[monochrome]

Does anybody know who I contact to pay the royalties to? Based on the above I'll owe somebody some money because I'm fairly certain it's been photographed before and certainly somebody thought to copyright the work.

There's a whole thread here about a book on handguns. Our member PaladinXXX took all the photos from his garage roof or something and cropped them - but they still look super-sharp.

I'll bet somebody somewhere has taken a nearly identical copystand shot of a Colt M1911A1 Army before.

[spinach]

There must be a VERY wealthy photographer (or the heirs of a long dead photographer) out there somewhere.

a small handful. you'll find what happens more is people just don't copy each other's shots.

---------- Post added 09-12-14 at 10:47 AM ----------

There must be a VERY wealthy photographer (or the heirs of a long dead photographer) out there somewhere.
Does anybody know who I contact to pay the royalties to? Based on the above I'll owe somebody some money because I'm fairly certain it's been photographed before and certainly somebody thought to copyright the work.

if copying a shot is equivalent to photographing the same subject as someone else i doubt your merits as a photographer.

---------- Post added 09-12-14 at 10:50 AM ----------

I'll bet somebody somewhere has taken a nearly identical copystand shot of a Colt M1911A1 Army before.

same backdrop, same angle, same lighting, same exposure? the chances are exceedingly low.

[Tom S.]

a small handful. you'll find what happens more is people just don't copy each other's shots.

---------- Post added 09-12-14 at 10:47 AM ----------


if copying a shot is equivalent to photographing the same subject as someone else i doubt your merits as a photographer.

---------- Post added 09-12-14 at 10:50 AM ----------


same backdrop, same angle, same lighting, same exposure? the chances are exceedingly low.

Wow, you have an interesting prospective. According to you (if I've read your posts correctly), there is almost nothing in the world we can photograph without infringing on someone's copyrights. I'll take my chances in court.

[spinach]

actually, according to me, as mentioned in "if copying a shot is equivalent to...", copying a shot is a very deliberate act that is not the same as simply shooting the same subject. dunno how many ways that needs to be repeated or how dense y'all are going to be about it, how many times you will repeat that i'm saying shooting the same subject equals copying automatically when i've said explicitly, even in the post you've quoted, the opposite. and i've elucidated, several times. y'all aren't arguing. i've better things to think about than your defense of the wold's largest publisher of media.

[D1N0]

actually, according to me, as mentioned in "if copying a shot is equivalent to...", copying a shot is a very deliberate act that is not the same as simply shooting the same subject. dunno how many ways that needs to be repeated or how dense y'all are going to be about it, how many times you will repeat that i'm saying shooting the same subject equals copying automatically when i've said explicitly, even in the post you've quoted, the opposite. and i've elucidated, several times. y'all aren't arguing. i've better things to think about than your defense of the wold's largest publisher of media.

Now you are backtracking on us. You have said that shooting a tourist photo from the space needle is copyrighted. Instead of calling us dense you might keep track of your statements instead.

[Tom S.]

Okay, let's say you take a picture of the Seattle skyline from the deck of the Space Needle and want to use it on your website. Do you owe royalties to whoever was the first photographer to take and copyright that same picture?

yes, you do.

---------- Post added 09-12-14 at 08:20 AM ----------

actually, according to me, as mentioned in "if copying a shot is equivalent to...", copying a shot is a very deliberate act that is not the same as simply shooting the same subject.

To paraphrase your own reply: actually, according to you, it is the same as simply shooting the same subject. Your answer was very clear, even to someone as dense as me.

To quote Will Rogers, "When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging." Wise advice!

[monochrome]

Why don't we agree it is a matter of intent?

If a painter intentionally copies a Picasso - forges, if you will, the work of a famous artist - it is certainly intentional and not a unique creation.

If a painter creates a new work perfectly in the style of Picasso and passes it off as a Picasso, clearly that is also a forgery.

If a painter creates a new work perfectly in the style of Picasso but calls it his own work it is merely derivative, or worse, technical imitation (and probably a mere novelty).

If a photographer, knowing everything in the EXIF file of a digital image, arranges to make an identical shot in order to avoid paying royalties, I submit that is copying the work of another photographer.

In this case, however, it is apparent the second photo could not be precisely a copy (same background, same FoV, same exposure factors) without guessing at the elements in the original film shot. I wouldn't be quite so dismissive of my statement about 33 years passed time and material change - I was being serious. The second photographer has simply made a new image in the style of a former image. I don't believe one has copyright to an image style.

Otherwise, returning to the painting analogy, could J. M. W. Turner own the rights to every Impressionist painting from 1800 onward? He has NOT been designated the first Romantic Impressionist, but he made over 20,000 stylistically similar drawings and paintings - he probably made an image of every conceivable outdoor lighted scene. Had he worked 50 years later we would label him the Father of Romantic Impressionism. He should own royalty rights to every one of those scenes, shouldn't he?

Of course not!! Each painting is an original work! Others who painted very similar impressionist views of very similar landscapes - say John Constable - made original impressionist works. Did Monet and Pissaro 'copy' Constable's and Turner's treatment of atmospheric light? They certainly used that treatment of light.

This will come down to intent, and what the court decides - with a better understanding of all the preceding actions and technical facts - was the intent of RS management.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 09-13-2014 at 06:11 AM.

[magkelly]

When I first saw this painter's work I thought I was looking at some of Turner's work. Nope, but there are times when his use of light is so close to Turner's that it was an easy mistake. Actually now that I know his work better I can tell them apart. Grimshaw's work borders on the photographic sometimes. His use of light, particularly on water, it often looks so real it's hard to tell it's a painting and not a photo.

John Atkinson Grimshaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When I first saw him I could not help but see a resemblance to Turner's work. People work in the same style, shrug. They even do photographs and paintings of the same subjects all the time. The famous photo of the Beatles at Abbey Road? It's been "copied" and "recreated" so many times it's ridiculous and so far as I know nobody is going sue happy over it.

In any case Rod Stewart owns his own head, and he can take as many pictures as he wants of it, front and back, and I doubt that any judge would go after him for it. The original photo is pretty generic in some ways. It's just the back of Stewart's head. What makes it special is not the pose or the photography. It's that iconic hairstyle and the fact that it is recognizably him that makes that photo what it is. Honestly practically anyone could have shot that photo.

It's just not that special. It's not the first or the last time an album pic of a recording artist was taken from the rear either. Personally I think it's a bit boring and I wonder that he would even want to use it again. But whatever, it's his head and the way I see it photographing himself from the rear again doesn't really constitute theft. If it did there would be grounds for lawsuits all over the place as this kind of shot is done often enough that there are plenty of "rear view" shots to choose from...

[vonBaloney]

I doubt the photographer expects to actually go to court -- they just didn't like the original offer and were hoping for a sweeter one. Now looking for a settlement to stop being a nuisance...

[jatrax]

I doubt the photographer expects to actually go to court -- they just didn't like the original offer and were hoping for a sweeter one. Now looking for a settlement to stop being a nuisance...

^^^ Most likely correct.

I am certainly no expert on copyright, but I do sell images so have some familiarity with the system. And despite it being 'law' copyright is quite fluid and open to interpretation. It is also quite different from country to country. So while in general certain things can be said, in any specific instance things are not so clear cut.

In this case, IMHO, the law is clear in that this is a different 'image' and the photographer does not have a leg to stand on. But I suspect the case is being based on the fact the photographer was approached to re-license the image and when an agreement was not reached another photographer was hired to 'duplicate' the work. The theory being that since they approached the photographer in the first place they were acknowledging the photographer had the rights to the image.

I suspect the photographer and the photographers lawyer are aware they have only a slim chance of winning this, but any chance leaves doubt and they are are hoping that doubt will lead to an out of court settlement. All they need is a judge that feels sympathetic to the poor photographer going up against the big media giant.

[NicoleC]

Copyright (in the US) can be boiled down to this: you can't copyright an idea, you can copyright the expression of the idea. In other words, you can't copyright "taking a picture of the back of Rod's head."

I think she has a decent case. If I understand correctly:

• They wanted her photo
• They offered a paltry payment and negotiations broke down
• They then *deliberately* copied her photographic expression

The look-a-like photo alone would be a weak case, but the sequence of events shows a clear intent to copy. I don't think there is any chance of $2.5 million in damages, but I do think the case is strong enough that Rod Stewart et al will settle instead of go through the expense of a court case.

[Parallax]

Copyright (in the US) can be boiled down to this: you can't copyright an idea, you can copyright the expression of the idea. In other words, you can't copyright "taking a picture of the back of Rod's head."

I think she has a decent case. If I understand correctly:

• They wanted her photo
• They offered a paltry payment and negotiations broke down
• They then *deliberately* copied her photographic expression

The look-a-like photo alone would be a weak case, but the sequence of events shows a clear intent to copy. I don't think there is any chance of $2.5 million in damages, but I do think the case is strong enough that Rod Stewart et al will settle instead of go through the expense of a court case.

The fact that they offered royalties should be irrelevant. Let's say I see a picture I really like of whatever. Say it's a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge taken from Fort Point. I find the photographer and offer to license it's use for a background for a sign at my shop, but he wants more than I'm willing pay. I get on a plane for San Francisco, a cab to Fort Point and take my own picture. Why do I now owe him roalties simply because I first offered to buy rights to his photo?