In England, a photo is used for a product that is similar to, but not the same as, an existing image used by another company. The company using the second image was successfully sued sued for copyright infringement. Is this an isolated incident, or could this open a floodgate of "similar image" lawsuits?
Take a look at the original Amateur Photographer article.
How do you draw the line?

Read 365 times

Reply 

From baba/David (38,576) on January 29, 2012 9:59:14 AM CST Unfortunately, I am not a judge so I am not designated to draw any lines. If I was the photographer or the company that hired for the image that is supposed to be a copyright violation, I would appeal. Where does similarity stop and true copyright begin then? I really don't think you can copyright style/design can you? Reply

From del/Administrator (0) on January 29, 2012 10:34:39 AM CST I draw the line that says this judgment was silly. The only good thing about this as far as I can tell is that it took place outside my home country, so it won't be used as a legal precedent here. But in the UK, lawyers might get richer. Reply

From parkerdr/Dave (9,286) on January 29, 2012 11:07:54 AM CST I think that in the U.S. this would be called a "trademark infringement", as it a problem with the product labeling being too similar. Reply

From baba/David (38,576) on January 29, 2012 1:46:56 PM CST I was thinking something similar. Although I would guess or hope there is a similar distinction in the UK. Reply

From iostream/Dean (4,398) on January 30, 2012 9:52:54 AM CST No, trademark is a separate area of intellectual property law. The judgement made no mention of trademark - this is explicitly a copyright case. Reply

From parkerdr/Dave (9,286) on January 30, 2012 6:11:16 PM CST well, the plaintiff was able to copyright the idea of having a photo of a red bus with a b&w shot of parliament in the background and apply said photo to a product for the purpose of advertisement. Reply

From iostream/Dean (4,398) on January 30, 2012 9:20:10 PM CST No, read the judgement. He didn't copyright the idea - the judge ruled that the post-processing made the copycat shot 'substantial' copying. I'm not sure I agree with the judge's ruling, but I think it's a close call. Reply

From karin2007/Karin (19,610) on January 29, 2012 11:39:56 AM CST That judgment is downright stupid - does it mean I can't use my own photo of Taj Mahal, the Niagara Falls, etc. etc any more, because it had been photographed and used by a company or photographer before? - ludicrous ... Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on January 29, 2012 11:54:43 AM CST I think -that part of the issue here is that both companies are using the image almost as a trademark. I think that complicates things. I don't think it would stop you from making that image but I think the issue is when you use it to promote your business. I think :-) Reply

From karin2007/Karin (19,610) on January 29, 2012 12:08:20 PM CST You are right about promoting a business - it probably would be like using "Monument Valley" in an commercial that is not about Marlboro .... but does a company own a place of interest? Can you patent a photo idea? Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on January 29, 2012 12:46:31 PM CST I don't think you can patent a photo idea but I think you can trademark an object or expression. I think this case does have a bit of merit. A design company came up with a product concept that included that specifically styled photograph and offered it to a client. The client declined the work but then used the idea of the design company, and recreated an extremely similar image and design on their own to use. As a designer and as a photographer I can see where there is some merit to this lawsuit. I believe this goes beyond simple copyright infringement and because it's civil court they can take all these issues into account. Reply

From karin2007/Karin (19,610) on January 29, 2012 12:58:58 PM CST I guess I probably looked at this from a very personal POV Reply

From robertwallis/Robert (12,875) on January 29, 2012 2:06:47 PM CST One of the golf tournaments in California has a trademark on a tree overlooking the ocean that they use for a logo. They defend the trademark vigorously and chase off anyone trying to take photos of the tree which is on their property. I can't recall the tournament as I'm not a golf fan. Reply

From rmullns/Robert (3,078) on January 29, 2012 4:15:25 PM CST I think you may be referring to The Lone Cypress at Pebble Beach ... Reply

From robertwallis/Robert (12,875) on January 29, 2012 6:00:27 PM CST That's the one. Thanks :-) I could never understand how they could chase photographers off, unless it was during a time period when they were aggressive about it. Probably if someone were out there with a large format camera or something impressive looking, they would swoop in assuming it was for commercial purposes. The local museum prohibits commercial photography on the grounds without a permit (costly), and photographers doing model portfolio shoots are escorted off the grounds. A few have learned that you go with minimal equipment, no entourage, and if stopped, you're just taking shots of your girlfriend or boyfriend. Personal recreation is okay, I guess. Reply

From swanda/John (1,023) on January 29, 2012 11:08:53 PM CST I've been to the 17 mile drive where the Lone Cypress is located, and there are plenty of tourists taking photos of it. I saw a reference on the internet to a photographer being denied permission to do a commercial shoot there, but it is their property and their right to do so. You even have to pay a fee to drive into the area. Reply

From rmullns/Robert (3,078) on January 29, 2012 12:24:41 PM CST Both images suck! Reply

From jklee/James (3,242) on January 29, 2012 12:32:43 PM CST I think you're overstating the situation, Both images were black & white EXCEPT for a red bus, Both had parliament & big ben Both had a white out sky. both had been manipulated in PS to achieve some of these effects. It's not likely the 2nd person came to those ideas all on his own. Reply

From parkerdr/Dave (9,286) on January 29, 2012 12:57:05 PM CST do an Images.google.com search on "red bus big ben" and see how many other copiers there are. Reply

From raelzinga/Ron (2,686) on January 30, 2012 4:38:06 PM CST I see a dozen photos a week that have monotoned flower shots with red roses, yellow roses, etc. From different people in differing walks of life. I wouldnt bite on "no two people could come up with the same concept argument"...it wouldnt fly here. NOTE: I havent seen the entirety of the case, so my comments are generic..please take that into consideration before blasting me. Reply

From raelzinga/Ron (2,686) on January 29, 2012 9:51:21 PM CST Huge mistake here, if every one who ever took a b+w image of a flower then turned it yellow could be sued, this country, and the world, would be in deep s**t. Theres not(IMO) enough likeness to award a victory to anyone here, the court system there is essentially saying "This guy took a photo of a bus, any other photos of a similar, or same for that matter, bus, could be viewed as a copyright infringement. I wonder how many regular folks on the street, tourists etc, have taken the same image and made the bus the only item of color? Cuz, they are all in violation of the copyright laws based on this courts decision. WATCH OUT WEDDING PHOTOGS! In my area of the world we have a huge bay in town with a huge weeping willow, every photog in town doing weddings ends up here at some time during their shoot. According to this court ruling, every photo taken after the very first one, would be a copyright infringment. So I guess it depends on the laws of the land...any similarity is a violation or not...based on where you live. Reply

From swanda/John (1,023) on January 29, 2012 11:13:39 PM CST I'm not sure I agree with the decision, but at any rate, it doesn't cover folks on the street and tourists taking photos. It is a question of commercial usage of the photo being a trademark or copyright infringement. Nobody is suing people for just taking photos, or processing them in a certain way for their own use. Reply

From iostream/Dean (4,398) on January 30, 2012 9:49:06 AM CST WATCH OUT WEDDING PHOTOGS! In my area of the world we have a huge bay in town with a huge weeping willow, every photog in town doing weddings ends up here at some time during their shoot. According to this court ruling, every photo taken after the very first one, would be a copyright infringment. I read the judgement, and it doesn't say that at all. What is says is that in the opinion of the court, the manipulations present in the finished images are identical, and amount to substantial copying. Tourists can still take photos of buses in London without fear. Reply

From raelzinga/Ron (2,686) on January 30, 2012 4:31:36 PM CST You dont think 20 photogs over a couple week period taking photos they are selling at the same place on the same beach under the same tree could be construed as "finished images are identical?" And the images shown in this case ARE NOT identical, unless your definition of identical is a bus in the same city that gets colored red, probably the color of the bus already, in a B+W image. I would argue that taking a picture of a rose, making it B+W, then coloring the rose the same as a 1000 other someones who already did it, would be considered by this courts judgment as "identical". I guess I would have to defer to the individual country laws to determine if the image is copyrighted based on the image being truly identical or if the thought process going in is copied making it copyrighted. But again, if the thought process is the copyright, then the rose, the wedding or even the bus photos would be copywritten and protected. I doubt that would fly in the US...but hey...stranger more ridiculous things have happened. Now, interestingly enough, Im in N MICH and we have a blueberry fest and then later a cherry fest in the local area. The blueberry fest ran a contest for a painting depicting their fest and got a winner with a fence, the bay behind it and lots of blueberry crops around it. When cherry fest rolled around a woman painted one very similar, but with cherries..and won. Nobody cried foul, nobody sued anyone else because the first guys idea was virtually the same, but for the color of the greenery. But with this courts ruling, I think the answer would be the same, the ideas were nearly identical, but the images, although very similar...werent. Must admit, after 40+ in the business, this is a first for me...copyrights based on similarities in images. Reply

From raelzinga/Ron (2,686) on January 30, 2012 4:35:27 PM CST I guess something I would also wonder about this assuming it was used to promote their business...what would happen if JOE BLOW took a picture very similar, monotoned it but leaving the bus red and made calendars and postcards and then began selling them? Now your talking about someone promoting a very public situation, a bus running the streets of wherever, and turning a profit. Since the suit seems to be stating the idea was the violation, isnt it still an issue for anyone who ever makes a like photo and tries to sell it???? Reply

From iostream/Dean (4,398) on January 30, 2012 9:35:46 PM CST The judge did not say that the shots were identical - he said that the identical post-processing on a very similar scene resulted in substantial copying. Copyright infringement can occur in whole or in part. You can't copy the leftmost 2/3 of Helmut Newton nude and claim it's not infringement because it isn't identical. That is 'substantial' copying. The judge ruled that a coloured bus moving left to right in front of a black-and-white H of P with a blanked white sky was 'substantial' copying, and I must say I see his point. Reply

From raelzinga/Ron (2,686) on January 31, 2012 3:24:24 PM CST Identical? Sorry I bit on another posters reference to that. Similar is what he actually said.<{P>Now, I would still argue that anyone taking a picture in front of the THAMES with a bride and groom to use on their web site or business stationary is now at possible lawsuit risk. Question being I spose..who took theirs first and is the way its done, pose, lighting, her flowers the only part thats color, all taking a look see at. I said it before, its nothing different than someone selling greeting cards taken in the same place but monotoned everything except the rose. If someone makes a logo with something similar then you ve got a copyright infringment, at least based on this ruling. With a small claims court possibly opening to cover this type of suit, you likely see more of this kind fo suit. not less. I havent been everywhere in the US so I cant say it hasnt or cant happen here, but I think the parameters of such a suit would likely be greater than listed by this judge. With the reality being, he well couldve used tight paramenters but explained it layman. Reply

Return to forum