[VinnyP]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

But is not the most relevant area of copyright re: photography; you'll notice there wasn't one instance of the the word "photograph" in your quote. This area of copyright would be more relevant to a style of photograph rather than the content of a photograph. E.g. if a model was posed a certain way in front of a particular building, and then someone copied the exact same pose etc. i.e. tried to replicate the design within the photograph, then that would fall under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act.

A photograph is an artistic work as is a building. You can't copyright a style except in a very specific and narrow way as it relates to the typographical arrangement of a published work.

[orangepeel]

Originally Posted by VinnyP

Not true you are only a criminal if you copy for gain or distribute for gain. They can enforce their copyright through the civil court and they may be able to claim damages if they can quantify and demonstrate those damages.

ye i worded it badly. i know your not a criminal in they eyes of the police or courts but you are in the eyes of the content industry. don't believe me? read a licence agreement for a movie or cd. The content producers are giving permission for you to consume the content but it is never at any point yours. It always remains their property. So from that position they say that duplicating a CD is illegal. Hence they have introduced DRM systems to CD's, to operating systems and even made changes to the law (DMCA) to stop you from copying them. Basically trampling over your fair use.

And I also acknowledge, a number of times now that UK and US laws are different however I'm also pretty sure that US style laws are only a matter of time. Howee That said, it is looking like, the more i read into this, that the UK is different from the US.

It does look as tho I can make a commercial artwork with a companies brand in the background - e.g. a portrait some guy drinking from a can of coke - quite legally in the UK. However I still think I'd be unable to sell that in the USA without permission from Coca-Cola.

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by VinnyP

A photograph is an artistic work as is a building. You can't copyright a style except in a very specific and narrow way as it relates to the typographical arrangement of a published work.

I meant the graphical arrangement - the exact same composition/design - of a particular photograph, not the 'personal style' of a photographer. Sorry, I thought this was clear from the example I gave.

Originally Posted by orangepeel

... read a licence agreement for a movie or cd. The content producers are giving permission for you to consume the content but it is never at any point yours. It always remains their property. So from that position they say that duplicating a CD is illegal. Hence they have introduced DRM systems to CD's, to operating systems and even made changes to the law (DMCA) to stop you from copying them. Basically trampling over your fair use.

Trampling over your fair use I think if you were a movie producer or musician, you would see it from their point of view + also try to stop others from pirating your work + basically stealing your earnings. How many copies of a dvd/cd do you need for "fair use"?

[VinnyP]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

I meant the graphical arrangement - the exact same composition/design - of a particular photograph, not the 'personal style' of a photographer. Sorry, I thought this was clear from the example I gave.

Still not copyright no infringement you'd be fine. Only the work is copyright.

[BigRich]

I just had a thought can someone clarify.

You take a photo on behalf of a client, therefore is it up to the client who wishes to use the photo to obtain the necessary copyright before they use it.

As the photographer you just get your fee and move on.

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by VinnyP

Still not copyright no infringement you'd be fine. Only the work is copyright.

According to DMC this is another grey area, and may indeed be an infringement. Although it would be viewed with individual circumstances, i.e. decided whether or not the design of the photograph was deliberately copied; even though you took the photograph yourself, you still copied/reproduced the original photographer's idea of how to shoot it

Originally Posted by BigRich

I just had a thought can someone clarify.

You take a photo on behalf of a client, therefore is it up to the client who wishes to use the photo to obtain the necessary copyright before they use it.

As the photographer you just get your fee and move on.

Depends on the contract you enter into with your client, whether you retain copyright or sign it over to the client. You could give the client a limited use, or exclusive use ... there are various options to choose from to suit the photographer + client. Again, copyright of the design comes into play here ... although you may retain the copyright to your photograph, the client's product, logo etc. remain their property, so that you may not sell your photograph of their product/logo without their permission.

[Markulous]

Think you'll find that copyright infringement is not a criminal offence but a civil one; that you can sue in whatever country you like (presuming you broke that country's laws, that is!); that paparazzi get away with much of what they shoot because it's "in the public interest"; that the end user of potential infringement of copyright needs to get all permissions; that anyone could take action against anyone for any reason on copyright infringement - just that it's not worth while to take action in a non-commercial situation (having said that, use Ordnance Survey maps on your personal website and they will threaten proceedings!)

[VinnyP]

Originally Posted by Markulous

Think you'll find that copyright infringement is not a criminal offence but a civil one

Definitely a (serious) criminal offence if you do it for gain.

[orangepeel]

quite sad that it's such a bloody mess that you can take 20 "content creators" and get 20 different interpretations of a law that should actually be quite simple.

It's pretty apparent it's been needlessly complicated by the big boys who are afraid of new technologies eroding their old income structures. mind you, if our politicos weren't such corrupt, money grabbing, power hungry, lowlifes they could have stood up to these guys.