Saturday, January 28, 2012
UK Court Says You Can Copyright The Basic Idea Of A Photograph
Techdirt: We've talked a lot in the past about the "idea/expression dichotomy." This is an important concept in copyright law that says you can only copyright the specific expression, and not the idea. This is supposed to protect people from getting accused of copyright infringement for basically making something similar to what someone else made. Unfortunately, as we've been noting with dismay over the past few years, the idea that there's some bright line between "idea" and "expression" has been slowly fading away, and courts are, increasingly, effectively wiping out the distinction. In the US, we've seen this with the ridiculous case between a photographer, David LaChapelle, and the singer Rihanna, because some of her videos were clear homages to his photographs. The expression was entirely different, but the judge didn't think so, and Rihanna ended up having to pay up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I find this claim absolutely ridiculous. If the simple concept of a photo can be copyrighted, nothing is safe anymore! We as artists draw inspiration from so many other sources - there is no way that we could do that without using and adapting other works and inspirations. It seems like any court cases that would stem from this copyright law would be incredibly difficult to judge seeing how subjective the ruling could be.
There are many interesting arguments that this article makes, one in particular being the role of a judge in critiquing art and determining infringement. When it comes down to understanding art and picking it apart, any single piece is going to be reflective of pieces or ideas that have come before. Art is something that is recyclable, it is something that is completely emotional and natural, not to mention the fact that many times it is inspired by human experience. An artist is creating a piece that is reactionary or expressive, or a way to tag an event or a place in time. People are going to have similar experiences, they are going to be inspired by other artists, maybe take their ideas that one extra step further.
There is a difference is really copying someone's work or creating a tribute to that individual. I think that the photos in the article were still different enough. Especially when we look at the subject matter. It is a view of London. If I had a dime for all of those types of pictures, complete with photoshop and a display of London, I could pay off the infringement fine. I understand that there is a fine line but I think that someone other than a judge needs to determine these types of things.
This is really unfortunate. I agree with the author, Mike Masnick, that this is a solid example of how copyright laws can squash creativity. I understand that the one photographer did copy the other in a general way. But that photographer used his own composition and took his own picture. The judge's role as an art critic, as Masnick pointed out, sort of crosses the line between being an objective mediator and a subjective leader. This is part of the reason why copyright issues in the arts can be so messy- judges have to make informed rulings and, because of the nature of the arguments, it is only natural that their critical opinion comes into play when making a decision. The monopoly issue is also a complicated problem to consider. I don't think it's fair that the original photographer should get paid every time someone takes a picture like this. It's not that special. So, like Masnick, I also question the appropriateness and legitimacy of the monopoly. The judge was put in an awful situation in this case, though, and I do respect that he was only trying to protect the intellectual property rights of the original photographer.
This is completely absurd. this is almost as bad as the jerk who copyrighted the happy birthday song. At what point are people going to pull their had back out of their own rear's and stop being so damn greedy. People are creative plain and simple and to say that someone used your idea for a photo is just ridiculous. yes if i come up with a beautiful photograph and copyright it then i should be compensated for anyones direct use of it but if some sees mine likes it then comes up with their own idea more power to them for using my creation for inspiration. these new copyright laws are what make our country look like greedy bastards.
I think that these laws should be rewritten and/or clarified so A) everyone knows what's going on and B) they realistically represent the technology age.
The lines are so blurred that I think the actual blurring is more a problem than where the line should actually be. (Ideally, both should be fixed). I think it is really unfair to Rihanna, having to pay up, if neither she or her legal team had any idea a judge could rule against her. (Or maybe even that it violated copyright laws).
As far as the laws themselves go, it's unrealistic to expect anyone to come up with purely original work, and even if one does, there's going to be SOME previous work of art in existence that is similar enough to the new work to violate laws, if the laws are as relaxed as what convicted Rihanna
While the photographs in question are clearly very similar, even the judges acknowledged that photos of Big Ben, the Houses of Parliament, and London buses, and the idea of highlighting a color against a black and white background are all very common. What differed in those pictures was the composition, and I think the end result is that the photos feel very different. There is a difference between copying someone's work and being inspired by it. Any artist is going to be inspired and shaped by their own experiences and the work of previous artist. There are very few completely original ideas, but everyone has their own ways of expressing ideas. Just recently I was working with a team of people to develop a game where the "idea" of the game turned out to be exactly the same as another team who was working at the same time. We were not aware of this until both games were already in development, but in the end our games had a completely different look and tone and provided different experiences for the guest. If we were afraid of copyrights, one of these ideas would have been killed before it even had a chance to develop. My point is, I hope this ruling stays as an isolated incident and does not pave the way for stricter copyright laws that will squash creativity.
Post a Comment