Image Copyright
Lefty
A local newspaper owns the copyright for an image I used on my site,
they instructed me to take the picture down from my site, I done this
almost immediatly however another site was also displaying the same
image.
I photographed the image whilst browsing the other site, does this new
photograph copyright belong to me?
can I use it freely?
I have the image in question on my FlickR account which can be found
here:
Tommo
> Hi could anybody advise me.
>
> A local newspaper owns the copyright for an image I used on my site,
> they instructed me to take the picture down from my site, I done this
> almost immediatly however another site was also displaying the same
> image.
>
> I photographed the image whilst browsing the other site, does this new
> photograph copyright belong to me?
Copyright vest in the artistic image, so you ahve copyright in the
photo you took.
> can I use it freely?
No, because you would still be breaching the copyright by exploiting
the original image.
Norman Wells
Tommo <sxt...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>On 2 May, 22:36, Lefty <l...@itslefty.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hi could anybody advise me.
>>
>> A local newspaper owns the copyright for an image I used on my site,
>> they instructed me to take the picture down from my site, I done this
>> almost immediatly however another site was also displaying the same
>> image.
>>
>> I photographed the image whilst browsing the other site, does this new
>> photograph copyright belong to me?
>
>Copyright vest in the artistic image, so you ahve copyright in the
>photo you took.
No he doesn't. There is nothing whatsoever that is 'original' in what
he has done, and copyright only attaches to original works. In any
case, when he says he 'photographed the image while he was browsing the
other site' I assume what he means is that he directly downloaded it
which, in itself, is a breach of the original copyright.
>
>> can I use it freely?
>
>No, because you would still be breaching the copyright by exploiting
>the original image.
>
>> I have the image in question on my FlickR account which can be found
>> here:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=48174859
Then you'd better take it off, because that is an infringement of
copyright too.
--
Norman Wells
NG
Tommo
> In message <1178142762.569524.132...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Tommo <sxt2...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
> >On 2 May, 22:36, Lefty <l...@itslefty.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Hi could anybody advise me.
>
> >> A local newspaper owns the copyright for an image I used on my site,
> >> they instructed me to take the picture down from my site, I done this
> >> almost immediatly however another site was also displaying the same
> >> image.
>
> >> I photographed the image whilst browsing the other site, does this new
> >> photograph copyright belong to me?
>
> >Copyright vest in the artistic image, so you ahve copyright in the
> >photo you took.
> No he doesn't. There is nothing whatsoever that is 'original' in what
> he has done, and copyright only attaches to original works. In any
> case, when he says he 'photographed the image while he was browsing the
> other site' I assume what he means is that he directly downloaded it
> which, in itself, is a breach of the original copyright.
Well that's your assumption, and you may be right or wrong. But if he
did take a photograph (which is what he says) then that is an original
work in itself and the copyright in that photograph belongs to OP.
But that isn't to saythat it the photo doesn't infringe the other
party's IP rights
Norman Wells
<sxt...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>On 3 May, 08:50, Norman Wells <nor...@myarl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> No he doesn't. There is nothing whatsoever that is 'original' in what
>> he has done, and copyright only attaches to original works. In any
>> case, when he says he 'photographed the image while he was browsing the
>> other site' I assume what he means is that he directly downloaded it
>> which, in itself, is a breach of the original copyright.
>
>Well that's your assumption, and you may be right or wrong. But if he
>did take a photograph (which is what he says) then that is an original
>work in itself and the copyright in that photograph belongs to OP.
I don't think you'll find anyone who matters who thinks a photograph of
another photograph is a work that is sufficiently original to attract
separate copyright on its own account.
--
Norman Wells
NG
fjm...@gmail.com
>
> I don't think you'll find anyone who matters who thinks a photograph of
> another photograph is a work that is sufficiently original to attract
> separate copyright on its own account.
>
But in this case its not a photograph of a photograph, its a
photograph of a computer monitor displaying a web page which contains
the image. That is not, quite, the same thing. In principle copyright
could vest in his creation, although it would also infringe the
original images' copyright.
Francis
Norman Wells
fjm...@gmail.com writes
Well, we don't actually know that. However, if any copyright were to be
created in this way, it could only be for what is original in the new
photograph, and that is essentially nothing. De minimis considerations
would apply, and I'm confident that a court would follow their own
precedents and hold that there is nothing in the photograph that has
been taken that constitutes a work, let alone one that has sufficient
originality.
--
Norman Wells
NG
Lefty
matter what the image matter is.
I have just taken a new photograph using exactly the same camera,
photographing exactly the same monitor but this time i carried out an
image search on google and photographed the results of that, would
this new image be my copyright and if so why would it be any different
to the last image.
Tommo
Consider the following:
You are a photographer and particularly specialise in photos of groups
of people.
If you take a picture of a group of people stood outside, you have the
copyright in the photo - no problems.
But what about if you take a picture of a group of people in an art
gallery? The group shot is still your copyright, but that doesn't mean
that you thereby acquire rights in any pictures shown in the
background- those rights remain wit the owner.
So, in this case, the photo is your copyright. However, you may be
infringing someones elses copyright in relation to the results
returned by the image search.
Haydon
No chance mate, you are in breach of copyright.
"Lefty" <le...@itslefty.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1178141807....@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Haydon
What is the difference between you doing this than videoing a movie with
your camcorder?!? Or, even reproducing (copying) a pirate copy of a
movie?!?
"Lefty" <le...@itslefty.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1178218691....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Lefty
> Don't be so stupid.
>
> What is the difference between you doing this than videoing a movie with
> your camcorder?!? Or, even reproducing (copying) a pirate copy of a
> movie?!?
>
>
> news:1178218691....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Thanks for all your replies, I beleive the image should be mine, no
> > matter what the image matter is.
>
> > I have just taken a new photograph using exactly the same camera,
> > photographing exactly the same monitor but this time i carried out an
> > image search on google and photographed the results of that, would
> > this new image be my copyright and if so why would it be any different
> > to the last image.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
If I took a photograph of my friend whilst she was watching spiderman
3, on the TV, because spiderman was in the picture along with my
friend, My photograph would be the copyright of 20th century fox?
Tommo
> On 3 May, 20:31, "Haydon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Don't be so stupid.
>
> > What is the difference between you doing this than videoing a movie with
> > your camcorder?!? Or, even reproducing (copying) a pirate copy of a
> > movie?!?
>
> > "Lefty" <l...@itslefty.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:1178218691....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Thanks for all your replies, I beleive the image should be mine, no
> > > matter what the image matter is.
>
> > > I have just taken a new photograph using exactly the same camera,
> > > photographing exactly the same monitor but this time i carried out an
> > > image search on google and photographed the results of that, would
> > > this new image be my copyright and if so why would it be any different
> > > to the last image.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If I took a photograph of my friend whilst she was watching spiderman
> 3, on the TV, because spiderman was in the picture along with my
No, but your friend would be done for watching a pirated DVD :o)
Lefty
> On 3 May, 21:26, Lefty <l...@itslefty.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 May, 20:31, "Haydon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > Don't be so stupid.
>
> > > What is the difference between you doing this than videoing a movie with
> > > your camcorder?!? Or, even reproducing (copying) a pirate copy of a
> > > movie?!?
>
> > > "Lefty" <l...@itslefty.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1178218691....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > Thanks for all your replies, I beleive the image should be mine, no
> > > > matter what the image matter is.
>
> > > > I have just taken a new photograph using exactly the same camera,
> > > > photographing exactly the same monitor but this time i carried out an
> > > > image search on google and photographed the results of that, would
> > > > this new image be my copyright and if so why would it be any different
> > > > to the last image.
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > If I took a photograph of my friend whilst she was watching spiderman
> > 3, on the TV, because spiderman was in the picture along with my
> > friend, My photograph would be the copyright of 20th century fox?-
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
;o)
Cynic
<nor...@myarl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I don't think you'll find anyone who matters who thinks a photograph of
>another photograph is a work that is sufficiently original to attract
>separate copyright on its own account.
It certainly does. If, for example, someone were to take a photograph
of a work of art for which the copyright had expired, they could
certainly sue anyone who used that photograph without their
permission.
A photograph *of itself* has a degree of original work insofar that
the photographer has put in some degree of effort to travel to the
place where the original work is situated, frame the shot, expose it
and render the result in a displayable format.
--
Cynic
Cynic
>If I took a photograph of my friend whilst she was watching spiderman
>3, on the TV, because spiderman was in the picture along with my
>friend, My photograph would be the copyright of 20th century fox?
No, but 20th century fox could sue you for infringing *their*
copyright.
You can own the copyright to an image that itself infringes another
copyright.
--
Cynic
Norman Wells
<cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
at the new photograph and decide the extent of any original work in it
by simply subtracting the original photograph from it and looking at the
value of what's left, ie diddly squat.
In any case, though it's now some time ago, I think the original poster
thought he might escape copyright infringement by arguing that he had
created a new copyright. That of course is absolute nonsense, so
whether he had or not is a total irrelevance.
--
Norman Wells
NG
Cynic
<nor...@myarl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <f54b43tpkk8njmdbk...@4ax.com>, Cynic
><cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>On Thu, 3 May 2007 09:55:03 +0100, Norman Wells
>><nor...@myarl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't think you'll find anyone who matters who thinks a photograph of
>>>another photograph is a work that is sufficiently original to attract
>>>separate copyright on its own account.
>>
>>It certainly does. If, for example, someone were to take a photograph
>>of a work of art for which the copyright had expired, they could
>>certainly sue anyone who used that photograph without their
>>permission.
>>
>>A photograph *of itself* has a degree of original work insofar that
>>the photographer has put in some degree of effort to travel to the
>>place where the original work is situated, frame the shot, expose it
>>and render the result in a displayable format.
>>
>In principle you're right. In practice, however, the court would look
>at the new photograph and decide the extent of any original work in it
>by simply subtracting the original photograph from it and looking at the
>value of what's left, ie diddly squat.
So if I spend a fortune trailblazing through the Amazon and discover a
tomb full of marvelous art treasures, any photographs I take of them
could be copied more or less with impunity?
--
Cynic
Norman Wells
<cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
No.
How much you spend is irrelevant. The important thing, though, is that
you would be creating a totally new and original artistic work, not just
reproducing an existing one. You are even changing the number of
dimensions involved.
The artistic endeavour that would be recognised by copyright is in the
photographer's skill in selecting, arranging and lighting the objects to
be photographed.
Photographing an existing photograph requires none of those to any
significant degree, just commonplace low-level technical expertise.
It's no different in essence to downloading it.
Anyway, so what if some new copyright is created? It will only extend
to what is new and original in the later photograph, which is very
little, and any copies of it will still infringe the copyright in the
original photograph.
--
Norman Wells
NG
M.I.5¾
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rp4b43ljdlfriehkm...@4ax.com...
> On 3 May 2007 13:26:36 -0700, Lefty <le...@itslefty.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>If I took a photograph of my friend whilst she was watching spiderman
>>3, on the TV, because spiderman was in the picture along with my
>>friend, My photograph would be the copyright of 20th century fox?
>
> No, but 20th century fox could sue you for infringing *their*
> copyright.
>
Not if the image on the TV was only incidental to the purpose of the
photograph and not a principal feature of it. Similarly, if you shoot a
home video of a wedding reception and the music gets onto the sound track.
You are not considered to have infringed the music's copyright if the music
is incidental to the video. You do infringe the copyright if the music or
image was deliberately placed there.
> You can own the copyright to an image that itself infringes another
> copyright.
>
That much is true.
Tim Jackson
> The artistic endeavour that would be recognised by copyright is in the
> photographer's skill in selecting, arranging and lighting the objects to
> be photographed.
Any copyright will subsist irrespective of artistic quality. Copyright
etc Act 1988, section 4(1)(a).
> Anyway, so what if some new copyright is created? It will only extend
> to what is new and original in the later photograph, which is very
> little, [snip]
I think originality is the real issue. Whether there is any originality
will depend on whether the later photo is just a slavish copy of the
previous one, or whether there's something more. But it can be original
without there being any artistic endeavour.
If there is some originality, I think the later photo's copyright will
extend to the whole photo. I don't think you'd avoid infringement of
the later photo's copyright by trying to omit its original elements.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.plus.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)
Tim Jackson
> I think originality is the real issue. Whether there is any originality
> will depend on whether the later photo is just a slavish copy of the
> previous one, or whether there's something more. But it can be original
> without there being any artistic endeavour.
I've just come across a report of a relevant workshop event:
http://tinyurl.com/2y6ve6
which leads to:
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2007/05/ipkat-special-report-qms-workshop-
on.html
Note that under UK copyright law it was "considered that a good
photograph of a work of art, even a two-dimensional one, owes it to the
skill, labour and judgement of the photographer and as a result should
be protected."
Against that, a US court evidently thought differently, even under its
own understanding of UK law:
http://tinyurl.com/2saenf
which leads to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_Ltd._v.
_Corel_Corporation