Via Lynne over at Counting Cats, this dreadful story. At least it is dreadful for anyone who takes photographs.
The idea of an image of a red London bus set against a monochrome background is fairly well worn. However, even if it is not, taking a similar image is not copyright theft no matter how litigious the complainant may be. At least it wasn’t until now when we get an idiot judge who found the whole thing difficult:
‘His honour Judge Birss QC decided that a photograph of a red London bus against a black and white background of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament, with a blank sky, was similar enough to another photograph of the same subject matter to infringe copyright.’
No! No! No! They are similar. Similar is not the same. This stupid, stupid judgment now opens the floodgates for anyone who sees an image similar to their own to seek damages. Any photograph taken at a tourist destination will inevitably be similar to others taken at the same location – it has the same elements and composition will be similarly restricted. The addition of a little manipulation such as in the case here is not copyright theft. You do not own the copyright to a particular idea or type of manipulation, FFS!
The judge himself admitted that he found it a difficult question, but in the end he decided that a substantial part of photograph one [Temple Island’s image] had been reproduced in photograph two [New English Teas’].’
If he found it difficult, then it’s time he retired. It isn’t difficult at all and the two images are similar, not the same therefore copyright was not infringed.
Swan warned: ‘The Temple Island case is likely to herald more claims of this kind. The judgement should be studied by anyone imitating an existing photograph or commissioning a photograph based on a similar photograph.
‘“Inspiration” and “reference” are fine in themselves, but there is a line between copying ideas and copying the original expression of ideas which is often a difficult one to draw.’
It isn’t difficult at all. Copying an image is infringement of copyright. Copying an idea is not. The line is so clear you can see it from space.
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’.
Well, duh! It’s a piccy of a London bus set against the palace of Westminster. All images of London buses set against the palace of Westminster will look much the same and now, because of your cretinous judgement, the photographers are open to litigation.
This is a terrible judgement and I do hope the defendant appeals as if it is allowed to stand, all photographers are potentially open to litigation when we take images of well known landmarks, or, as I have here, use a specific technique.
Perhaps photographers should go en masse to London, stand on Westminster bridge and take photographs of Route masters and then photoshop them before publishing the results on the interwebs…
How do these judges keep their jobs?
Well James, I have said it before and I’ll say it again…
The only reason that the vast majority of Judges get to be Judges is that they are such crap lawyers that no-one in their right mind would wish to have them represent them in Court.
The oldest closed shop trade union in the world cannot have brother barristers signing on though can they? so they lobby the Lord Chancellor’s Dept (now the Deparment of Justice) to get the useless gits a nice little guaranteed earner on the Bench.
One I used to clerk the court for in the High Court, was regularly so sloshed on returning from lunch, that he didn’t know what day it was let alone what the case was about. I had to precis the morning’s evidence for him, before he could make a decision. On a couple of occasions I actually came to the decision, and he just read out the verdict (and that is really scary isn’t it folks?) No wonder I resigned after 12 years, I just couldn’t handle being part of such a fucked up system anymore.
RAB. I just shat myself there. Please be lying to us.
Sorry Maaarrghk, all true I’m afraid. And what is going on in the Family Division Courts (nearly always held in Camera) isn’t just ourageous, it’s a criminal conspiracy. Only Christopher Booker in the Tele ever tries to highlight it.
I suspect that what has gone on here is that the Judge has not the first idea what he is talking about. The same judge I mentioned earlier, and I, once sat on a case involving ball bearings. One company who made very high spec centrafuges ordered the ball bearings from another company and instead of the high spec ones they ordered they got low grade stainless steel ones only fit for putting in roller skates. They wrecked the machines and they were sueing for damages. The Judge hadn’t the first idea what any of the witnesses were talking about. He didn’t know Stainless steel from Tungsten or even fuckin Pig Iron for that matter.
One of the few drawbacks of the English legal system – fucking ludicrous judgements by senile twats can become a precedent.
That’s it then. I have a face with two eyes, two ears and one nose and mouth. So does my neighbour – and he’s younger than me. Should I sue him or his parents for the copyright violation?
Regardless of what the judge did/said, who is the fucking pratt that complained in the first place?
THEY are the ones to hang from lamp posts before starting on the legal system.
As a fellow photographer I (like you) find this astonishing.
It is so wrong headed that, if I didn’t know better, I’d say that it defies belief that a judge would make a ruling such as this. Sadly though it doesn’t.
Like you, I hope they take it to appeal and win.
REALLY scary I mean …
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bus-We-Loved-Londons-Routemaster/dp/1862077940
LOOK at the cover photograph!
ARRRGH!
And the review by Thrush Central……..
From Norfolk
(just saying)
IANAL, but I don’t think it’s that bad. Judges making decisions don’t tend to set precedent in UK courts. And in this case it seems to be more about two companies arguing over brand and product images than pure copyright. Taking lots of photographs in the same place doesn’t mean they fall foul of any copyright issues. The main issue seems to be the act of making the red bus standout in front of the grey HoP, the artistic element. It comes down to how much is copying and how much insperation, and just like in writing it’s a matter of degree and how good your lawyers are.
The phrases “lawyers have said” is just a way of winding up a story to make a mountain out of a molehill
Making a red object stand out against a monochrome background is so old hat, it is borderline cliché. Usually it’s post boxes or the old red telephone box. There is nothing new or artistic about it, so the claim really has no merit and the judge should have kicked it out.
Yes, it is old hat, and the technique can still be applied to many other photos including those with red buses and grey buildings. The point is that applying this technique with regards photos on the front of boxes used as brand images is where the clash has arisen. Though the judge used the word copyright I don’t think it has that much to do with copyright. The two companies are fighting over image rights. It’s more like Apple going after anyone who uses the letter i in front of a word.
The problem is that all of the elements in the images are iconic so are, therefore well photographed and probably from similar viewpoints. You will see them on various souvenirs from T shirts to mugs, coaster, tea towels and post cards. The technique as as we have already discussed it hardly new. Therefore, nothing about the image is a “brand” other than that the brand is London and for one company to try and claim ownership of that really is as daft as Apple trying to claim the rights to “i” – although Compaq got there several years before them 😉
Quite a few digicams actually have this kind of processing built in as a preset.
This judgement is a joke.
Longrider – If you check your blog records, you will find that, on various occasions when I have posted comments, later on, you have used words extracted therefrom as if they were your own (Often in the same or similar context), and without acknowledgement. Please rectify this situation immediately.
Slightly off topic, but still on the subject of the juxtaposition of greyscale and colour in composition, I came across this site recently:
http://sergey-larenkov.livejournal.com/?skip=40
which I thought was an inspired and skilfully applied example of the genre.
Some pictures work better than others, but they are nonetheless quite brilliant.
I recall that someone did something similar with London a few years back. I rather liked them.