Sorry for the long posting....
Read more from this forum:
http://photo.net/business-photography-forum/00S0pU
Question:
Michael Novoseletsky , Jan 05, 2009; 04:42 p.m.
This is one thing that I haven’t thought of much. One photographer I know did this shot…
http://www.lemarchestudios.com/gallery/Fashion/ody_port_2.jpg
When I received my SU-800, I thought it would be neat to replicate this shot that I otherwise wouldn’t be able to do with the stock flash since it always emits some light…
http://images48.fotki.com/v1407/photos/1/101317/2816904/HLGunBW-vi.jpg
I’m friends with the subject in the original shot, so I sent him my version. After some comments and critique of both images and comparing them he suggested that I never release/sell the shot or make it public since he believed it might be copyright infringement. Now my initial thinking is that there’s no infringement going on here. Perhaps if it was the same model or brand name. So my question is, would this photo somehow be some form of infringement?
And as a follow up, what about other photo’s? Some photographer snaps an image of let’s say a tree in a park and sells it. Then let’s say I like the shot and am able to almost replicate it on my own seeking out similar lighting conditions, I too snap a pic and want to sell it of the same tree in the park. Would that be violating any copyright laws?
One of the Replay:
Summer Leif /member-status-icons, Jan 11, 2009; 11:29 p.m.
Michael, most of the people who hae replied to you have no idea what copyright is. They obviously have little or no understanding of copyright, or the differences between: copyright, patent and trademark law. I would suggest that you and they all begin be reading the following:
http://www.copyright.gov/
and the related U.S. federal statutes that govern copyright law, as when as the international Berne convention that defines and governs copyright law concepts internationallly.
It is not possible to copyright a conception, an idea, or a design. It is only possible to patent an idea, a design, a process and so forth, and only when there isn't "prior art" that may have been patented previously. It is only possible to copyright exact expression. For example the text of a book can be published, but not the concepts within the book. For example, we can be write books about how to use a newly released camera. Only the exact text of the books about the camera can be registered for copyright. We would not have infringed upon each others' copyright because both of us would have written books about how to use the camera. In your example photograph, two people have taken photographs of a guy (a different guy in each photograph even) holding a gun while lit from the side. While the photos are similar in concept, a concept is NOT what someone copyrights. Only embodied expression can be registered for copyright. Even then separate copyrights exist for different embodiments of an expression. For example the sheet music score for a song can be registered for copyright protection. In addition, multiple recordings of the song, made under license from the copyright holder of the written song, made each be registered for copyright. Copyright law provides specifically for registering sound, video, and other recordings for copyright protection. That is a specific copyright over the recording, while a seperate copyright registration would exist for the music's score/sheet music. Both the two photographs above may each be registered for copyright and protected under copyright law, without infringing upon each other, because they do not and cannot, as they exist, fringe upon each other's copyright because they, simply put, are different photographs, and quite recognizably aren't the exact same photograph.
Some of the concept inherent in copyright is embodied in the word. Copyright is law that enables the creator of some work of expression to control copying of and dissemination of that expressive work. Copyright only controls the little - copying - of the exact thing, not the concepts embodied in it. Copyright governs and restricts ones legal ability to make copies of the bits, the data, that is a digital photograph, or make prints from a negative, or to sell copies of prints, the negative, the digital bits or whatever.
Even though patent law exists, it is not possible to patent such a thing as the concept of a photograph of a guy holding a guy while lit from the side. The concept simply isn't unique, original, or the first time someone has done that. What would be patentable would be a vaccine to protect against the AIDS virus, but only for a statutorily defined period of time, which keeps changing and currently various from about seventeen (17) to something like twenty-one (21) years. After that anyone would be able to manufacturer an exact duplicate version of that AIDS virus without paying the original patent holder licensing fees. We know such things as generic drugs. The same is true of some computer concepts. For example, right now the H.264 mpeg4 video encoding algorithm is under patent, but once the patent expires, the MPAA won't be able to collect fees for using it. For example, a set of data encryption algorithms that were owned by RSA recently went off patent, enabling anyone to create public key cryptographic software using those algorithms without paying royalties to the RSA consortium. Another interesting aspect of even patents is that they only apply to the specific "method" of whatever it does, not the general concept. That is what makes is possible to for many patented SSRI depression drugs o exact, since the concept of an SSRI drug cannot be patented, only anspecific formulation of SSRI drug may be patented.
Given all the foregoing, there isn't any way that either of the photographs that are under discussion within this thread infringes upon the copyright of the other photograph. In any event, just o argue about it, the parties would need to register their photographs with the U.S. copyright office at the library of congress, in Wash. D.C., and then the plainttiff would need to file a federal district court lawsuit in the defendant's jurisdiction and venue, which might be far away, and endure the significant expensive of the federal court admitted attorneys needed to litigate the case. In the end, the plaintiff would learn just what I have described, the neither photograph infringes on the copyright of the other.
By the way, Michael posted this same article on dpreview.com, where it created a firestorm thread, with all manner of crackpots, who know absolutely nothing about copyright law, sounding off with their totally uninformed misconceptions.
Read more from this forum:
http://photo.net/business-photography-forum/00S0pU
Question:
Michael Novoseletsky , Jan 05, 2009; 04:42 p.m.
This is one thing that I haven’t thought of much. One photographer I know did this shot…
http://www.lemarchestudios.com/gallery/Fashion/ody_port_2.jpg
When I received my SU-800, I thought it would be neat to replicate this shot that I otherwise wouldn’t be able to do with the stock flash since it always emits some light…
http://images48.fotki.com/v1407/photos/1/101317/2816904/HLGunBW-vi.jpg
I’m friends with the subject in the original shot, so I sent him my version. After some comments and critique of both images and comparing them he suggested that I never release/sell the shot or make it public since he believed it might be copyright infringement. Now my initial thinking is that there’s no infringement going on here. Perhaps if it was the same model or brand name. So my question is, would this photo somehow be some form of infringement?
And as a follow up, what about other photo’s? Some photographer snaps an image of let’s say a tree in a park and sells it. Then let’s say I like the shot and am able to almost replicate it on my own seeking out similar lighting conditions, I too snap a pic and want to sell it of the same tree in the park. Would that be violating any copyright laws?
One of the Replay:
Summer Leif /member-status-icons, Jan 11, 2009; 11:29 p.m.
Michael, most of the people who hae replied to you have no idea what copyright is. They obviously have little or no understanding of copyright, or the differences between: copyright, patent and trademark law. I would suggest that you and they all begin be reading the following:
http://www.copyright.gov/
and the related U.S. federal statutes that govern copyright law, as when as the international Berne convention that defines and governs copyright law concepts internationallly.
It is not possible to copyright a conception, an idea, or a design. It is only possible to patent an idea, a design, a process and so forth, and only when there isn't "prior art" that may have been patented previously. It is only possible to copyright exact expression. For example the text of a book can be published, but not the concepts within the book. For example, we can be write books about how to use a newly released camera. Only the exact text of the books about the camera can be registered for copyright. We would not have infringed upon each others' copyright because both of us would have written books about how to use the camera. In your example photograph, two people have taken photographs of a guy (a different guy in each photograph even) holding a gun while lit from the side. While the photos are similar in concept, a concept is NOT what someone copyrights. Only embodied expression can be registered for copyright. Even then separate copyrights exist for different embodiments of an expression. For example the sheet music score for a song can be registered for copyright protection. In addition, multiple recordings of the song, made under license from the copyright holder of the written song, made each be registered for copyright. Copyright law provides specifically for registering sound, video, and other recordings for copyright protection. That is a specific copyright over the recording, while a seperate copyright registration would exist for the music's score/sheet music. Both the two photographs above may each be registered for copyright and protected under copyright law, without infringing upon each other, because they do not and cannot, as they exist, fringe upon each other's copyright because they, simply put, are different photographs, and quite recognizably aren't the exact same photograph.
Some of the concept inherent in copyright is embodied in the word. Copyright is law that enables the creator of some work of expression to control copying of and dissemination of that expressive work. Copyright only controls the little - copying - of the exact thing, not the concepts embodied in it. Copyright governs and restricts ones legal ability to make copies of the bits, the data, that is a digital photograph, or make prints from a negative, or to sell copies of prints, the negative, the digital bits or whatever.
Even though patent law exists, it is not possible to patent such a thing as the concept of a photograph of a guy holding a guy while lit from the side. The concept simply isn't unique, original, or the first time someone has done that. What would be patentable would be a vaccine to protect against the AIDS virus, but only for a statutorily defined period of time, which keeps changing and currently various from about seventeen (17) to something like twenty-one (21) years. After that anyone would be able to manufacturer an exact duplicate version of that AIDS virus without paying the original patent holder licensing fees. We know such things as generic drugs. The same is true of some computer concepts. For example, right now the H.264 mpeg4 video encoding algorithm is under patent, but once the patent expires, the MPAA won't be able to collect fees for using it. For example, a set of data encryption algorithms that were owned by RSA recently went off patent, enabling anyone to create public key cryptographic software using those algorithms without paying royalties to the RSA consortium. Another interesting aspect of even patents is that they only apply to the specific "method" of whatever it does, not the general concept. That is what makes is possible to for many patented SSRI depression drugs o exact, since the concept of an SSRI drug cannot be patented, only anspecific formulation of SSRI drug may be patented.
Given all the foregoing, there isn't any way that either of the photographs that are under discussion within this thread infringes upon the copyright of the other photograph. In any event, just o argue about it, the parties would need to register their photographs with the U.S. copyright office at the library of congress, in Wash. D.C., and then the plainttiff would need to file a federal district court lawsuit in the defendant's jurisdiction and venue, which might be far away, and endure the significant expensive of the federal court admitted attorneys needed to litigate the case. In the end, the plaintiff would learn just what I have described, the neither photograph infringes on the copyright of the other.
By the way, Michael posted this same article on dpreview.com, where it created a firestorm thread, with all manner of crackpots, who know absolutely nothing about copyright law, sounding off with their totally uninformed misconceptions.
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
