Photographers face copyright threat

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

This is OUTRAGEOUS!!
Imagine if this ruling flowed onto the Amateur Astro Imaging community. It would grind the hobby to a halt. How many different ways can you possibly image for example M8 or M42???

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_311191.html

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

I wish these clouds would clear. First thing I'm going to do is image M42, then slap a copy right on it.

[acropolite (Phil)]

Insanity....

I have an image of one of the grandkids in mono with a red ball taken six years ago, could be that the plaintiff has stolen my intellectual property and it sure as hell wasn't an original concept when I used it.

[torana68 (Roger)]

seems its not the image thats in question its the way its been processed. Its the red bus with a monochrome background (the same background), not just any old photo of a red bus. So should someone do M42 in monochrome with a pink cat and you do the same and claim it as your own you could be in trouble.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

So in theory, NASA could sue everyone for using the Hubble Palette to create their images.

Or if a group of us is together imaging the same comet, at the same location, with the same foreground, and if someone wanted to be narky, they could stop you from using your own photograph because their exif info showed they took their shot first , therefore they have copy right.

It only takes one person to spoil everyone elses fun.

[h0ughy (David)]

this is nuts.... especially to all those landscape images, water drop images, smoke, lighting, movie locations, family shots, etc etc. Get a life, the world is an ever dynamic and changing place - no one image can ever be exactly the same as another. they can be similar but not the same!

[technofetishism (Nick)]

Its actually alot more subtle than the sensationalist headline makes out, a good summary can be found at this comment from boingboing here

A small segment for example

but to summarise, the defendants agreed to licence the claimant's bus image, but this agreement fell apart and the defendants said that they would 'source the image elsewhere'. Subsequently they arranged for the new picture to be taken and edited to resemble the original. It really wasn't in dispute that there had been deliberate copying; the question was whether this was infringing copying.

Not that the ruling isnt a very... potentially problematic.

[torana68 (Roger)]

Originally Posted by jjjnettie

So in theory, NASA could sue everyone for using the Hubble Palette to create their images.
Or if a group of us is together imaging the same comet, at the same location, with the same foreground, and if someone wanted to be narky, they could stop you from using your own photograph because their exif info showed they took their shot first , therefore they have copy right.

no only if you do something "Arty" to the image to make it "your own" just an image is just an image.... work on it, add things to it and its yours, copy the work put in (or the thought of what would make the image arty) and your in the poo. In your example yes if you shifted the comet image to include, say, the moon. You cant have copyright on something anyone can see.

[Peter Ward]

So.... if you put multiple (colourised) red buses in front of the UK houses of Parliment, would that make it better?

IMHO the Bard was correct:

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" (Henry The Sixth)

.... seems not much has changed !

[Stardrifter_WA]

Just another storm in a tea cup

[Kevnool (Kev)]

To late everyone I just put a copyright on the whole southern hemisphere.....yay.


I wish I was a cowboy in another place & time away from these stupid times.

[Rodstar (Rod)]

This case arises in a commercial context. Party A came up with a novel creation (the concept of the red bus against a black and white rendition of the UK Houses of Parliament), and Party B copied it to gain a substantial commercial advantage.

This is to be distinguished from the images taken by amateur astrophotographers, which depict common celestial objects, which may look nice, but which are of no real commercial value. No one is going to spend $100,000+ in legal fees to argue over your right to take an image of M42. No hysteria is required.

Copyright actually attaches to any artistic work we create. So the image you took last night of NGC1365 is automatically your copyrighted work. In that instance, it is the actual image you have taken, and not the subject matter of the image that matters. No one is allowed to copy your image, and reproduce it without your permission, and rightly so. How would you feel if I copied your image, gathered by you using skills developed over many years of practice, and then I posted it as mine? I imagine you would be pretty unhappy. And rightly so.

[wavelandscott (Scott)]

Originally Posted by Rodstar

This case arises in a commercial context. Party A came up with a novel creation (the concept of the red bus against a black and white rendition of the UK Houses of Parliament), and Party B copied it to gain a substantial commercial advantage.

This is to be distinguished from the images taken by amateur astrophotographers, which depict common celestial objects, which may look nice, but which are of no real commercial value. No one is going to spend $100,000+ in legal fees to argue over your right to take an image of M42. No hysteria is required.

Copyright actually attaches to any artistic work we create. So the image you took last night of NGC1365 is automatically your copyrighted work. In that instance, it is the actual image you have taken, and not the subject matter of the image that matters. No one is allowed to copy your image, and reproduce it without your permission, and rightly so. How would you feel if I copied your image, gathered by you using skills developed over many years of practice, and then I posted it as mine? I imagine you would be pretty unhappy. And rightly so.

Are you invoicing us individually or as a group? Good practical legal advice...Thanks

[erick (Eric)]

Is this the right time for me to explain Author's Moral Rights, rights of attribution and rights of integrity?

That is the most important aspect in the non-commercial world of amateur astrophotography.

[brian nordstrom (As avatar)]

but is this a real photo ? or has it been photo shopped ? if so it is like trying to copyright your childs first stick man drawing , Pathetic.
As already been said here no two are exactly the same and some people need to get a life !!
To much time on their hands/minds ... its going to be a sad day if it happens .
Brian.

[marki]

What if someone took a picture of something you owned without permission then slapped a copyright on the pic. Could you as the owner of said oject then force the image to be destroyed? Makes you wonder doesn't it.


Mark

[Paul Haese]

I concur with Rod. This is just a beat up. The courts generally take a common sense approach to these things and it is a long bow from commercial taking off to all photographers beware. Nothing is likely to arise from this. Besides this is in another jurisdiction anyway.

[AG Hybrid (Adrian)]

Originally Posted by jjjnettie

So in theory, NASA could sue everyone for using the Hubble Palette to create their images.

Perfect! You just found a way for NASA to end its funding problems for the James Webb Telescope

[funktapus (Nick)]

I think it would be hard to prove the identity of most photos. With identical point of references (stars etc) and the amount of image processing thats applied, they are no tell tale signs of who took what.

[OICURMT]

Originally Posted by Rodstar

This case arises in a commercial context. Party A came up with a novel creation (the concept of the red bus against a black and white rendition of the UK Houses of Parliament), and Party B copied it to gain a substantial commercial advantage.

This is to be distinguished from the images taken by amateur astrophotographers, which depict common celestial objects, which may look nice, but which are of no real commercial value. No one is going to spend $100,000+ in legal fees to argue over your right to take an image of M42. No hysteria is required.

Copyright actually attaches to any artistic work we create. So the image you took last night of NGC1365 is automatically your copyrighted work. In that instance, it is the actual image you have taken, and not the subject matter of the image that matters. No one is allowed to copy your image, and reproduce it without your permission, and rightly so. How would you feel if I copied your image, gathered by you using skills developed over many years of practice, and then I posted it as mine? I imagine you would be pretty unhappy. And rightly so.

Here's a challenge for the lawyer in the group...

http://www.google.com/search?pws=0&q...&um=1&tbm=isch

who "owns" the "artistic" design for these images? The first guy who shot the plane in front of the moon or the person who commercialized it first?

And if Qantas were to use Chris' image would China Airlines be banned from using a later "artistically similar" image?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1009...thomas_big.jpg
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...5_reuplane.jpg


Also, if I combined a shot of the moon and an airplane in Photoshop, am I "creating" an artistic impression that now does not violate copyright because I created it versus photographers who shoots "the real thing"? Or... if I "created it" (photoshop) long before anyone else shot the real thing, are they infringing on my copyright?

Food for thought...
OIC!