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
Manske<magnusman...@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
