3 ms·

UK Court Says You Can Copyright The Basic Idea Of A Photograph

28 points by llambda 15y ago

michaelfeathers 15y ago
In the old days, before the internet changed everything, there was an unstated assumption that people could pretty much do whatever they liked with copyrighted work unless they were making money off of it. I remember those days. People would trade mix tapes and no one really cared even though it was probably technically illegal. Eventually, large rights holders started pushing toward the idea that copying or unauthorized performance was actually a significant revenue loss, and that pushed the RIAA and MPAA into our homes (so to speak). I think that what we need is a reversion to a strong distinction between copying/remixing for money or just for personal use or sharing. Nothing highlights that necessity quite like this case. On it's surface, it is about a calendar that was for sale, but the import is terrifying: someone can assert ownership of particular poses of people in family photographs, market their own photos and sue anyone who uses that pose in a private photo and shares it online. This monstrosity is precisely because there is no distinction between for-money and not for-money uses. It's eroding completely and it's a serious problem.
- alexqgb 15y ago
  For money / no money isn't such a great distinction either. After all, the Minute Maid corporation and a kid's 25 cent lemonade stand are both "for money". However, there's a bright and shining line between corporate entities, and actual humans. Assuming that even low-level commerce is not something that we want policed, it seems like setting up a new line at the point where a business is worth incorporating. Put simply, you have to be incorporated before copyright penalties apply. Critically, you don't have to be incorporated to go after an infringing corporation. This doesn't really solve the business model problems of legacy rights holders, but it does provide a clear basis for moving forward, not just with new models, but with law that doesn't harm people's daily lives.
  - michaelfeathers 15y ago
    Sounds like a good idea, but I remember someone telling me that there is some legal principle around transferring ownership of property and the distinction between private companies and public corporations; that it's bad when the same rights don't attach. This was around the time that Joel Bakan's book came out. Definitely an idea worth looking into, though.
chc 15y ago
The same story from a different source was posted two days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3508615 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3508615. As was pointed out in the comments then, this ruling is nowhere near as broad or unreasonable as any of the knee-jerk articles make it sound. Essentially, the judge found it to be infringing because the evidence showed that the people who commissioned the photo were trying to make a counterfeit version of the original.
- gerggerg 15y ago
  And that's why the ruling is contentious. With out an attempt to deceive it's not a counterfeit. It's an inspired piece of creativity. The judge is effectively defining the boundaries of inspiration. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/counterfeit http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/counterfeit
  - chc 15y ago
    But that's the point: It does seem like there is an intent to deceive. From my understanding of the relevant facts, the copycat photo is meant to be displayed on merchandise right next to those that use the official one, and it seems unlikely a lot of people will be able to tell that it isn't just a cropping.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - gerggerg 15y ago
      I think you're confusing the photo with the products. Perhaps the products are deceptive, but this case is about a unique photographic execution being a violation of copyright. Not a label infringing trademark.
      - vannevar 15y ago
        I think the judge was confusing them too. He let the 'up-to-no-damn-goodness' (as my old law professor would say) of the defendant prejudice his judgment on the copyright issue.

28 points by llambda 15y ago

In the old days, before the internet changed everything, there was an unstated assumption that people could pretty much do whatever they liked with copyrighted work unless they were making money off of it. I remember those days. People would trade mix tapes and no one really cared even though it was probably technically illegal. Eventually, large rights holders started pushing toward the idea that copying or unauthorized performance was actually a significant revenue loss, and that pushed the RIAA and MPAA into our homes (so to speak). I think that what we need is a reversion to a strong distinction between copying/remixing for money or just for personal use or sharing. Nothing highlights that necessity quite like this case. On it's surface, it is about a calendar that was for sale, but the import is terrifying: someone can assert ownership of particular poses of people in family photographs, market their own photos and sue anyone who uses that pose in a private photo and shares it online. This monstrosity is precisely because there is no distinction between for-money and not for-money uses. It's eroding completely and it's a serious problem.

alexqgb 15y ago
For money / no money isn't such a great distinction either. After all, the Minute Maid corporation and a kid's 25 cent lemonade stand are both "for money". However, there's a bright and shining line between corporate entities, and actual humans. Assuming that even low-level commerce is not something that we want policed, it seems like setting up a new line at the point where a business is worth incorporating. Put simply, you have to be incorporated before copyright penalties apply. Critically, you don't have to be incorporated to go after an infringing corporation. This doesn't really solve the business model problems of legacy rights holders, but it does provide a clear basis for moving forward, not just with new models, but with law that doesn't harm people's daily lives.
- michaelfeathers 15y ago
  Sounds like a good idea, but I remember someone telling me that there is some legal principle around transferring ownership of property and the distinction between private companies and public corporations; that it's bad when the same rights don't attach. This was around the time that Joel Bakan's book came out. Definitely an idea worth looking into, though.

chc 15y ago

The same story from a different source was posted two days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3508615 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3508615. As was pointed out in the comments then, this ruling is nowhere near as broad or unreasonable as any of the knee-jerk articles make it sound. Essentially, the judge found it to be infringing because the evidence showed that the people who commissioned the photo were trying to make a counterfeit version of the original.

gerggerg 15y ago
And that's why the ruling is contentious. With out an attempt to deceive it's not a counterfeit. It's an inspired piece of creativity. The judge is effectively defining the boundaries of inspiration. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/counterfeit http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/counterfeit
- chc 15y ago
  But that's the point: It does seem like there is an intent to deceive. From my understanding of the relevant facts, the copycat photo is meant to be displayed on merchandise right next to those that use the official one, and it seems unlikely a lot of people will be able to tell that it isn't just a cropping.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - gerggerg 15y ago
    I think you're confusing the photo with the products. Perhaps the products are deceptive, but this case is about a unique photographic execution being a violation of copyright. Not a label infringing trademark.
    - vannevar 15y ago
      I think the judge was confusing them too. He let the 'up-to-no-damn-goodness' (as my old law professor would say) of the defendant prejudice his judgment on the copyright issue.