Stealing ideas??? Thoughts?

[Slave2theAxe]

Attached are 2 photos. One done by my wife and another that she found yesterday by another photog.

While obviously morally wrong, is there anything legal here. Are there any LEGAL restrictions for recreating a photograph. I mean it's like she had the copy of my wife pic in her hand while composing this shot...down to the makeup on the model's neck.

This isn't the first time she has done this with my wife's work either.

What do you think?

[ssim]

First of all you shouldn't be posting anyone elses work here unless you have permission. You can link to it but it appears you did a screen grab and uploaded to here.

If I had a nickel for every photo like that that I have seen I could buy a new camera. There isn't anything unique about it. I doubt that there is anything legally that one could do about copying a pose such as that as it pretty normal way to come out of the water (well for some that like to attract attention). How do you know which was taken first.

[Todd Lambert]

Interesting. Either way, your's is better. The copy is crap, but a mere snapshot.

I guess it should be flattering, and you should take it as that. I don't think there's much legally that can be done. Good artists copy, great artists steal and all that.

[RDKirk]

Attached are 2 photos. One done by my wife and another that she found yesterday by another photog.

While obviously morally wrong, is there anything legal here. Are there any LEGAL restrictions for recreating a photograph. I mean it's like she had the copy of my wife pic in her hand while composing this shot...down to the makeup on the model's neck. The photograph does not require any extensive uniqueness to be copyrighted--there isn't that much in the world truly unique anyway.

This isn't the first time she has done this with my wife's work either.

What do you think?

Yes, this is definitely a pretty blatant infringement of your wife's copyright. They even copied the tatoos on the woman's neck and face--this would be a slam-dunk in court.

What she should do depends on the circumstances.

First, has has your wife registered her copyright? The court won't even hear the case if the copyright isn't registered. It can be registered as a published image and has full protection from any particular infringement (and any subsequent infringement) if registered within 90 days of the discovery of that infringement.

That protection gives you both damage and statutory damages that can range into the thousands. If this had been a major infringement, like, say, Revlon, you'd definitely want to go that route.

In this case, you probably only want them to take down the image. You can do three things right away:

1. Register the image! That can be done online at copyright.gov. It costs $35 for as many tiny JPEGs as you can stay awake to upload to the copyright site--just label the collection "My Images of 2009" or some such.

The registration becomes effective the moment they've received your submission. It is not necessary for the image to have been marked any any copyright warning.

2. Send the infringer a letter--preferably a stern "cease and desist" letter from your lawyer. Tell them the copyright is registered.

3. Advise their hosting service of the copyright infringement. The hosting service will close down the site in a heartbeat, because they know the feds will be on them like white on rice for a provable copyright infringement.

[Todd Lambert]

I'm going to edit this... because re-reading things here has made me change my mind a bit. Copyright is protected under derivative works. This may inhibit the offender from re-creating a photo and using it. However, from my understanding, this is extremely hard to prove and very hard to pursue.

In the end, I guess it comes down to how much does it really bug you, and if you've taken the proper steps needed to pursue things further.

[blackshadow]

Yes, this is definitely a pretty blatant infringement of your wife's copyright. They even copied the tatoos on the woman's neck and face--this would be a slam-dunk in court.


What do you actually base this on? Are you an IP lawyer?

[Slave2theAxe]

If so, then what about all the people who shoot the exact same shot at the Grand Tetons or Yosemite?

There's a bit of a difference between photographing something in nature that never changes and RECREATING an image with a model down to the same make-up and pose.

This is just one image in a series that my wife did with this model. This other photog "recreated" other pictures in this series. She has done it with other pictures as well. As I said...this is an ongoing thing. She is always trying to contact the models my wife works with to try and get info on her shooting locations...She even copied my wife's bio word for word on her MySpace page. It's pathetic. Almost stalker-like.

[Todd Lambert]

Wow... if that's the case, then I'd definitely pursue it further.

[Dennis_Hammer]

I have literally seen dozens of these shots over the years. Its not an original concept. There is absolutely nothing you can or should do about it. If you could litigate something like this how many photographers would be in trouble for doing the drop of water spalshing thing. Come on lets all be real an image can be copyrighted a pose can not be.

[sparkin]

People rip off ideas, styles, formats etc. all the time. It's lamentable, but there must be something inherent in human nature that compels some individuals to it. Some are malicious, some oblivious, a few are lazy and others just not-so-bright. If your livelihood depends on your (or your wife's etc.) creativity then find a lawyer.

[chantu]

Tell her to bug off, or you'll blast her with a stream of paintballs :)

[Slave2theAxe]

It's not a matter of life and death...it's just the principle. It's pathetic.

The biggest annoyance in this whole thing is I just don't understand how people can feel good about themselves for needing to steal other people's ideas.

She can't even come up with a bio for herself on her own myspace...she had to steal my wife's info...

[Jm Photography]

isn't photography just a mix mash rehash of ideas and what not?
what are you going to sue for? SHE STOLE MY IDEA THAT I THOUGHT IN MY HEAD YET WAS COPIED 60 TIMES OVER?!?!??!/

i understand stealing info and what not but what an idea thats been done over and over?
seriously give it a break what is this 1984?

if ideas could be sued over dave hill has a lot of money coming to him

[kja]

I'm confused. Are you saying that the other tog copied the tats on her model? That's a little weird, honestly, coz they don't look that great or add much to the photo, imho

But you're not saying the actual chick coming up out of the water is an original idea your wife had, really?

I've seen that pose over and over and over at least as far back as the 70s...and your wife's shot doesn't look like it was shot in the 70s.

The other tog stalking your wife is icky but trying to replicate something she's seen isn't a big hooha, really. That's one way some people learn.

[Undispu7ed]

I'm confused. Are you saying that the other tog copied the tats on her model? That's a little weird, honestly, coz they don't look that great or add much to the photo, imho

But you're not saying the actual chick coming up out of the water is an original idea your wife had, really?

I've seen that pose over and over and over at least as far back as the 70s...and your wife's shot doesn't look like it was shot in the 70s.

The other tog stalking your wife is icky but trying to replicate something she's seen isn't a big hooha, really. That's one way some people learn.

Whether they look great or not is not relevant here. Someone blatantly copying someone's work is a league of its own.

[focus.pocus]

OMG, I can't believe this is even a thread... you can't copyright a POSE... get over yourself...

[blackshadow]

Out of interest, were the tatts copied or is it the same model in both shots?

I would be surprised if using the same poses would be seen as a breach of copyright but copying the bio verbatim might be another matter - speak to an IP lawyer.

I'm sure that most photographers at some stage try to recreate shots similar to ones they have seen - that is a natural part of the creative process. But to consistently imitate a single photographer repeatedly is rather bizarre.

Isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

[ssim]

I would be surprised if using the same poses would be seen as a breach of copyright but copying the bio verbatim might be another matter - speak to an IP lawyer.


I would think that you would have to have some sort of copyright on the text in order to actually make a bfd out of this. Most certainly in bad taste, illegal, I doubt it. I tried to find the two web pages in question but haven't come up with them yet, only Ms. Svensson's

I'm sure that most photographers at some stage try to recreate shots similar to ones they have seen - that is a natural part of the creative process. But to consistently imitate a single photographer repeatedly is rather bizarre.

Isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

Certainly it is bizarre and in poor taste to consistently use another photographers images as a way of coming up with their own. Hell, I have seen shots and said to myself, my next shoot I might give that one a try. Little did I know I was breaking the law.;) If I did have someone that was trying to repeat my work I think that I would take it as a compliment or f latterly as you put it.

From webster's online edition

Pose
to assume or hold a physical attitude, as for an artistic purpose: to pose for a painter
to place in a suitable position or attitude for a picture, tableau, or the like: to pose a group for a photograph

[iAMB]

How do you think da Vinci, Bernini, Manet, Monet, van Gogh, Wright and Le Corbusier got to where they ended up? Using influence and almost downright copying is a natural thing. People dont think of these things all by themselves. I bet a million to one that the photographer in the first posted shot was taken from something that they saw.

[pwm2]

There is way more than just "chick getting out of water" that is similar between these two pictures. Unless your wife did copy someone else earlier on all the details then this person did copy your wife extensively.

[pwm2]

OMG, I can't believe this is even a thread... you can't copyright a POSE... get over yourself...
Was the pose the only similarity you saw?

[airfrogusmc]

"Bad artists copy. Good artists steal."
Picasso

I remember one of my professors saying "everything's been done. EVERYTHING."

And I'm sure with the MILLIONS of images being made each day someone somewhere has taken something close to what you posted before you did. So would that make yours a copy?

[airfrogusmc]

Out of interest, were the tatts copied or is it the same model in both shots?

I would be surprised if using the same poses would be seen as a breach of copyright but copying the bio verbatim might be another matter - speak to an IP lawyer.

I'm sure that most photographers at some stage try to recreate shots similar to ones they have seen - that is a natural part of the creative process. But to consistently imitate a single photographer repeatedly is rather bizarre.

Isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

If you look closely those look like two different tattoos.

The light is very different also. Much better in photo #2.

[amfoto1]

Hi,

First of all, no your wife doesn't need to imprint a copyright notice across her photos to protect them. The watermark being used is bad enough (although the phrase "original copy" sort of made me chuckle... is that like "military intelligence" or "jumbo shrimp"?)

I am not an IP attorney... merely a photographer.

However, reading this thread it appears that this is just one example of some number where this photog has closely copied your wife's work. If that's true, then I think you may have a case. The photos don't have to be absolutely alike, so long as they are substantially similar.

I am not trying to judge here whether or not your wife's work is derived from other photographer's earlier work, or making any statement about it's quality or appeal. I'm just saying that if you have a number of examples where the other photogprapher is showing and marketing work that is substantially similar and there is a clear pattern of plagarism, you might have a complaint.

If you want to pursue it, you should put together all the examples where you believe she is being copied, then take it to an attorney well versed in IP law and discuss it with them. If you are in the US, there are "Attorneys for the Arts" groups scattered around the country that offer low cost or free initial consultations. I don't know if there are similar elsewhere in the world.

At any rate, I don't think it does you much good to get feedback and the opinions of non-experts here. You really should be talking with someone well versed in the law, and presenting your case more fully.

Plagarism might be a high form of flattery, but if the other photographer is trying to profit from making close copies of a lot of your wife's work, that could well be grounds for a lawsuit.

If the other photographer is merely doing an exercise, say as a school project, and is using your wife's work as a guide, that might not be anything to be concerned about or even actionable.

Go see an attorney. If the other photog has merely posted the images, but not yet sold them, a "cease and desist" letter may be all you can do. If they have profited from them, and you can prove it, you might be able to recover something.

[airfrogusmc]

Its a much different proposition going after a large corporation that has a good deal of money for plagiarizing than going after a photographer that may or may not have resources. I think that if you have evidence that this photographer is blatantly copying your wife's work then you might be able to get them to stop with the right kind of pressure and I agree you should talk to an attorney but it cold become a very pricey endeavor.

[RDKirk]

Its a much different proposition going after a large corporation that has a good deal of money for plagiarizing than going after a photographer that may or may not have resources. I think that if you have evidence that this photographer is blatantly copying your wife's work then you might be able to get them to stop with the right kind of pressure and I agree you should talk to an attorney but it cold become a very pricey endeavor.

I guess we substantially agree again, if you see my post #5

[Jm Photography]

FWIW i dont even think its that great of a shot on either end

[airfrogusmc]

I guess we substantially agree again, if you see my post #5

:lol: Just re enforcing your opinion bro.

Now thats a couple'a times we've agreed. :lol:

[RDKirk]

Some people here should actually read their local copyright law rather than give opinions based merely on their own ethical standards. No, I'm not an IP lawyer, but I do at least read the statutes and read some of the case histories.

For instance, the French ministry of tourism lost a case over very similar circumstances to this one. An editor of an American stock agency thought he saw a photograph of one of his agency's holdings used by the French ministry of tourism in a brochure. When he checked, he found it was not that actual image, but one very similar: A man and a woman on a carnival merry-go-round. The posing was similar, their positioning was similar. The perspective was different, but what was condemning was the wardrobe--the man wore a suit and tie, the woman wore a polka-dotted dress.

The stock agency and the original photographer sued and won a substantial statutory award. While photographing a couple on a merry-go-round in itself is not a copyrightable idea, having copied the details of the original photograph down to the fairly unusual (these days) polka-dotted dress indicated a clear intention of copying the actual work, not just the basic idea. The defense of "coincidence" can only go so far.

In this case, the condemning factor is that tattoo on the woman's neck--that's not a coincidental re-use of a basic idea.

There is still the question of what's a worthwhile action to take, and that depends on circumstances.

Trespassing, for instance, is against the law. How you would react to a kid who enters your yard to retrieve an errant soccer ball would be vastly different from how you'd react to a strange family pitching a tent in your yard, and that would be different from discovering that a corporation had moved into your vacant commercial property and had been running their business for a month.

[RWatkins]

Well, Pablo Picasso supposedly said "Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal"

To be honest, I've seen images here that have given me ideas I've used.

[RDKirk]

Well, Pablo Picasso supposedly said "Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal"

To be honest, I've seen images here that have given me ideas I've used.

If people are going to continue to pretend obliviousness to the difference between inspiration and slavish copying, this conversation really can't go very far.

[phr0ze]

Just talk to a lawyer.

[Slave2theAxe]

Eh...it's been resolved. Childish games really.

Backstory:
My wife and this other photographer used to be friends and had a falling out...that is the main reason why this has turned into such a sore subject...she is really just doing it out of spite.

Anyway...it's been resolved between the two of them. This was posted merely as a curiosity...it's honestly not worth my money at the current time to pursue it legally.

Oh...and whoever asked...yes, they were 2 seperate models in the 2 shots.

Thanks for everyone's (varied) opinions

[jetcode]

The question becomes how unique is the image in question. In the invention business judges often state that a good idea is likely to surface in one or more locations at the same time. Who then gets the rights? Can you prove that your image came before the image in question? What part of the image itself is considered unique enough to be copyright? If 13 photographers take 13 pictures of Half Dome from the same spot the same day who owns the copyright? When does a photograph take on a uniqueness that is worth protecting from imitation?

Unless this photographer is eating your kibble I would consider yourself blessed that someone likes your work enough to want to imitate it. In the electronics business where a competitor is 6 months behind you the only real advantage you have is that you are leading the way for a given technology.

[RDKirk]

The question becomes how unique is the image in question. In the invention business judges often state that a good idea is likely to surface in one or more locations at the same time. Who then gets the rights? Can you prove that your image came before the image in question? What part of the image itself is considered unique enough to be copyright? If 13 photographers take 13 pictures of Half Dome from the same spot the same day who owns the copyright? When does a photograph take on a uniqueness that is worth protecting from imitation?

According to past case precedents, if the judge becomes convinced that photographer X deliberately copied photographer Y, it gets ruled a copyright violation.

There has been a case where two cityscapes were taken from the same rooftop vantage point pointing in the precise same location, and the second was ruled a copyright violation. If they had taken them at the same time, maybe not. But it wholly depends on whether the circumstances of a particular case convince the judge that a deliberate attempt to copy was made.

[Bippa1]

As annoying as it is, there is no copyright infringement here, copying is getting an original print from your wife and scanning it or the like. However copying a Bio word for word is copyright infringement, that may be the tool to put some pressure on, if you are game. With the addition of the coping of image ideas to make your case stronger.

How you tackle it though I do not know.

[jetcode]

According to past case precedents, if the judge becomes convinced that photographer X deliberately copied photographer Y, it gets ruled a copyright violation.

There has been a case where two cityscapes were taken from the same rooftop vantage point pointing in the precise same location, and the second was ruled a copyright violation. If they had taken them at the same time, maybe not. But it wholly depends on whether the circumstances of a particular case convince the judge that a deliberate attempt to copy was made.

There is a parallel here to the music industry.

[brit84]

the one o the right is OOF anyway

[RDKirk]

As annoying as it is, there is no copyright infringement here, copying is getting an original print from your wife and scanning it or the like. However copying a Bio word for word is copyright infringement, that may be the tool to put some pressure on, if you are game. With the addition of the coping of image ideas to make your case stronger.

I don't know what the law is in Australia, but in the US, it doesn't take scanning to be ruled a copyright violation. If you do a bit of Googling for some of the US copyright case precedence, you will see that making a replica that duplicates enough specific features to convince a judge that a deliberate attempt to copy was made is considered a copyright violation. This example would fall short of that, except for the duplication of that tattoo.

[airfrogusmc]

I don't know what the law is in Australia, but in the US, it doesn't take scanning to be ruled a copyright violation. If you do a bit of Googling for some of the US copyright case precedence, you will see that making a replica that duplicates enough specific features to convince a judge that a deliberate attempt to copy was made is considered a copyright violation. This example would fall short of that, except for the duplication of that tattoo.

There was a big law suit a few years back where a large corp had a photographer shooting an ad for them and shot a really nice shot that they all liked but they corp didn't ant to pay his usage fee so they brought another photographer in and set up a very similar shot. The first photographer saw the shot that hey re did in an ad, sued and won MILLIONS.

[P51Mstg]

I am a photographer and I was a lawyer (although not an IP lawyer).... A few things.....

First.... YES its copyright infringement..... Copied the pic with a different model in it. The more shots like this in the portfolio, the better your case is....

Next you need to protect yourself, you need to follow the rules and REGISTER the copyright, if you don't spend the $35 (within time limits too; lots of posts about this here), you can only get actual damages (which is what you lost, which here appears to be nothing)...... If you register it, then you can get some pretty significant damages.

Next, what can you really get???? How much do you want to spend????? YUP, you will not find a lawyer who would take this case contingent, since there probably isn't going to anything to collect money from. Plan on spending $20k to $50k to get justice and then unless the other person is rich (of course they have to pay their lawyer too) you aren't getting anything back...... I sort of doubt any judgment is collectable here (the other person doesn't have a significant amount of $$$).......

Unfortunately, that how the law works a lot of the time....... Sorry

Mark H