolistic power.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Almost Anonymous (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 12:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Unless you are a cable or phone company, then it's A-OK.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:46am

Looks like only 1 picture of the grand canyon is now valid (and the statue of liberty, and the arch, and washington monument, and lincoln memorial, and the pyramids, and a zebra, and ..... infinity.

Whats next, the basic "idea" for 12 bar blues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 9:49am

Say goodbye to Nikon, Cannon, Sony, Panasonic, etc. Because with this kind of ruling, and legislation like SOPA/PIPA/ACTA, all camera companies would easily be guilty of 'actively promoting infringing activity'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 10:08am

Let's just let rulings like this happen. Let's let people sue themselves into oblivion. Draconian laws all around! Lets make our number one export damages settlements.

I'm pretty sure that in the age of digital photography you can't prove that you took a photo first. And for those of you that think a camera digitally signing a photo is proof you would be wrong. True proof of ownership died when people no longer hold the negatives....something that could be chemically dated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 10:21am

Mike, of all the topics you rant about, your idea/expression rants are the funniest. Almost like intentional parodies of your writing style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 12:04pm
  
  Re:
  Still can't stop being a twat, can you? Pretty lame, and obviously hopeless. Perhaps if you immolated yourself you might have better luck at making a statement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 12:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You make yourself look foolish when you act as if you know who Anonymous Cowards are. HTH.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 12:49pm
  
  Re:
  I second the suggestion of immolation. You'll have my complete attention until you are done burning.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 1:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That's a lot of rancor just for criticizing a blogger, don't you think?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 3:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not really.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 4:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        BURN HIM! HE'S A HERETIC!! HE HAS HERESIED AGAINST THE MIGHTY MASNICK (PEACE BE UPON HIS NAME)!!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Devil's Coachman (profile), 28 Jan 2012 @ 6:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're taking this quite seriously, aren't you? The spittle on your screen and keyboard must be close to shorting something out by now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
V (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 10:24am

Tea Party Time
It sounds like Britian needs to throw their own Tea Party...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keroberos (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 10:24am

If things keep going at this rate, in twenty years no one will be able to create anything because it will infringe on some previous creation.

I am beginning to think that the massive ratcheting up of copyright laws may in fact end up being the best thing for those of us that want to see copyright law reformed. The more restrictive it gets, the more likely that the average citizen is going to get inconvenienced or sued over it, the more likely there will be massive backlash from the general public (i.e. the backlash over SOPA/PIPA, and now ACTA). Hopefully the copyright maximalists don't figure this out in time, so maybe we can get some real copyright reform started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- NameCensoredDueToCopyrightClaim, 27 Jan 2012 @ 1:34pm
  
  Re:
  If things keep going at this rate, in twenty years no one will be able to create anything because it will infringe on some previous creation.
  
  Twenty years? Try two or three. The fucking copyright crap is totally out of control and is all tilted in the favor of big content.
  
  Take a look at ACTA, they can claim copyright infringement on the use of a sentence. This has gone too far.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nathanael, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Forget two or three -- *we're already there*. It is already impossible to do any serious creative work without infringing on the grotesque monstrosity which claims to be copyright, patent, and trademark law. People only do so by ignoring the law.
    
    This is like drug prohibition -- it isn't going to work. Nobody respects the drug prohibition laws except the brainwashed minority. Elites have managed to keep them going for about 100 years though. How long will they manage to keep the nonfunctional copyright laws going? Good question, but the copyright laws are far more damaging and so will probably collapse sooner.
    
    The question is how many governments will collapse before these laws collapse. Many governments are teetering for other reasons anyway, with no legitimacy for a dozen reasons.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 10:52am

My camera can do that. Is my camera now an illegal infringing device?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 11:33am

The only sensible thing to do now is teardown landmarks like Big Ben and the Palace of Westminster each time someone takes a picture of them. After all, once a picture is taken and automatically copyrighted by existing the landmarks are actively promoting infringing activity by continuing to look picturesque.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2012 @ 11:59am

Scope Creep
This is copyright scope creep. All government-granted monopoly privileges are subject to scope creep. Monopolies are a major reason why countries are poor. Check out any third world hellhole, you will find lots of monopolies granted by the tyrannical government to its friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jakerome (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 1:08pm

Photographers are the next target
This trend has been evident for some time. But "established" photographers seem far more intent on expanding copyright & reducing creativity rather than having the foresight to understand that eventually they would be the target instead of the accuser. Wrote this half a year ago, seems more relevant today.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110625/01030814852/if-jay-maisels-photograph-is-original- artwork-then-so-is-pixelated-cover-kind-bloop.shtml#c68
----------------------------------

The fucktarded part of this whole mess is that the staturory damages are wholly out of line with reality. By all means, Maisel should be able to sue for damages, even treble damages with lawyer fees awarded. With total sales in the thousands and less than 10% of that attributable to the photo, a payment in mid hundreds would seem quite reasonable.

But no, we�ve allowed Mickey Mouse corporations to extend copyright assignments to last decades and sometimes centuries instead of 14 years. We�ve allowed them to set statutory damages at such an obscenely high level that whole business models are now built around suing for infringing registered works where the underlying works never had commercial value even approaching 1/10 that assigned by the inane copyright regime. We�ve allowed and encouraged industry cartels to band together to sue citizens for tens of thousands of dollars for listening to a $1 song without jumping through the right hoops.

We�ve allowed the corporatists to squeeze the life out of artists such that commercial productions will refuse to quote 20 words of song lyrics in a 20,000 word book without obtaining proper clearances. We�ve allowed whole genres of art to be destroyed, as rap artists and music mashers can no longer create without begging for permission first to modify music in the same way as has been done for millenniums. We�ve gone lifetimes without a single work of art entering the public domain, instead allowing 4th generation descendents to distort their great grandparents work by schilling great works to the Disney or the other high bidder such that these layabouts can profit off the work that belongs to all of society.

And the photogs supporting these laws are the most fucktarded of all, because if they don�t realize that we�re the next target for �permission based� copyright maximalists, then you haven�t been paying attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 1:11pm

glad i am not going to London
I would not want to take a photo of the houses of parliament and post it somewhere.Any tourists don't take a similar picture if you come to London . the judge is an ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DogBreath, 27 Jan 2012 @ 1:34pm

The perfect storm is on the way....
can't wait to see all the copyright lawsuits that will fly when tourists start uploading their London 2012 Olympic photos.

"I took that shot of [insert athlete name here] winning first!"

"No. I took it 0.014 seconds before you did! You violated my copyright!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 4:30pm

Dear UK court
I own the idea of the kind of fake-justice that you seem to be practicing.

I find you guilty based on this, and order you to pay me 1 million pound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher, 28 Jan 2012 @ 12:09am

So can I can sue everyone for using the 'love triangle' story now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luke Clifford, 28 Jan 2012 @ 5:54am

So, how long is it, until all forms of art and movies have to resort to being abstract simply because anything else risks infringing someone else's roughly similar work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 28 Jan 2012 @ 1:08pm
  
  Re:
  So, how long is it, until all forms of art and movies have to resort to being abstract simply because anything else risks infringing someone else's roughly similar work.
  
  You think that would protect you? "Your curvy smear of red paint infringes on my similar curvy smear of red paint. Please pay $650,000."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old Rockin' Dave, 28 Jan 2012 @ 2:35pm

My copyrights...
Watch out all of you. I am filing for "fingers in front of lens" and "lens cap left on". And I will be using DCMA to come and search all your houses for infringements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2012 @ 6:45pm

Tourist Traps
Now all of those tourist traps will be actual traps!

*Innocent tourist snaps a photo*

*SWAT Team jumps out from behind the bushes!* "You are in violation of copyright! Please put down the camera and back away slowly! Don't make any sudden moves! Pay $10,000 or your camera is forfeit."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MeryR, 7 Feb 2012 @ 5:52pm
  
  Re: Tourist Traps
  They'd probably take your camera too, after all, cant let dangerous tourists run around breaking copyright with their infringement-box!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pam, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:05am

Rankin's TV Program
Didn't Rankin do a couple of TV programs recently where he intentionally copied the works of famous photographers? He's going to have some serious money to pay out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]