View Full Version : Somebody stole my photo
ClaremontPhoto
12-31-2005, 05:30
I have a great photo and it's often used in tourism publicity and the like.
Now somebody has gone to almost the same location and replicated it for a calender.
Not a coincidence. The composition is exactly the same and he even has a hunched up old guy walking out of the frame too.
I walked into a bar and there was 'my' photo on a 2006 calender!
Kragmeister
12-31-2005, 05:52
How about having your body of work similarly swiped and used as the basis for a Masters thesis? A former "friend" appropriated my ideas, locations and techniques and duplicated numerous photos of mine. I was clueless until he returned to the area after attending the Pratt Institute and got an MFA in photography. He had a show in the area and I was floored when I saw what he did. I attended his opening (uninvited) and he all but acknowledged this because I was in the audience for the artists' talk and question and answer session. After that I basically shut myself off and stopped shooting. It took about 11 years before I could pick up a camera again. The guy's name is Edward A. Leskin. (http://www.users.fast.net/~kragmeister/gallery/why.htm) in Allentown, PA USA.
Regards,
Greg
daveozzz
12-31-2005, 05:53
I read a discussion on another forum about this sort of thing. I was more than a bit disappointed to read about how many photographers had been approached by clients who showed them a picture and were asked to try to "match" it.
I guess sometimes it is cheaper to comission a shoot than to licence an existing image for the usage required. Unfortunately I get the impression this is more common that you would think.
And that is a great shot btw.
bmattock
12-31-2005, 06:16
EDIT: I did a search at Alamy for 'old man' wall, window and found this: A4CBCA
If you go to www.alamy.com and search for this photo, you'll see it. Seems very similar to me.
/EDIT
I'm curious about this. I love the shot, by the way. Feels a bit claustrophobic to me, but I still like it. I feel like I've seen a lot of shots like it. Not exactly the same, mind you, but similar.
And that's the gist of my curiosity. I was asked to take a 'night' shot of a local fairgrounds when the carnival was in town. Aerial. Well, there's only one vantage point - the top of the Ferris wheel. So that's what I did. Turned out looking a lot like previous photos of the fairgrounds at night from the air.
So does this mean that once someone has made that shot - no one can take / sell a shot like that again? Would I have to find a diferent vantage point? Presuming that the customer wants 'night' and 'aerial' as preconditions, the vantage point is about all I could change, and that would mean a huge expense to the customer (like hiring a helicopter or something).
Getting back to your shot, Jon. A wall, a window, and an old man walking away. Is this a concept that has not been done before and won't be done again? I mean no disrespect, you've been a terrific help to me, so please don't take it the wrong way.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
ClaremontPhoto
12-31-2005, 06:56
Yep see it. Thank you.
But the calender people *replicated* mine. Bot just similar but the same, except that this blue building always has cars in front so they had to use a green building further up the street.
Yes, Bill I'll see similar. I'm not the first to have this idea - although the old guy was a delicious accident. He just walked into shot and I waited until he was on the edge of the frame.
I'm not passionate about this just shocked at the time to see 'my' picture on public display. And because the calender is two months at a time I have to see it for two months next November and December.
bmattock
12-31-2005, 07:09
Yep see it. Thank you.
But the calender people *replicated* mine. Bot just similar but the same, except that this blue building always has cars in front so they had to use a green building further up the street.
Yes, Bill I'll see similar. I'm not the first to have this idea - although the old guy was a delicious accident. He just walked into shot and I waited until he was on the edge of the frame.
I'm not passionate about this just shocked at the time to see 'my' picture on public display. And because the calender is two months at a time I have to see it for two months next November and December.
OK, I gotcha. Not just same objects and relationship to each other, but the same street even. I presume then, that the photographer had seen your shot and decided to replicate it? Yeah, that's gotta suck, I'm sorry to hear it.
I suppose you could see it as extremely flattering...ah, nah, never mind. I'd be mad too.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
ClaremontPhoto
12-31-2005, 07:25
These two always prompt people to ask the location.
I'm very vague and say "Somewhere in the old town, sorry I can't remember the exact street".
As this city is so photo-rich they can find their own locations.
Hi Jon,
Sorry to hear what happened. You have my empathy as I have something similar 2 years ago. I submitted a research proposal in my institution, only to be rejected by my supervisor. A year later at the annual scientific meeting, I was shocked to see my proposal being published under the name of the same supervisor who trashed it! I have since moved to another job and it is not difficult to understand why. Why the good guys always get the ****!
Regards,
Peter
Interestingly (or not, as the case may be) this sort of concept-snitching was a fairly big trend in the art-photography world a couple of years ago. The critics referred to it as "re-presentation," and it was supposed to be a searchingly deconstructivist revelation of the fundamentally transitory and subjective nature of photographic "truth." (As is the case with a lot of contemporary art concepts, these are powerful and stimulating intellectual constructs that just happen to yield a lot of extremely tedious photographs, but that's for another rant.)
However, usually the point is to re-present the work of an artist who's better-known and thus more familiar than you are; otherwise, it's like quoting a passage of literature that no one else in the conversation has ever heard of (people don't even realize you're demonstrating your erudition via a quote and wonder why you've suddenly started talking funny.)
So, you can take re-presentation as an homage to your own greater originality and relevance, which can be a warm thought to enjoy in the waiting room at the intellectual-property lawyer's office as you start planning your lawsuit against the SOB...
CleverName
12-31-2005, 07:53
We actually did something similar in a photo class recently. We were asked to replicate a photo we liked from it's technical aspects (lighting, perspective, composition, etc.). I tried the one from the First RFF book, can't remember the title, the deck with the reflection of the trees. I failed miserably.
Jon, if your image was copywrited, you should contact the calandar company. If nothing else you may get a free calendar out of it:).
bmattock
12-31-2005, 07:58
Jon, if your image was copywrited, you should contact the calandar company. If nothing else you may get a free calendar out of it:).
I don't know about Portugal, but in the US, the photograph is copyrighted the moment it is taken. Actually attaching a 'copyright' notice is not strictly necessary, and going to the extent of registering the photo with the copyright office adds the ability to sue for lawyer's fees and punitive damages, and not just for the use of the image (post-infringement licensing). Every country is different - international laws can be subject to treaties and such.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
ClaremontPhoto
12-31-2005, 08:50
This here in this city is like the wild west Bill.
As long as there is a strong resemblence between the two pieces or work and as long as it can be proven who was first, there is a chance to get judgement in favor of the artist who first had the creative idea and work. There was a well-publicised case in PDN years ago about a photographer winning a law suit against someone who created a sculpture similar to the photo (of two people and several dogs ... I think). The judge focused on the idea and not the medium used. In your case, the medium is the same. This is even worse.
ClaremontPhoto
12-31-2005, 08:58
In the USA you have lawyers and you sue. In Portugal even a parking fine takes two years to go through the courts. And if we have an election each candidate promises an amnesty on parking fines so in the six months before the election people park anywhere they please.
I'm not going to do anything of course. I was just shocked to pop out for a beer and see my photo on the wall by the bar.
Gabriel M.A.
12-31-2005, 09:29
I concur with Raid. I feel very strongly about this sort of thing, and I don't know how I would feel if people would plagiarize (which is what evidently has happened here) my photos. One thing is flagrant copyright violation and another is plagiarism.
Scenes and motifs can be cliché, but in your case it certainly looks like a strong case of plagiarism. If I may suggest something, you may want to put something on your webpage with your own picture and put a comment like "other photographers have liked my photo so much that they've taken their own" and put a link to it... I dunno, just a suggestion.
In the USA such practice is better defended in a cour of law because of money involved. It is no coincidence that the USA is the world capital for capitalism. Similar strong laws are there for patent infringements and copy right laws in general. Money is King.
Interesting discussion. So let me play the devil's advocate here. Just thinkin' out loud here and not trying to flame up anything. I totally get where Jon C. is coming from. I probably would have fallen off my stool! So aside from Jon's case and thinking down the road...
..... How far do we take this? I mean this idea that one "re-presents/copys/plagiarizes" another. My thoughts are going toward the "privacy in public" debate that is oft discussed here and how does this relate?
"I've taken a shot from this [public] angle in this [public] light toward that [public] view and no one else has the right to do the same because that would be copying my work." .... ?
I'm just trying to work out in my own mind the right thing to do or the right thing to expect from others (photogs). :angel:
bmattock
12-31-2005, 13:02
"I've taken a shot from this [public] angle in this [public] light toward that [public] view and no one else has the right to do the same because that would be copying my work." .... ?
It is easy to mix up the difference between the right to photograph and the right to sell what one has photographed. No one could stop you from going and finding Jon's street, hiring an old guy to toddle down it, and taking a photo. It is what you *do* with the photo that could get you into trouble.
Anyone could sit down with the latest Harry Potter book and retype all the words into their computer. However, if they then try to sell that book as their own, ah, then they have stolen work that does not belong to them.
It's not all that black & white though (pardon the pun). If I take a photo of a door, can no one else take a photo of a door? There has to be more to it than that - but how much more must be done before it is a copyrightable item that cannot be copied without violating my copyright? I don't know, I'm just saying it is not cut-and-dried.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Unless this is the ACTUAL image that you made there is no legal issue. If this is the same actual image that you made, not a replication at a different time, you would have to prove you made the photo. You would have to show negaatives etc. If you take this to court and the courts in your country says there is a legal copyright issue and the other photographer proves they made the photo first then what happens to you? Why do you think that the image is a copy and not a chance happening. These thing happen and thousands of images are made from the same spots every year in national parks and public places each year.
A few years ago I had client that was a retail clothing chane in the south east US. It was a fairly large company with many stores. Another retail chain deceided to rip off one of my images from my clients catalog and run the exact image in one of thir ads. I hweld the copyright and had the exact original transparency shot with my models in my studio. It was the exact image I had run in a previous tab. This was clearly a copyright violation. In the end The retail chaion I was shooting for wrote a letter to the other company telling exactly what would happen if this happened again and there was never another problem. Yes I could have been an a$$ and taken it to court but what would have been gained. I would have recovered the stock fee for theimage and a few bucks compensation plus a few thousand dollard in lawyers fees. I probably would have lost a couple thousand to provwe a point that a simple letter solved at no cost. If the problem had continued then legal action would have been appropriate. Get my point.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
www.x-rayarts.com
Nikon Bob
12-31-2005, 13:52
I feel very badly for what happened to Jon C. However I have the same problem as mention in the two previous posts by x-ray and Bill in that thousands of photos are taken world wide at popular tourist spots that are likely t be very similar to what I would take. If I sold one of these photos and somebody has a very similar ( not identical ) photo that was taken earlier than mine would I be sued? I would hope not. A very tricky issue and hurtful too under certain circumstances.
Bob
The thing to remember is we do not own the light we capture or the places we shoot. We only own the image on a piece of film. Also we do not own the concept or idea that goes into making the photo only the physical image and the rights of reproduction.
A few years ago the US federal gov. deceided they were going to charge photographers royalties for the stock images they sold taken in public federal parks. I think they found they didn't own the view and didn't own the light that falls on it. Also the issue of PUBLIC was a factor since technically we as tax paying US citizens own the public lands. Had they been able to enforce this I believe they would have done it.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
bmattock
12-31-2005, 14:16
Unless this is the ACTUAL image that you made there is no legal issue.
Not necessarily:
http://www.nylawline.com/articlephotog1.htm
http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html
Q: If someone infringes my work, do I have to catch the infringer in the act?
A. No. It is not necessary to have finite proof that an infringer copied a work in order to prove copyright infringement. Infringement can be established simply by proving that the alleged infringer had access to the copyrighted work and that the offending work is substantially similar to the original.
The concept of substantial similarity is another tricky copyright concept. For example, making an illustration directly from a photograph without permission would be risking infringement. If the illustration were substantially similar to the photograph, there will be an infringement. The degree of similarity between an original work and a copy can cover a broad range from an exact copy to substantial similarity to some similarity to no similarity. The degree of similarity is a question for the court to decide. Common sense and good judgment must prevail.
http://www.editorialphoto.com/resources/4-05_Legal%20News-Similars.pdf
The above is a pdf file - but read especially the bit about "substantially similar."
As I've said here before - I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. My opinion is that this is a grey area here in the USA, no idea how it is handled overseas.
But I don't think you can just say that if it is not an actual copy of your photo itself then it does not infringe - it very well may.
These are great questions, though. As photographers, it behooves us all to have some idea of what our rights are, where our ownership starts and stops, that kind of thing.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
bmattock
12-31-2005, 14:21
The thing to remember is we do not own the light we capture or the places we shoot. We only own the image on a piece of film. Also we do not own the concept or idea that goes into making the photo only the physical image and the rights of reproduction.
Not true, not true:
http://www.photosource.com/cpyright/cpyjan01.html
The Court noted that while Leigh’s copyright does not cover the appearance of the statue or the association of the statue with the Midnight story, his copyright does protect elements of artistic craft such as "the selection of lighting, shading, timing, angle, and film." If the jury concludes that the photographer who took the Warner Brothers stills copied these protected elements from Leigh’s work, Leigh will win this aspect of his lawsuit.
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
* Leigh v Warner Bros. 10 F.Supp 2d 1371, 1998
A few years ago the US federal gov. deceided they were going to charge photographers royalties for the stock images they sold taken in public federal parks. I think they found they didn't own the view and didn't own the light that falls on it. Also the issue of PUBLIC was a factor since technically we as tax paying US citizens own the public lands. Had they been able to enforce this I believe they would have done it.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045[/QUOTE]
Do you have a cite for this? I'm curious how it came up and was decided.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
celluloidprop
12-31-2005, 14:24
Bill beat me to pointing out that x-ray's information was incorrect on a number of points.
There's a short article in this month's PDN that covers some ground on infringement and the current status of court rulings.
bmattock
12-31-2005, 14:40
Well, like I said, a gray area. Here's a good one:
http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/copyright/faq1.php
Q: How close is close when it comes to infringing on another photographer’s copyrighted image? If the best shot of a scene is from the same spot, at about the same time of day, and under the same conditions as another, already-copyrighted image, is it an infringement to take a similar shot and market this commercially?
A: The key word in your question is “similar.” To prove copyright infringement, a plaintiff would have to show that a new work constitutes “actionable copying” by being “substantially similar.”
For example, a recent case in Louisiana concerned a photographer, well known for a certain photo of a famous view of New Orleans’ Jackson Square, who sued an artist selling a view of the same site taken from almost the same spot. The two photos have many similarities: Both were taken at the same time of day. Both incorporate mist. Both have banana leaves framing the photo.
But one has rain puddles on the ground while the other does not. In one photograph, the elements are centered, while in the other they are off-center. The St. Louis Cathedral is more prominent in one than in the other. The depth of field in one photograph is focused on the gate to the Square, while in the other the focus is further back. The lighting and positioning of elements in each image are slightly different.
To the judge, the original seemed to be artistic, while the second did not achieve the same level of artistry. The judge ruled that no infringement had taken place — that while the photos were similar (even framed similarly), and even though the artist admitted he had seen the photographer’s original work before he photographed his, they were not “substantially similar.” If you are curious, you can read the complete ruling, but note that this decision is currently being appealed.
It is really hard to say if Jon's copycat guy would be considered to have violated his copyright if the same thing happened here in the USA. It might come down to what the judge had for lunch that day and how he felt about it!
I still feel for Jon, it has to hurt to see what appears to be a direct rip off of your photo appear in a calendar. And x-ray was right about 'what if Jon's photo was made second and not first?'
Sticky wicket, eh?
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
There is a difference between well-known tourist places photographed and between artistic images that have a small probability of being duplicated "by chance" alone. It is well-known that many texts advocate buying postcards at tourist locations and then going to the same places where the photos were taken and even using the same angles for photos.
I have a great photo and it's often used in tourism publicity and the like.
Now somebody has gone to almost the same location and replicated it for a calender.
Not a coincidence. The composition is exactly the same and he even has a hunched up old guy walking out of the frame too.
I walked into a bar and there was 'my' photo on a 2006 calender!
Everytime I make a photograph I wonder - hasn't EVERYONE already done this shot?
Obviously when it comes to landmark shots such as doing an Ansel Adams at El Capitan in Yosemite - what can you do that's different (except the sky - and everyone else has done that too)? Nothing.
So we all try to be "unique" in a world where billions of images are shot everyday. Sorry truth is - oftentimes - there are going to be both inadvertant and deliberate "duplicates".
With your pic - sorry some one made a mimic of it - but was it that "unique" to begin with?
Nikon Bob
01-01-2006, 03:11
There is a difference between well-known tourist places photographed and between artistic images that have a small probability of being duplicated "by chance" alone. It is well-known that many texts advocate buying postcards at tourist locations and then going to the same places where the photos were taken and even using the same angles for photos.
The trouble starts when you sell an image as opposed to having a similar image for personal use. When money is involved people use copy right to protect themselves commercially.
Bob
ClaremontPhoto
01-01-2006, 03:45
I heard that Tuscany has copyrighted the landscapes there.
I think I can go and be ok. But if a big Hollywood studio wants to shoot a movie they have to pay a copyright fee to the Italian government.
This is the exact oppostite of many cities setting up film liaison units to encourage and help film makers. These cities know that people will watch the movie and want to visit the locations.
For example 'The Talented Mr Ripley' was shot on location in Capri and now people vacation there to see the locations.
nickchew
01-02-2006, 00:09
Hi Jon,
Sorry to hear what happened. You have my empathy as I have something similar 2 years ago. I submitted a research proposal in my institution, only to be rejected by my supervisor. A year later at the annual scientific meeting, I was shocked to see my proposal being published under the name of the same supervisor who trashed it! I have since moved to another job and it is not difficult to understand why. Why the good guys always get the ****!
Regards,
Peter
Peter
Sad but not the first time I've heard about something like that...
Nick
Peter
Sad but not the first time I've heard about something like that...
Nick
Hi Nick,
How's things going for you? You should be coming home soon? We must get the rest of the guys for the Durian buffet that we fantasised about! Happy New Year to you and your family! :)
Regards,
Peter
In germany we have a concept named "Schöpfungshöhe" basicaly this means how unique and creative your work is. Unstaged photographs are pretty low there. A green instead of a blue building is enough difference to justify a newly created work.
If I shoot a graffity on a wall that is not my work, my photo is not a unique work of my own but a document of the work of others. Anybody can reshoot the location.
If I rent or buy a wall to paint a graffity to shoot it, this is totaly different and I own both, the graffity and the photo. Especialy when I created the graffity to shoot the photo!
ClaremontPhoto
01-07-2006, 07:38
I just popped to to a cafe for a coffee.
An old guy there, a retired steel worker I think, said to me "We like your photo".
"What photo" I replied.
He went to the calendar and flipped through to November/December.
"No, that's not mine" I said.
He is an ordinary sort of guy and looked shocked that somebody could have replicated my image. I played it cool and told him that the building is there, and old guys are everywhere and I'm not the only one to see the possibilities. But he clearly thinks it's out of order and announced his thoughts to all the other retirees in the cafe.
That's nice that he can 'see' my style and not attribute the five other images to me, but just this one.
Off topic: went out this morning and ran into the communist candidate for president and his supporters with red flags. A little like my avatar. So some nice shots there.
Off topic again: then went out again this afternoon and came across an old couple in the central square. Him playing an accordian and her doing a word puzzle. About five teeth between them. They want some prints so here's hoping I managed to focus correctly!
vsolanoy
01-07-2006, 08:53
In germany we have a concept named "Schöpfungshöhe" basicaly this means how unique and creative your work is. Unstaged photographs are pretty low there. A green instead of a blue building is enough difference to justify a newly created work.
If I shoot a graffity on a wall that is not my work, my photo is not a unique work of my own but a document of the work of others. Anybody can reshoot the location.
If I rent or buy a wall to paint a graffity to shoot it, this is totaly different and I own both, the graffity and the photo. Especialy when I created the graffity to shoot the photo!
Having done work in multimedia and film projects, this concept is no different than US copyright laws for various media. I believe it's the concept of derivative work -- photographing a piece of art, whether it be a photo, sculpture, painting, grafitti, etc... the photographer cannot claim the photo as an original work -- it's a derivative work of something else... the original copyright still applies.
I think photos like this that are shot on the street are a little more difficult because unless it can be shown that the works themselves are original and created independently from one another, they could be chance creations. The likelihood of something like that happening in an area that is highly photographed is probably pretty high, and is probably going to be more likely with the "more than amateur" photographers who are applying composition rules.
I've come across several photos on flickr that have an uncanny resemblance to mine, but they are also taken in areas that are highly photographed. I think there are actually several instances or two where flickr users have ended up identifying that photos were either taken either at the same time, by chance, or within a small period of time from one another...
I haven't seen the calendar, but this one could go either way... I don't know the laws on re-interpretation of a photo, but I think that unless certain key elements are copyrighted, I think these types of works may be considered original works.
Theo-Prof
01-07-2006, 09:09
About 10 years ago there was a case in Kentucky centered around the design of the Kentucky License Plate. The image depicted a mare cantering with her foal. The image looks like the foal is superimposed on top of the mare. Someone had copied a well-known B&W photo, taken, incedently, using a Leica. I do not remember who the photographer was, but he sued and the state of Kentucky was forced to remove the image from its license plates.
Kevin
i know this is an old article, but you will never hear me say anything about another forum member AT ALL in a negative light. We all belong to this forum to learn from each other and have a good time. I do not appreciate the gentleman mentioning my name Edward A. Leskin in context with the issue at hand. I am a professional, and I have very high standards, and do not engage in character assassination. This is the one and only time I will respond to this issue. This person has too much time on his hands (he uses that time to project anger onto others, and blaming them for his own faults). I feel sorry for him, and wish him well. I am too busy doing good things in my life to put up web sites about others. Life is too short for this.
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial fund, the Steelworkers Archives, Touchstone
Theatre, Sands Casino, The Iron Pigs Baseball Team, Metropolis Magazine, Pratt Institute: They will all say the same thing about me and it is not negative at all. The green eyed monster must be put to sleep here once and for all.
Somebody stole a paper I wrote and presented it at a geology symposium. Boy was that lousy.
digitalintrigue
04-23-2009, 06:00
If kragmeister lied in his post, then you have basis for legal action. If he didn't lie, then it's not character assassination.
Interesting resurrection of a 3.5 year old thread...
nikonhswebmaster
04-23-2009, 06:06
whoa... this is one scary thread!
You know, almost every photo of a cat in calendars, and the like, look like photos I've taken. They often even use the same orange Tabby like ours.
OK, on a more serious note, we have many photos of Kinkakuji (gold) temple in Japan. Many are postcard and poster quality. Before taking these, we never (consciously) saw photos of this temple. Now we see the photos everywhere. Did someone copy our photos?
I kind of feel bad for him (kragmeister). Suing is not the solution. I wish he would just get into his photography work in a positive way (and take that site down, I do not have one about him, and never will). Photography for me is a positive thing, and it should be for him. I wish him no ill will at all, and I hope he takes wonderful photos to share with everyone. Life is too short for this stuff. I know this guy, and he needs to fall in love with the world and his camera again. My father just died, and he taught me alot of things, one of which is being positive and professional and to help others and share with them.
crawdiddy
04-23-2009, 06:26
I, for one, would be interested in seeing the 2 sets of photos. Let us judge whether the similarity is uncanny or not.
hunghang
04-23-2009, 06:31
Did they steal your photo, or copied your composition? You can copyright/own one, but not the other... at least that's my understanding.
endustry
04-23-2009, 06:39
Just wondering if my photo, "Outtake From The Deer Hunter," could be considered an imitation of "Elysium, Bethlehem, PA 1991."
http://www.endustry.com/index.php?showimage=23
How about having your body of work similarly swiped and used as the basis for a Masters thesis? A former "friend" appropriated my ideas, locations and techniques and duplicated numerous photos of mine. I was clueless until he returned to the area after attending the Pratt Institute and got an MFA in photography. He had a show in the area and I was floored when I saw what he did. I attended his opening (uninvited) and he all but acknowledged this because I was in the audience for the artists' talk and question and answer session. After that I basically shut myself off and stopped shooting. It took about 11 years before I could pick up a camera again. The guy's name is Edward A. Leskin. (http://www.users.fast.net/~kragmeister/gallery/why.htm) in Allentown, PA USA.
Regards,
Greg
When I have some time later this evening, I will post a few pics. I would love to share them with this forum!!!
Jason808
04-23-2009, 06:56
Unless this is the ACTUAL image that you made there is no legal issue.
End of that discussion.
But I'm not trying to be an a--. I feel for you because I've had the same done to me. As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
If it continues to be important, then you need to be the guy marketing it and make the money first. Let everyone else follow and pick up the crumbs.
But, chances are if they were willing to just go do it themselves, you wouldn't have made money anyway.
How about having your body of work similarly swiped and used as the basis for a Masters thesis? A former "friend" appropriated my ideas, locations and techniques and duplicated numerous photos of mine...
That's really low-class and it shows that when we are young we do not often know how to choose the right "friends".
Yours is a classic story of malicious opportunism.
After reading this thread, I have to say that this is a compelling reason why many artists might work in complete isolation, only to copyright and publish their work when it is complete.
Gary Stochl now comes to mind...
Al Kaplan
04-23-2009, 08:58
Stealing a "concept" would be a lot more difficult to prove. A year or so ago my email box was overflowing and my phone ringing continuously "Hey Al, did you see the tne AT&T commercial?"
For a couple of years a toy monkey Monkette had made regular appearances (and still does!) on my blog http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com and suddenly the same toy monkey was starring in AT&T commercials. I couldn't find an attorney to take the case. "AT&T will call it a coincidence" they all said.
On a local basis Monkette and I were able to leverage her new found fame into her becoming somewhat of a celebrity, specializing in being a political consultant. She gets invited to all kinds of parties, and is well known around City Hall. This is the TRUTH, preposterous as it might seem. We went to a "meet the candidates" forum the other night and everybody was trying to get in a photo with her, hoping that they'd get a mention on my blog. A few days earlier I got an emailed invitation to a campaign kick-off party. The invite said to bring Monkette and that I should tell her that there would be fresh bananas along with the other refreshments. (She had a good time!)
climbing_vine
04-23-2009, 08:59
That's really low-class and it shows that when we are young we do not often know how to choose the right "friends".
Yours is a classic story of malicious opportunism.
After reading this thread, I have to say that this is a compelling reason why many artists might work in complete isolation, only to copyright and publish their work when it is complete.
Gary Stochl now comes to mind...
I don't know anything about either of these guys other than what's in this thread (and on the "accuser's" website). I'd caution anyone against putting too much stock in one side of a story from a random person on the internet. From looking at said person's various websites, it seems clear that he has a lot of not-entirely-rational issues with a lot of people... best to go about your business the way you want and not take too many lessons from strangers who may or may not be cranks.
John Rountree
04-23-2009, 09:17
Many years ago when I visited Yosemite National Park, some of the concession stands were selling maps that showed the exact spot where Ansel Adams set up his camera to take his iconic photographs. Does that relate to this discussion?
I have sympathy for the OP, but it is pretty tough to see how you could really pull off a successful case based merely on the principle that someone stood in the same place. Not really a copyright issue at all I would think, although I have no expertise in the area. If the facts were extreme -- EXACTLY the same elements, an intentional copy of all features, etc. -- maybe, but I sure as heck would not advocate spending any money litigating it.
If the place is really well known, even tougher.
Without suggesting this is the situation here, it reminds me a bit of something that happend to me a couple years ago. I was doing some street shots in NYC once and photographed a guy selling his photographs -- he got all livid with me and said "no photography, no photography" (bit ironic, really). I think he seriously thought I was trying to "steal" his shots. Given that they were incredibly cliched NYC shots, it was a bit comical. ("Wow, you know I had never thought that the Brooklyn Bridge might be a good subject for a photo -- bet no one has EVER thought of that.")
In the USA you have lawyers and you sue. In Portugal even a parking fine takes two years to go through the courts. And if we have an election each candidate promises an amnesty on parking fines so in the six months before the election people park anywhere they please.
I'm not going to do anything of course. I was just shocked to pop out for a beer and see my photo on the wall by the bar.
contact the responsible for the calendar. contact teh business who sponsored it. talk to them first.. if they act indifferent go to the papers; papers always in need of something to talk about.
it will be embarrassing for the ad agency and the business, they may do something about it. at least you will get publicity for your work.
Spider67
04-23-2009, 10:50
A Bulgarian friend of mine found two models and a location in the old town of Plovdiv, he arranged them....and had a "friend" with him who shot everytime my friend made a photo.....he had the guts to take part in a contest with that.....
Well that sucked big time
>>If the illustration were substantially similar to the photograph, there will be an infringement.
maybe 20 years ago (?) a prominent NY artist painted tacky NYC postcards and was hauled into court by the original postcard company.
back when I was a young artist, I had a number of people directly rip off my ideas... I just took the stance that my life wasn't over and that I would have many more original ideals than them... sadly, they went on ripping off people and seemed to be more successful than me.
I agree with those that say a photograph of a public place are questionable for claiming as your own... just like I've know a number of photogs that attempt to shoot their own versions of famous Ansel Adams photos...
nikonhswebmaster
04-23-2009, 12:06
I really don't see what this discussion has to do with rangefinders?
nikonhswebmaster
04-23-2009, 12:15
Stealing a "concept" would be a lot more difficult to prove. A year or so ago my email box was overflowing and my phone ringing continuously "Hey Al, did you see the tne AT&T commercial?"
That was because the Monkette had absolutely nothing whatsoever with the AT&T "concept." Their commercial was about a father taking a child's doll with him on a business trip, which the daughter had put in his briefcase.
Since it could have been any doll, the Monkette was not the "concept," and was indeed purely a coincidence. Now you knew that already...
I really don't see what this discussion has to do with rangefinders?
then what does "philosophy of photography" have to do specifically w/RFs?
plus we should never mention Edward Weston either..
c'mon, we are photographers discussing copyrights. interesting.
nikonhswebmaster
04-23-2009, 17:17
then what does "philosophy of photography" have to do specifically w/RFs?
plus we should never mention Edward Weston either..
c'mon, we are photographers discussing copyrights. interesting.
It is in the section "Rangefinder Photography Discussion"
Last summer I took a road trip to Greensboro Alabama to see where Walker Evans took his photos. And today there's a piece on the New York Times front page about the very same thing.
Damn.
Journeyman
04-23-2009, 19:22
You can't copyright, or own a scene that you did not create. Only the original creator can claim any rights. Most landscapes are owned by one guy, and he doesn't bother with the courts.
digitalintrigue
04-23-2009, 19:35
The issue appears to be more related to plagiarism rather than copyrights. Interesting there hasn't been a denial yet...
nikonhswebmaster
04-23-2009, 20:02
The issue appears to be more related to plagiarism rather than copyrights. Interesting there hasn't been a denial yet...
Thousands of photographs are taken of the same subject matter. Two people take similar photos, it has happened over and over, but no two are alike. That is the beauty of art and seeing.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.