Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The new British standard for copyright infringement...

2012-02-09 Thread Richard Farmbrough
Not under this ruling.  The ruling adduces several features to establish 
copying - as far as I remember


* A red bus
* A monochrome background
* A white (or clear) sky
* The riverside frontage of the HoP
* The top of the bus being in line with the top of the building
* The bus being framed by the building
* The bus being on a bridge

The implication is that as well as the subject and the popped 
colouring,  compositional elements were required to meet the threshold.  
The judge also remarked that the plaintiff's definition of what was 
covered by their copyright was overbroad. See the WP article.


On 01/02/2012 21:56, Roger Bamkin wrote:
I'm not surprised by this. Copyight is about the /interpretation /of 
an idea. If Marcel Duchamp claims copyright on putting a moustache on 
the Mona Lisa then I can see that I am stealing his idea by putting a 
moustache on another similar famous painting by da Vinci.


In this case the idea is the red bus against a black and white image. 
Actually I think the first one is obvious having seen Schindlers 
list, but I can see that others may not consider it obvious (You are 
allowed to infringe another person's copyright if their idea is 
/obvious/ - I believe).


This is not about  the images being similar its about stealing? the 
red bus v. black and white parliament image background idea. There was 
a similar case with the classic guinness ad where someone had already 
shot a man dancing around a pint of beer. Then Guinness created their 
own version and refused to credit/pay the man with the original idea 
(if I remember right)


On 1 February 2012 14:45, Harry Burt harryab...@gmail.com 
mailto:harryab...@gmail.com wrote:


That might actually be licensed, though.

--
Harry


On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Richard Farmbrough
rich...@farmbrough.co.uk mailto:rich...@farmbrough.co.uk wrote:

I wonder if

http://www.popartuk.com/photography/london/red-bus-on-westminster-bridge-ph0408-poster.asp
would have been considered enough to make the idea non-novel.


On 25/01/2012 22:23, geni wrote:

On 25 January 2012 19:18, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com
mailto:magnusman...@googlemail.com  wrote:

...photos that somehow look similar:


http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html

The servers are safe (well, relatively speaking) in
the U.S., but
should people in the UK be concerned when uploading
images?


Magnus

Nothing new here. Its always been understood that in
theory if you see
a photo and take another photo that is similar enough to
it to be
considered a derivative work that that is a copyright
violation.
However in most cases it would be extremely hard to prove
and people
don't care enough to try.



___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org mailto:wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org



___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org mailto:wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org




--
Roger Bamkin
Chair WMUK http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board
01332 702993
0758 2020815
Google+:Victuallers
Skype:Victuallers1
Flickr:Victuallers2



___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The new British standard for copyright infringement...

2012-02-01 Thread Harry Burt
That might actually be licensed, though.

--
Harry

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Richard Farmbrough rich...@farmbrough.co.uk
 wrote:

 I wonder if http://www.popartuk.com/**photography/london/red-bus-on-**
 westminster-bridge-ph0408-**poster.asphttp://www.popartuk.com/photography/london/red-bus-on-westminster-bridge-ph0408-poster.aspwould
  have been considered enough to make the idea non-novel.


 On 25/01/2012 22:23, geni wrote:

 On 25 January 2012 19:18, Magnus 
 Manskemagnusmanske@**googlemail.commagnusman...@googlemail.com
  wrote:

 ...photos that somehow look similar:

 http://www.**amateurphotographer.co.uk/**news/photographers_face_**
 copyright_threat_after_shock_**ruling__news_311191.htmlhttp://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html

 The servers are safe (well, relatively speaking) in the U.S., but
 should people in the UK be concerned when uploading images?


 Magnus

 Nothing new here. Its always been understood that in theory if you see
 a photo and take another photo that is similar enough to it to be
 considered a derivative work that that is a copyright violation.
 However in most cases it would be extremely hard to prove and people
 don't care enough to try.



 __**_
 Wikimedia UK mailing list
 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
 http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
 WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


[Wikimediauk-l] The new British standard for copyright infringement...

2012-01-25 Thread Magnus Manske
...photos that somehow look similar:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html

The servers are safe (well, relatively speaking) in the U.S., but
should people in the UK be concerned when uploading images?


Magnus

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The new British standard for copyright infringement...

2012-01-25 Thread James Forrester
On 25 January 2012 19:18, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
 ...photos that somehow look similar:

 http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html

Good heavens. That's bonkers; there's possibly a trademark argument,
but copyright?!

 The servers are safe (well, relatively speaking) in the U.S., but
 should people in the UK be concerned when uploading images?

It may be a bit to early to say - it's still apparently on-going (appeal?)...

Yours,
-- 
James D. Forrester
jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The new British standard for copyright infringement...

2012-01-25 Thread Harry Burt
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:24 PM, James Forrester ja...@jdforrester.orgwrote:

 On 25 January 2012 19:18, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com
 wrote:
  ...photos that somehow look similar:
 
 
 http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html



It is worth having a glance at the images themselves:

http://www.swanturton.com/multimedia/docs/Temple%20Island%20v%20New%20English%20photographs.pdf

I can understand why Amateur Photographer magazine are worried, but the
language they use in the article makes the two images sound far more
different than they actually were IMHO.

--
Harry (User:Jarry1250)
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The new British standard for copyright infringement...

2012-01-25 Thread geni
On 25 January 2012 19:18, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
 ...photos that somehow look similar:

 http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html

 The servers are safe (well, relatively speaking) in the U.S., but
 should people in the UK be concerned when uploading images?


 Magnus

Nothing new here. Its always been understood that in theory if you see
a photo and take another photo that is similar enough to it to be
considered a derivative work that that is a copyright violation.
However in most cases it would be extremely hard to prove and people
don't care enough to try.

-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org