Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-08-2014, 08:13 AM   #31
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,802
But who does the idea belong to? The photo is only part of the artwork. Did the photographer come up with this Idea, or did de graphic designer? Or Rods management or his girlfriend or Rod himself. A photographer cannot get copyrights to their subjects.

09-08-2014, 08:29 AM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,972
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
This article has the two images... and yes they are both high contrast and cropped pretty much the same, though if one picks nits the newer one shows less of his head and his hair is blonder than in '81 Photographer Sues Rod Stewart for $2.5M for Recreating Her Photo of the Back of His Head
BTW I like the first, older photo much better - the hair style was better, the overall high-key exposure with high contrast is executed much better.. even the crop I find more appealing .hehe no digital back then I guess .. just saying
09-08-2014, 10:47 AM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 340
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
But who does the idea belong to? The photo is only part of the artwork. Did the photographer come up with this Idea, or did de graphic designer? Or Rods management or his girlfriend or Rod himself. A photographer cannot get copyrights to their subjects.

Actually I seem to remember a different album cover that used a similar concept. It was a drawing of the back of a girls head in silhouette. But there would have to be a lot of research to find it.
09-08-2014, 11:03 AM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
Looks like an outright copy to me. It's not that no one else is allowed to photograph the back of his head, but cripes, they could find their own original way to do it. Plagiarism is still bad right?

I'd be interested to know how much the original photographer was willing to re-licence the image for ($1,500 seems like a joke, but who knows all the details). I'd also be interested in knowing how much they paid the replacement photographer to replicate the image.

09-08-2014, 11:14 AM   #35
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 6,027
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Looks like an outright copy to me. It's not that no one else is allowed to photograph the back of his head, but cripes, they could find their own original way to do it. Plagiarism is still bad right?

I'd be interested to know how much the original photographer was willing to re-licence the image for ($1,500 seems like a joke, but who knows all the details). I'd also be interested in knowing how much they paid the replacement photographer to replicate the image.
Seems like they could agree that they replicated the concept but it would still be okay -- showing the passage of time, etc. Rod Stewart is not allowed to refer to his own album cover? Can't have photos of himself taken cause someone already has? The claim seems spurious to me...
09-08-2014, 01:22 PM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
Seems like they could agree that they replicated the concept but it would still be okay -- showing the passage of time, etc.
It shows his hair is immune to the passage of time. That is kind of interesting on it's own

QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
Rod Stewart is not allowed to refer to his own album cover?
This isn't a reference to the album artwork, it's a copy of the album artwork. They could have created something inspired by and reminiscent of the album cover without being an outright copy.

QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
Can't have photos of himself taken cause someone already has?
That's a bit of an oversimplification
09-08-2014, 01:36 PM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: WV
Posts: 1,495
QuoteOriginally posted by asaru Quote
^ You see, it's nonsense like this that condemns the existing copyright system as broken, and requiring abolition.
Yes, that makes so much more sense than improving copyright law.

09-08-2014, 02:21 PM   #38
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Edmonton/Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 297
^You can't improve it. How?

The problem is that the subject is not allowed to own his own image.

Let's say you fix it. The subject now owns his image

The cost is obvious.

The entire genre of street photography is made largely illegal.

And that's the point. You are good at shooting. Shoot! But everything you make, you can only sell once. After that, it's in the public domain. Just as, for example, a potter can sell each pot only once. After that, it's out of his hands.

Yes, I know, you'll tell me once again I am ignorant, irresponsible, trying to drive your livelihood away, and the rest of the slanderous lies.

But if you pause to think for a moment, you'll see I'm right.

Because that's how the law -- any law -- works.
09-08-2014, 04:09 PM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 340
QuoteOriginally posted by asaru Quote
^You can't improve it. How?

The problem is that the subject is not allowed to own his own image.

Let's say you fix it. The subject now owns his image

The cost is obvious.

The entire genre of street photography is made largely illegal.

And that's the point. You are good at shooting. Shoot! But everything you make, you can only sell once. After that, it's in the public domain. Just as, for example, a potter can sell each pot only once. After that, it's out of his hands.

Yes, I know, you'll tell me once again I am ignorant, irresponsible, trying to drive your livelihood away, and the rest of the slanderous lies.

But if you pause to think for a moment, you'll see I'm right.

Because that's how the law -- any law -- works.

Let me see if I understand you, you're saying If I take a picture, I can only sell it One time. After that it's in the public domain. Does that include movies, books, music. If I played my music on stage or it gets played on the radio, is it now in public domain and I lose all rights to it.

It wouldn't be worth writing music or books, or making movies.

Copyright laws have to be reasonable, But I doubt your interpretation of it would be feasible. It would not be worth publishing a book, writing music, or making a movie, or taking pictures.
Patent laws would also be affected. If no one could keep control of their work, nothing would get invented.

Think about it. Every business that depended on copyright's would go broke. Software companies would not be able to make any money off of their product.
The company that designs cars or mobile phones would lose all their rights as soon as they sell the first item.

What about trademarks, It is a form of copyright. Recently a electronics company imported some multimeters for sale in this country. Custom agents seized the shipment because the colors were too close to another company's Trademark colors. There was no label, logos or other problems, just the color. The meters were destroyed. The company who owned the trademark replace the meters and Apologize for the incident. Unfortunately they had no control over the custom agents. They were just doing their job.

I agree that sometimes things get a little confusing and the laws seem to be stupid, but with the digital age, things are changing. and we have to change with it. And that includes changing the laws to suit the Problems.

Stay safe and have fun.

Joe.
09-08-2014, 04:43 PM   #40
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Edmonton/Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 297
^You have fallen into exactly the easiest and most predictable fallacy. You seem to think that just because I don't believe photography should be copyrightable, it also follows that there should be no copyright at all. That's not what I've said and that's not what I think.

Fiction, the performing arts, software are not documentary, and so the basic problem of copyright in photography -- that the subject does not own the image -- does not come up. Copyright poses other problems in those areas, but I don't believe they are so fatal that copyright should be discarded.

The documentary problem in copyright, the ownership of issue by subject, does come up in news and investigative reporting. The laws of libel, however, exist to control it somewhat. (To be sure, some would say libel chill is a fatal problem. I don't want to go there for the present.)

Photography is, I believe, unique among the representational arts for the documentary problem because the image is so easily reproducible, whether by copy or copycatting.

This is why copyright in photography does not work and should be abolished.
09-08-2014, 07:19 PM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 340
So in essence your saying that as photographers we should not have the same protection under the law as other art forms. That we are somehow second-class citizens.

If a painter paints a picture and then makes Prince of that picture, which many of them do, We should not have the right to the same protection as they get. That our efforts are not worth their time. There have been hundreds of photographers over the years that have made their living reprinting their own work and producing books of this work. Books on landscapes, birds, Animals of all sorts, and places that people are not likely to see. Without copyright laws, these books would never exist.

We deserve just as much protection under the law as any other art form.

Yes people can go out and re-create some of this work, But if they do it in a deliberate act of forgery, the law protects us against them. Just as if they forge a Da Vinci or Picasso painting. There are too many forgeries out there.

To me that is like saying you don't have the right to vote, or the right to have a say in your government, just because of the color of your skin.
AND THAT IS NOT RIGHT.


Under the Constitution of the United States we are guaranteed EQUAL protection under the law.
And by the way, photography is just as much an art form as music or Painting. I can teach most anyone to take a picture. But It takes someone with vision to really see the picture before it's taken.

Stay safe and have fun.

Joe.
09-08-2014, 07:43 PM   #42
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Edmonton/Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 297
QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
So in essence your saying that as photographers we should not have the same protection under the law as other art forms.
Yes. Because documentation (which is what photography is, regardless of pre- or post-processing) is not an art form. Well, not a "fine art" in any case. And for all the reasons I have already gone through.

QuoteQuote:
That we are somehow second-class citizens....
I will make no reply to any of that. I'll only say this:

An absence of copyright no more demeans the value of photography or anything else than the presence of copyright somehow confers such value.

Last edited by asaru; 09-08-2014 at 07:49 PM.
09-08-2014, 08:02 PM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,833
Copyright shouldn't restrict someone's ability to use a new photo of themself. If the law currently allows that then it's additional indication that copyright law needs to be rewritten.

I've long felt that when a photographer is hired, the person or company doing the hiring should own the copyright by default.
09-08-2014, 08:34 PM   #44
Veteran Member
gmans's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hunter Valley,NSW, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,466
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
Copyright shouldn't restrict someone's ability to use a new photo of themself. If the law currently allows that then it's additional indication that copyright law needs to be rewritten.

I've long felt that when a photographer is hired, the person or company doing the hiring should own the copyright by default.
I agree if this is commisioned work the purchaser owns the work. You are hiring the artist, it is you who own the artwork, the artist can include provisos and if the purchaser agrees than so be it. But if it was written contract and you walk away with the artwork is it not yours.
09-09-2014, 03:24 AM   #45
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,606
I just think it is silly. Does this photographer think she really came up with the idea of taking a photo of the back of someone's head? Can she sue other photographers/celebs who would happen to use that idea in photos?

How about if I copyright the idea of taking a photo of someone sitting on a couch or, on a horse? Obviously, unless I can prove that it was really my original idea (which I don't actually have any original ideas) then my claim shouldn't hold water.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
album, art, california, copyright, court, google, har, heirs, image, infringement, permission, photo, photo industry, photographer, photography, picture, plagiarism, post, rod, rod stewart, shot, stewart, subject, win
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Justin Bieber and entourage sued by photographer MRRiley Photographic Industry and Professionals 35 06-15-2013 07:40 PM
Copyright Infringement Response - step by step instructions interested_observer Photographic Industry and Professionals 1 02-03-2012 02:40 PM
Rod Stewart Nesster General Talk 2 10-10-2010 03:27 AM
Fears Of Copyright Infringement (or right-click prevention schemes) GoremanX Photographic Industry and Professionals 74 03-04-2010 03:55 PM
I know I get sued for this.... Pentaxke Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 03-11-2008 03:06 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:22 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top