COBBLER'S PAGE
"Copying a photograph and selling the copy is a copy-wrong, right? Of course it is. Photographers understand it is illegal to make a copy of, say, Ansel Photographer’s copyrighted photograph and sell it for profit. But how many understand it is also a copyright infringement —i.e. illegal — to study Ansell’s Excellent Photograph, and then go out and shoot one nearly like it?" This is taken from an article by Jerry O’Neil wilting in PhoEo Techniques, Jan/Feb. 2003. He goes on to write that Skint Record Co. looked at a well-known Ernst Haas photo and decided that instead of paying Getty Images for reproduction rights they would commision a photographer to shoot basically the same photograph for a new CD cover. Getty Images cried foul and the argument went thus: Getty Images claimed that "while the offenders didn’t literally copy the Hans photograph, they had access to the image, and had created a ‘substantially similar’ photo. Skint argued that they were merely ‘inspired’ by Ham’ photo. In the end Skint reconsidered and paid $25000 in the out-of-court settlement and the credit line was quickly revised. While the CD photo was not an exact copy of the Hans photograph, the copyright law stands on two important legal points: I. Does the infringer have access to the original? and 2. Is the photograph substantially similar to the original copyrighted photograph? Photographers it seems argue "that copying is OK as long as 10% of the original is changed." This is a myth. The ‘total look and feel’ are considered as legal factors as well as the court’s ‘gut feeling.’ In other words it is a very fuzzy area. When one considers the large amounts of money paid for pictures and their copyright you can understand the need for protection from some other person using them for profit. Copyright is very difficult to enforce. No-one thinks twice about copying musical material from any source. In fact taking CDs from the Internet is openly encouraged. The music industry is run by people who make copyrighted discs and tapes and then sell you the equipment to copy them. I, on the other hand, would like something in place to stop anyone using my pictures and passing them off as their own. So, as you stand in front of the Half Dome at Yosemite National Park along with dozens of other like-minded people taking their Ansel Adams inspired picture, spare a thought to copyright. In the possibly unlikely event of getting anywhere near his interpretation should you credit it with his name for the idea? There are lots of examples nearer home, particularly with landscapes, buildings or record photography. It is known as using the tripod holes. ff1 copyright my picture of Ashness Bridge, could I make a fortune from the calendar and jigsaw puzzle producers? Or does it have to be a person in a particular posed setting, as in the court case? There is a case I know of personally that seems pertinent to this topic. Oakwell Hall, Birstall, has associations with Charlotte Bronte. The interior and some of the furnishings were photographed for a book. Since then, what used to be open house for the local camera club has now become limited and photography only allowed if you guarantee you are not going to use the results for commercial gain. Some items cannot be photographed at all because of this book and of course all the pictures are copyrighted. The court case was in America and it may be that there is some difference to British law, but how much do we know about it? Could you be sure? Makes you think, doesn’t it? |