Copyright infringement? You decide.

I came across this yesterday and thought it might be of interest to the photographers here. It all starts with a post on Autoblog about a young artist who has set up a Kickstarter account to help fund selling her automotive art prints.

LINK HERE

So far so good. The Kickstarter is over $36k in just two days and she has managed to get her work featured on three of the largest car blogs on the web. It appears to be a great bit of online marketing. But there is a problem. You see the first print at the top of the blog post, the one of the Shelby Cobra over the orange couch? That print bears a striking resemblance to this photo.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/pixelteam/44872​98038/

1. She could have gotten permission
2. She may have used another very similar photo (same car or similar car since the decals are easily copied).
3. It is a derivative work. Is there enough change to not infringe upon the original copyright? Maybe, but only courts will decide.

It does appear to be, though it's also possible at this point that permission has been given. It's also possible that the background images were purchased for that purpose from stock sites, which is a common practice (if that's what's happened).

I've emailed the copyright holder of the Cobra image, just to alert him that it might be happening.

Adam, derivative works are still infringements.

Yes its clearly the same lighting, car, and photo. You can't generate sharp prints at 24 x 38 from web images. Hopefully, she licensed and used hi res images from the original photographers. All you have to do is send an email to DigiMan and let him resolve.

CraigPatterson wrote in post #15789898
Adam, derivative works are still infringements.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Transformativen​ess

It is really easy to call anything an infringement, but that isn't always the case. There isn't a clear cut answer. But calling someone out as a copyright infringer prematurely isn't always the best thing to do.

The photographer of the Cobra has been notified and was not aware of the use. So ultimately it will be settled between the artist and his lawyers if he decides to go that route. I thought it was a story that people here would be interested in. I'm sure this type of thing is happening everyday and rarely is caught.

Thanks. It will be interesting to see what happens. I wonder if he registered the work.

adam8080 wrote in post #15789945
Thanks. It will be interesting to see what happens. I wonder if he registered the work.

My guess is that he did. The photo was used by RM Auctions a couple of years ago when the car was sold. It appears to be part of a studio shoot. It can be seen towards the bottom of the page below.

http://www.rmauctions.​com …Code=AM10&CarID​=r164&fc=0

adam8080 wrote in post #15789924
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Transformativen​ess

It is really easy to call anything an infringement, but that isn't always the case. There isn't a clear cut answer. But calling someone out as a copyright infringer prematurely isn't always the best thing to do.

The article you cite has to do with fair use, which is a completely different issue. That precedent had to do with attempting to decide whether a specific alteration caused the work to become protected under the umbrella of Fair Use. Unless you believe that this example is parody, the article does not apply.

Please do not paint me with the brush of "calling out" someone "prematurely," as that is not what I have done. Please re-read what I have written.

Here is the source of the law. I'll trust that over a Wiki article on Transformation as it relates to Fair Use, which this clearly is not.

This is infringement. A good general guideline is if the new work doesn’t amount to a new expression, meaning, message, commentary, or parody of the original work, it’s probably infringement.

CraigPatterson wrote in post #15790039
The article you cite has to do with fair use, which is a completely different issue. That precedent had to do with attempting to decide whether a specific alteration caused the work to become protected under the umbrella of Fair Use. Unless you believe that this example is parody, the article does not apply.

Please do not paint me with the brush of "calling out" someone "prematurely," as that is not what I have done. Please re-read what I have written.

Here is the source of the law. I'll trust that over a Wiki article on Transformation as it relates to Fair Use, which this clearly is not.

You just happened to be quoted on that reply, but I wasn't calling anyone out.

And copyright law isn't as straight forward and clear cut as it seems sometimes. If you ever are involved in an IP case, then you will really see it.

If the AutoBlog website allows for download of the image, does that still fall under the copyright infringement? There doesn't seem to be any credit given to the photographer.

Serious question because I don't know. Just interesting reading.

Here is the site where that photo can be downloaded.

http://www.autoblog.co​m …964-shelby-cobra-csx2557/

If you do a Google image search, they are all over the web.

sophies-mom wrote in post #15790217
=sophie's-mom;15790217]If the AutoBlog website allows for download of the image, does that still fall under the copyright infringement? There doesn't seem to be any credit given to the photographer.

Yes, it would still be an infringement.