"Though the images are not identical, the judge ruled that Fielder's composition of the image, to include such features as the 'visual contrast' of the bright red bus and monochrome background, were the photographer's 'intellectual creation'.
Hmm. Fairly doofy ruling. Hopefully it's overturned on appeal.
Moreover, it would seem that Defendant did a lousy job showing that none of the photographic elements used by claimant were his own original creation, ie claimant's picture isn't original.
Maybe defendant should have taken the time to find evidence that someone else has taken a photograph of a red bus against a black and white background taken before 2005 (Maybe this?)
I could understand a lawsuit where one company attempts to copy the other company's logo, in which case an argument can be made that one brand is attempting to confuse consumers, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
I believe in this case the infringed photo was commissioned and not paid for by the buyer who went out and had the infringing picture made in including the style of post processing. Not really a clear case of copyright when it comes to photos of the same place and subject mater. Also this is only a president in the UK.
I think you mean "precedent". Though the last two have tried very hard to appear otherwise, they only get to be Prime Ministers...
WAYCOOL wrote:
I believe in this case the infringed photo was commissioned and not paid for by the buyer who went out and had the infringing picture made in including the style of post processing. Not really a clear case of copyright when it comes to photos of the same place and subject mater. Also this is only a president in the UK.
Looks like this one is going global - it's hit slashdot.
In my (non legally competent) opinion the judge has misunderstood the law at a very basic level - copyright does not extend to ideas, only to the expression of those ideas. (If you want to protect an idea you need a patent). Accordingly a million photographers can take the same photo at the same time and all own copyright on the image they captured. A law which protects the "idea" contained within a photograph (or indeed any other creative work) is completely unworkable due to the nebulous interpretation of "idea". You wouldn't be able to take any photos ever again because someone previously had the "idea" of black and white processing, of having the sun setting against a desert background, of a sand dune with footprints. And given the general trend to extending copyright protection well beyond the expected lifespan of the creators we may as well all throw our cameras in the bin if this is not turned around on appeal.
As a side note, the company which performed this trick to try to avoid paying a licensing fee probably does morally deserve a punishment of some description.
As a side note, there's a link below the original article to another story entitled
"Photographer in Golden Wonder crisps security fiasco" - click on the video clip for an object lesson in how to handle yourself when confronted by security guards who don't want you to photograph their building!
