Interesting Copyright case

I think nobody should post in this thread unless they have actually read what the judge wrote.

And ... breathe.
 
ruggie_uk said:
It would be nice if the little man won more often TBH. It's normally bigger companies manipulating the system to make sure that an individual has no chance. Good on him.
Click to expand...


I think that Stewart's advice two posts above yours was quite a good one tbh.

This has absolutely nothing to do with 'the little man' and everything to do with business- very big business in this case!

Nice fantasy, but definitely not the case here!
 
Having now seen the two images presented in this case...


can I file a suit for damages to my eyeballs, and common decency? :D


More seriously, very interesting case and judgement. Defendant shot himself in the foot by setting out to 'sort of' replicate the image.

There's a lot of people getting hot under the collar here, but they probably haven't bothered to read what the judge actually said. He made a very narrow ruling based on the highly specific circumstances of the case. It's nothing to be worried about.
Click to expand...

+1. Highly specific, and a GOOD thing for photographers.
 
Last edited:
Thought this was an interesting quote from the judge's decision...

the mere taking of a photograph is a mechanical process involving no skill at all and the labour of merely pressing a button
Click to expand...

and I was amused by the defendant's solicitor being Wright Hassall :lol:
 
I was in the Sunday Up Market at Brick Lane last Sunday and saw this poster for sale. It's not really an original idea and I'm sure it's been done a lot of times before Temple Island Collections and New English Teas made their versions.

 
Spiritflier said:
I could be in trouble for an image I've posted in the portrait section... I was unaware of this ruling until I read Amateur Photographer this morning!

I quite openly attempted to 'recreate' a shot by Rankin just to see how he'd done it. In fairness to me, I didn't do it for financial gain - just curiousity - but on the basis of that ruling, I could arguably be guilty of the same thing! :shrug:
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think you'd be OK on the basis that Rankin has done a couple of TV shows where he's recreated old Hollywood shots, or photo's from other artists.
 
I've seen similar around Camden Market. That's probably why people now have signs up saying no photography near their original art work.

There's a guy in Camden market who makes original work using VW campers, usually in unusual London settings, campers on the tube line, coming over the bridge as above etc.

I've seen them (or rather copies) all over the place
 
garryknight said:
I was in the Sunday Up Market at Brick Lane last Sunday and saw this poster for sale. It's not really an original idea and I'm sure it's been done a lot of times before Temple Island Collections and New English Teas made their versions.

Click to expand...

Never mind the bus, I wonder what the stance is for reproducing the Banksy image? ;)

I agree with the comments about this ruling being something protecting photographer's, although I do feel that when presented in legal terms and in writing, it seems a bit too cold and unfair on the defendant. It's when you sit there and assess what it means that it does become clear that this was a fairly unique case and one where the claimant was in the right. With so much litigation going on these days it's easy to write off claimants as solely after a quick buck or just bending the law to their own benefit.

I still think it's an appalling image and I will be queued up behind Dave to file my lawsuit for burned retinas :lol:
 
But isn't this just another case like the other threads we have running in this section; poncy french furniture ****s or the Telegraph using images without permission whereby all of this goes on but it takes a determined litigator to see someone get spanked for it.

As for seeing this written down seeming strange, have you ever actually fought a civil action? They are very odd, twisting, turning and hanging on the most ridiculous detail to decide the issue. My own experience is that you really couldn't guess the outcome of even the most bloody obvious case before it ends...
 
Desantnik - nope, never even seen the inside of a court. I can quite well imagine a law suit would make Inception look crystal clear :)
 
specialman said:
Never mind the bus, I wonder what the stance is for reproducing the Banksy image? ;)
Click to expand...

I think that because Banksy puts the majority of his work out in public places, people think it comes under the public domain. After watching "Exit Through the Gift Shop" (and spending a little time thinking about the title), I'd be interested to know what he thinks about the republication of his presumably copyright images.
 
garryknight said:
I think that because Banksy puts the majority of his work out in public places, people think it comes under the public domain. After watching "Exit Through the Gift Shop" (and spending a little time thinking about the title), I'd be interested to know what he thinks about the republication of his presumably copyright images.
Click to expand...

I think there was actually a shop in London a few years ago that sold prints of photographs that someone had taken of Banksy's works. Apparently, they did amazing business....
 
Last edited:
ok, so i just spent a *considerable* amount of time reading the entire ruling.
and after reading (admittedly, not all of) the responses in this thread, some people are jumping to conclusions here.

bottom line- there was prior knowledge of the photo. the infringing photo is a composite.

There are many other similar photos out there, that was also noted.

Basically, the defendent set out to recreate the photo , in a composite. That IS an infringement.

The judgement actually states, that if an independant photographer had been given a brief to go and shoot big ben, the houses of parliament, and capture a red bus in there, that that would not be an infringement.

On seeing the photos, at first i too thought "how on earth is that an infringement". Reading the facts of the case certainly change that view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top