Not under this ruling. The ruling adduces several features to establish "copying" - as far as I remember
* A red bus * A monochrome background * A white (or clear) sky * The riverside frontage of the HoP * The top of the bus being in line with the top of the building * The bus being "framed" by the building * The bus being on a bridge
The implication is that as well as the subject and the "popped" colouring, compositional elements were required to meet the threshold. The judge also remarked that the plaintiff's definition of what was covered by their copyright was overbroad. See the WP article.
On 01/02/2012 21:56, Roger Bamkin wrote:
I'm not surprised by this. Copyight is about the /interpretation /of an idea. If Marcel Duchamp claims copyright on putting a moustache on the Mona Lisa then I can see that I am stealing his idea by putting a moustache on another similar famous painting by da Vinci.
In this case the idea is the red bus against a black and white image. Actually I think the first one is "obvious" having seen Schindlers list, but I can see that others may not consider it "obvious" (You are allowed to infringe another person's copyright if their idea is /obvious/ - I believe).
This is not about the images being similar its about stealing? the red bus v. black and white parliament image background idea. There was a similar case with the classic guinness ad where someone had already shot a man dancing around a pint of beer. Then Guinness created their own version and refused to credit/pay the man with the original idea (if I remember right)
On 1 February 2012 14:45, Harry Burt <harryaburt@gmail.com mailto:harryaburt@gmail.com> wrote:
That might actually be licensed, though. -- Harry On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Richard Farmbrough <richard@farmbrough.co.uk <mailto:richard@farmbrough.co.uk>> wrote: I wonder if http://www.popartuk.com/photography/london/red-bus-on-westminster-bridge-ph0408-poster.asp would have been considered enough to make the idea non-novel. On 25/01/2012 22:23, geni wrote: On 25 January 2012 19:18, Magnus Manske<magnusmanske@googlemail.com <mailto:magnusmanske@googlemail.com>> wrote: ...photos that somehow look similar: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html The servers are safe (well, relatively speaking) in the U.S., but should people in the UK be concerned when uploading images? Magnus Nothing new here. Its always been understood that in theory if you see a photo and take another photo that is similar enough to it to be considered a derivative work that that is a copyright violation. However in most cases it would be extremely hard to prove and people don't care enough to try. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org-- Roger Bamkin Chair WMUK http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org