Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 23 Dec 2013 (Monday) 22:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

So I cannot do anything about this plagiarism case?

 
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,417 posts
Gallery: 144 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3659
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Dec 24, 2013 12:19 |  #16

You might be able to take their image and post it all over the internet. Of course, they probably wouldn't care.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Phil ­ V
Goldmember
1,977 posts
Likes: 75
Joined Jan 2005
Location: S Yorks UK
     
Dec 24, 2013 12:33 |  #17

trewyn15 wrote in post #16551388 (external link)
It's not even the same image. No wrongs were done here.

They were, he'd definitely win in the UK, maybe in the US, but in Pakistan, extremely doubtful. Precedent has already been set in the UK. You could have read all about it in one of the first posts.

This isn't simply a case of someone taking a similar image, this is a case of someone recreating an image with the direct intent of plagiarising the OP that's definitely a 'wrong'.


Gear List
website: South Yorkshire Wedding photographer in Doncaster (external link)
Twitter (external link)Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Canajun
Goldmember
Avatar
2,881 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
     
Dec 24, 2013 12:58 as a reply to  @ Tom Reichner's post |  #18

if it's any consolation, the OP's photo is way better. And as the phrase say "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery".

I wonder how Demi Moore's photographer feels about his pregnant photo (external link) being used/imitated by everyone.


Jun.Roberto.Dizon.Greg​orio
My Photographic Gears.

I Like Shooting Animals Than People.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Goldmember
Avatar
1,034 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 107
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Dec 24, 2013 14:20 |  #19

adam8080 wrote in post #16551090 (external link)
There very well could be a copyright issue.
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Substantial_sim​ilarity (external link)

No, there can't:

To win a claim of copyright infringement in civil or criminal court, a plaintiff must show he or she owns a valid copyright, the defendant actually copied the work, and the level of copying amounts to misappropriation.[1][3​]

He did not actually copy the work.

Typically, this is done by first showing that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work and that the degree of similarity between the two works is so striking or substantial that the similarity could only have been caused by copying, and not, for example, through "coincidence, independent creation, or a prior common source."

A different guy, on a differenet beach, in a different country.

The substantial similarity is for things like copying all of a novel and changing 5 words and saying it is different. If that applied to as basic photography as the image above none of us would be able to shoot anything without infringing. Oh you want a picture of mount everest? Too bad, some dude took it 100 years ago.


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
adam8080
Goldmember
Avatar
2,280 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
     
Dec 24, 2013 15:19 |  #20

benji25 wrote in post #16551686 (external link)
No, there can't:

The substantial similarity is for things like copying all of a novel and changing 5 words and saying it is different. If that applied to as basic photography as the image above none of us would be able to shoot anything without infringing. Oh you want a picture of mount everest? Too bad, some dude took it 100 years ago.

:rolleyes:

We are talking about IP law here (photos/images are IP as well). Search google for substantial similarity and you can find that it is more than just changing 5 words in a novel. Is it a burden that you would have to prove? Absolutely, but that is what the court system is for. Will the court system in Pakistan resolve this issue though? Not a chance.

Edit: Here is a photo related read on the subject: http://www.photoattorn​ey.com …stantially-similar-works/ (external link)


Housley Photography (external link)
Camera Obscura
Business Card Help!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Phil ­ V
Goldmember
1,977 posts
Likes: 75
Joined Jan 2005
Location: S Yorks UK
     
Dec 24, 2013 16:04 |  #21

benji25 wrote in post #16551686 (external link)
No, there can't:

He did not actually copy the work.

A different guy, on a differenet beach, in a different country.

The substantial similarity is for things like copying all of a novel and changing 5 words and saying it is different. If that applied to as basic photography as the image above none of us would be able to shoot anything without infringing. Oh you want a picture of mount everest? Too bad, some dude took it 100 years ago.

You couldn't be more wrong, but if you haven't read the previous links there's no point in linking them again.:confused:


Gear List
website: South Yorkshire Wedding photographer in Doncaster (external link)
Twitter (external link)Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Goldmember
Avatar
1,034 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 107
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Dec 26, 2013 01:20 |  #22

Phil V wrote in post #16551892 (external link)
You couldn't be more wrong, but if you haven't read the previous links there's no point in linking them again.:confused:

That article's links have nothing to do with photography:

. In November, 1979, Lawson began selling dolls using marketing techniques similar to OAA's, including offering *824 the dolls for "adoption," providing a "birth certificate," and signing the dolls' derrieres "Mama Stork" with a registration number.

In April 1993, Plaintiff deposited and registered her screenplay entitled "Concealed" with the Writer's Guild of America ("WGA"). "Concealed" was also deposited and registered with the United States Copyright Office. Certificate of Registration No. Pau-2-113-247 was obtained on September 6, 1996.

Plaintiff does not allege that she ever submitted "Concealed" to Mr. Sayles or to any other Defendant. Instead, she alleges that Mr. Sayles gained access to "Concealed" through the late William Cosford, Scott Manders, and/or the members of her thesis committee, Stephen Bowles, William Rothman, and Peter Zorn.

Mulcahy is an expert in the field of project management who offers test preparation courses and materials to teach students to pass the PMP exam. To this end, Mulcahy wrote and copyrighted PMP Exam Pre

Neil Gaiman brought suit under the Copyright Act against Todd McFarlane and corporations controlled by him that we can ignore, seeking a declaration that he (Gaiman) owns copyrights jointly with McFarlane in certain comic-book characters.

If that were the case we would only have 1 picture of the Eiffel tower, the white house, big ben, roads, brides and grooms etc.


If you think you can win a case with "but judge he took a picture similar to mine" good luck.


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Phil ­ V
Goldmember
1,977 posts
Likes: 75
Joined Jan 2005
Location: S Yorks UK
     
Dec 26, 2013 01:28 |  #23

benji25 wrote in post #16554241 (external link)
That article's links have nothing to do with photography: ...

If you think you can win a case with "but judge he took a picture similar to mine" good luck.

You missed this one then. ;)

M_Six wrote in post #16550377 (external link)
... here's a similar case. Two independently shot images using the same central theme. Turned into a precedent setting case in the UK.

http://azrights.com …ght-and-the-red-bus-case/ (external link)

Like I said, in the UK we already have a case precedent set, I'd guess a similar case would also fly in the US, bear in mind this is very specific, it's not simply the taking of a similar image, it's doing so purely with the intention to deny the original copyright owner. Details like that are key in court.

But as has been said numerous times, almost no chance for the OP and Pakistan


Gear List
website: South Yorkshire Wedding photographer in Doncaster (external link)
Twitter (external link)Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
velasco
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
201 posts
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Singapore
     
Dec 26, 2013 04:22 as a reply to  @ Phil V's post |  #24

Wow, thank guys for all your opinions. Just got back from a place without Internet access.

Again, I'm not trying to push an argument on "he took a similar shot like mine" but rather, there was intent. The agency emailed me and I kept the chain of emails.

First email is this:

"
Hi


I want to that attached image as commercial use for print ad in Pakistan. kindly sent me your quotation asap with maximum image size. I'll need your highly assistance. I hope your reply asap.


Thanks & Best Regards"

i said no i need more info.

last email before i heard from him again:

"First of thanks to your response. Sorry bro it was too urgent yesterday. So we've arrange a shoot and take a shot. Once again thanks

Best Regards"

----


Anyway, yep i thought so it is not worth the time and funds :(


www.nooriskandar.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kronie
Goldmember
Avatar
2,183 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
     
Dec 26, 2013 08:31 |  #25

Did they take your idea and use it? Yes, it looks like they did. Yours is better by the way...

But your in Singapore and he/she/ it is in Pakistan. Your wondering what you can do as far as copyright and usage rights? I would say close to nothing. Even if you were awarded judgement how do you collect?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Dec 26, 2013 08:40 |  #26

DunnoWhen wrote in post #16550722 (external link)
Just as a matter of interest, if you were to do a TinEye search of your image, how many other image would you find very similar to yours.

I would hazard a guess that there is a good chance that you will find others very similar and, if so, one could argue that you, too, are a plageriser :D

You're not plagiarizing if you came up with the idea independently, rather than copying it. It's not like a patent, which protects against both copying, AND against independent development.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
velasco
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
201 posts
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Singapore
     
Dec 28, 2013 08:36 |  #27

Kronie wrote in post #16554602 (external link)
Did they take your idea and use it? Yes, it looks like they did. Yours is better by the way...

But your in Singapore and he/she/ it is in Pakistan. Your wondering what you can do as far as copyright and usage rights? I would say close to nothing. Even if you were awarded judgement how do you collect?

:)

pretty much sums it


www.nooriskandar.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
team ­ haymaker
Senior Member
Avatar
711 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Oakville, ON, Canada
     
Jan 03, 2014 19:47 |  #28

he calls you Bro in the email? probably not a business to be involved with lol


My 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,699 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2464
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Jan 05, 2014 10:11 as a reply to  @ post 16551388 |  #29

To the OP

do you actually think you are the only person in this world that thought of that concept and that makes you unique.. seriously

Good artists create. Great artists steal. Smart artists never get caught. Really smart artists duplicate and thumb their noses at you.........No law that i know of was ever broke by taking a theme and recreating it........Thats photography and art at its best


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Phil ­ V
Goldmember
1,977 posts
Likes: 75
Joined Jan 2005
Location: S Yorks UK
     
Jan 06, 2014 08:31 |  #30

umphotography wrote in post #16579325 (external link)
To the OP

do you actually think you are the only person in this world that thought of that concept and that makes you unique.. seriously

Good artists create. Great artists steal. Smart artists never get caught. Really smart artists duplicate and thumb their noses at you.........No law that i know of was ever broke by taking a theme and recreating it........Thats photography and art at its best

Why does no-one get the important point here, it's not simply plagiarism.

Taking inspiration from other peoples work is something that all artists do, to the point of actually copying pictures sometimes. That's fine, like you say, it's part of art and it's done all the time.

Asking to use an image, and then pulling out of the deal and recreating that image is a different kettle of fish entirely. That's not simple plagiarism, that's creating a new work with the expressed intent of denying payment to the original artist. It's the intent that's key.

If you want to go to Yosemite and recreate a bunch of Ansel Adams' works, there's nothing to stop you, they'll be your original images. But if you make a calendar of those images and try to sell them commercially, I'd bet the estate of Mr Adams would be sending strongly worded cease and desist letters (at the very least).

I linked above to a court case in the UK where this has been upheld, again for clarity, it's all about intent. In fact the images in that case bore little resemblance to each other, what made the judgement was the behaviour of the perpetrator more than the image.


Gear List
website: South Yorkshire Wedding photographer in Doncaster (external link)
Twitter (external link)Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,291 views & 0 likes for this thread
So I cannot do anything about this plagiarism case?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Constantin
840 guests, 210 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.