Don't take a photo of.....

[stevebedder]

....a red bus in front of a black and white house of parliament, you might get in trouble:

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/25/create-a-similarly-composed-photo-in-the-uk-risk-copyright-infringement/

[nickt]

Good grief.

[Oldboy]

Don't agree with that decision at all. 

[Hinfrance]

Beggars belief.

[jinky]

This is all over the place abd cannot belive the judge is so stupid. They are surely going to appeal you cannot  copyright a view!!! Maybe the judge has never seena colour pop before ! I reckon he should be bombarded with examples of similar shots until he decides to get it reviewed. It`s on my list to do one of these next time I am in London just to rebel 

[Graham]

 Ok. All of you within reach of that area, and I know there's a few of you, go and take a similar pic (Should'nt be too dificult.) Post them up here and I'll donate a prize to the first to get sued.
                   Graham.

[Markulous]

I'm not too sure about this. Did anyone read the judgement, in which it's clear:

He clearly knew about the claimant's work when the second image was produced because the whole point of the exercise was to produce a non-infringing image given the complaint about the first image the defendants had used

So, based upon the original shot (much used on postcards and t-shirts) the tea company shot was taken and in the certain knowledge that it would be challenged, attempts were made to ensure it wasn't too similar, then put onto tea tins which were then sold alongside postcards and t-shirts showing the original shot! It was clear that the tea company were attempting to profit from the work of the postcard photographer

Personally, if I sold an iconic shot like that (obviously a nice little money-spinner), I'd want to protect my work too! 

You can see what they were trying to do:
http://www.newenglishteas.com/index.php/tea_products/6
but obviously weren't keen on paying the price of the first photographer!

[michaelb104]

I'm with Jinky, I feel a trip to London coming on just so that I can recreate the shot. 

What a stupid decision, but then again UK judges are ar3es, when a woman who researched a criminal whist she was on jury duty gets sent to prison for three months but a thug who kicks a man unconscious walks out of court. Sorry I'll climb down off my soap box now................

[Carlj]

With many compacts, and a few dslr's (come on Canon - the 5Diii needs it and a lomo mode!) with colour popping built in, will the plonker raise a lawsuit against companies building in this feature?

[Oldboy]

You can see what they were trying to do:
http://www.newenglishteas.com/index.php/tea_products/6
but obviously weren't keen on paying the price of the first photographer!

Notice they have a copyright notice on that web page! 

[Hinfrance]

I'm with Jinky, I feel a trip to London coming on just so that I can recreate the shot. 

What a stupid decision, but then again UK judges are ar3es, when a woman who researched a criminal whist she was on jury duty gets sent to prison for three months but a thug who kicks a man unconscious walks out of court. Sorry I'll climb down off my soap box now................

Slightly OT, but I agree with the sentencing of the juror. The whole point of a trial is that the evidence presented there must be judged on it's own merits. Checking up on defendants is a contempt of court. Instructions to jurors specifically state that they must not research anyone connected with the case they are hearing. In short, she had it coming . .

As for the idiotically light sentences for crimes of violence, well, that's a whole other rant topic . . 

[Cathus]

Personally, if I sold an iconic shot like that (obviously a nice little money-spinner), I'd want to protect my work too! 

were they the first person ever to take a colour pop shot of a London bus outside the Houses of Parliament?

Wouldn't it be great if they in turn were sued by the first person ever to do it who probably never realised you could protect something like this?

[Markulous]

were they the first person ever to take a colour pop shot of a London bus outside the Houses of Parliament?

Wouldn't it be great if they in turn were sued by the first person ever to do it who probably never realised you could protect something like this?

I'm sure he wasn't but the case showed that the tea company couldn't find any prior images, plus they'd deliberately taken a shot with prior knowledge of that image that attempted to disguise the copying of the style. Biggest plus: postcard company had sufficient funds to bring the case!

I'm reminded of a certain well known domestic appliance inventor who we had the pleasure of visiting when he employed all of 8 people! Despite every large manufacturer turning him away ("there's no future in bagless vacuum machines") when they did eventually get around to copying his idea he staked everything (business and home) to the tune of a few £million fighting in the courts. The outcome was by no means guaranteed (you'd think it would be a dead cert!), like all court cases - the rest is history, as they say! Still have the original pink model he gave (retired now having done sterling service but is on display as was always the intention of his designs)

[Hinfrance]

I think it is slightly different. OK a lot different. Dyson held a patent for a new design of bagless cleaner (bagless is was not new, I have a 1960's American bagless vacuum in my workshop).

The photograph contains only a public place, public transport and colour popping. None of which is even faintly original, even in the configuration on the postcard.

BTW I had a Dyson cleaner, but the removal men left it behind last time we moved. I wasn't really upset about that, because it was a rubbish vacuum anyway. It certainly kept most of its suction as it filled, the problem was it had beggar all to start with 

[Malcolm1938]

I wonder what reaction you would get if you stood at a beauty spot and said to photographers - you cant take a picture from there - I took one from there last week, or last year or when I was 10. It is really a step too far if it applies to straight from camera images.

Applied to images created outside the camera it is a totally different matter.