Rod Stewart Sued for Copyright Infringement

gmans · 09-11-2014, 11:57 AM

The lawyers will be sailing on this one as well. The claimants name is not "Maggie" is it?
Rod Stewart - I am Sailing w/ lyrics - YouTube

You Tube

Parallax · 09-11-2014, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by spinach

that's not all that's meant by copying -- you saw the bit about writing a manuscript of a book someone else has written, right?

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?
In this particular case, your manuscript analogy works in Rod's favor as the picture isn't a word-for-word (or hair-for-hair) copy.

**monochrome** · 09-11-2014, 12:55 PM

Generally, in educational plagiarism, a variance of one word in six is satisfactory to avoid outright plagiarism charges. From personal experience I can tell you it is awfully challenging to write totally original thought, and nearly impossible to credit every single writer who has had the same thought before you, though you may have stated your opinion using original and unique language. That definition does not necessarily survive a legal plagiarism challenge, in which an idea that sounds the same as a prior idea can be shown to be legally compensable.

That differs from an offer to buy rights to your screenplay, which you decline. If I write an original screenplay that sounds a lot like yours - at what point am I a violator? Courts often make that determination.

Logically I can't see this as a violation, but legally it probably is.

She should have asked for 1/10 cent per imprint/exposure, in all media.

Nesster · 09-11-2014, 01:52 PM

One thing that comes to mind are the musicians who 'recreate' their old hits and albums in order to bypass publishing rights etc.

For that matter, would Mercury have a case if Rodney re-records Maggie May?

Mistlefoot · 09-11-2014, 02:43 PM

I am curious as to what the original photo was. If it was, for example, the back of his full head and both shoulders with a background and the album cover shows a crop as well as well as the background removed, then they are copying the post work more then the photo. It is the placement of the minimalist photo that makes this "unique".

and even with that in mind, let's ask another question.

If the Beatles stayed together and returned to the cross walk 10 years later for Abbey Road 2 would I be prevented via copyright from taking that picture?

Google Image Result for http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/Beatles_-_Abbey_Road.jpg

DeadJohn · 09-11-2014, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Nesster

One thing that comes to mind are the musicians who 'recreate' their old hits and albums in order to bypass publishing rights etc.

For that matter, would Mercury have a case if Rodney re-records Maggie May?

There are independent compensation schemes for songwriting and for the performance. If he wrote the original and hasn't sold the rights, then he's probably free to rerecord it.

spinach · 09-12-2014, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

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 ----------

Originally posted by D1N0

That would be blatant plagiarism

But this is not about a photo, it is about album art. Album art was copied. I doubt very much that the photographer was the graphics designer that made the album art in which the original photo was used. So she has no rights to it. And what about mr. Stewarts hairdresser? Did he or she not create the original art? Should hairdressers of celebrity claim copyright?

album art using her photo as an element (with permission from the photographer, which likely was limited to that use). this new billboard contains the same photo, retaken, without the permission of that original photographer. this, too, is blatant plagiarism, a violation of copyright.

vonBaloney · 09-12-2014, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by spinach

yes, you do.

Well, no you don't. That's why if you go to popular spots to get certain landscape photos (like Maroon Bells in Colorado or Delicate Arch in Moab, UT), you'll find a dozen or so different pro photographers from around the world there EVERY DAY all taking more or less the same shot (they all congregate at sunrise or sunset usually), and doing so gives them the right to go sell that shot because no one owns the view. (And of course no two shots are really exactly the same.)

However, as I mentioned earlier, you can't sell a photo of the Eiffel tower at night because they've trademarked the lights or something. (But you can sell all the daytime pictures of it you want.)

**monochrome** · 09-12-2014, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

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?
In this particular case, your manuscript analogy works in Rod's favor as the picture isn't a word-for-word (or hair-for-hair) copy.

Originally posted by spinach

yes, you do.

album art using her photo as an element (with permission from the photographer, which likely was limited to that use). this new billboard contains the same photo, retaken, without the permission of that original photographer. this, too, is blatant plagiarism, a violation of copyright.

Uhm - it isn't the same photo and it can't have been retaken - the subject isn't the same. The subject is 33 years older, and has materially changed in the intervening years.

Originally posted by vonBaloney

Well, no you don't. That's why if you go to popular spots to get certain landscape photos (like Maroon Bells in Colorado or Delicate Arch in Moab, UT), you'll find a dozen or so different pro photographers from around the world there EVERY DAY all taking more or less the same shot (they all congregate at sunrise or sunset usually), and doing so gives them the right to go sell that shot because no one owns the view. (And of course no two shots are really exactly the same.)

Uh Oh. I hope the Ansel Adams estate isn't looking.

I find this discussion tragically fascinating. Music publishing 'Cover Band' protections seem obvious - isn't that what ASCAP is for (at least, before the EMI revolt?). Written word copyrights seem fairly cut and dried. While I am sympathetic, I just don't think a photograph rises to the same standard of protection from imitation.

D1N0 · 09-12-2014, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by spinach

yes, you do.

Google streetview must have accumulated billions in copyrights already.

spinach · 09-12-2014, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by vonBaloney

Well, no you don't. That's why if you go to popular spots to get certain landscape photos (like Maroon Bells in Colorado or Delicate Arch in Moab, UT), you'll find a dozen or so different pro photographers from around the world there EVERY DAY all taking more or less the same shot

"more or less the same shot" is not the same shot -- they're never even trying to take the same shot. generally, after the trip is over, everyone compares what they've shot and that itself leads to hours more of discussion.

---------- Post added 09-12-14 at 09:01 AM ----------

Originally posted by D1N0

Google streetview must have accumulated billions in copyrights already.

nobody's got any interest whatsoever in copying a google street view shot.

---------- Post added 09-12-14 at 09:02 AM ----------

Originally posted by monochrome

Uhm - it isn't the same photo and it can't have been retaken - the subject isn't the same. The subject is 33 years older, and has materially changed in the intervening years.

har har

vonBaloney · 09-12-2014, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by spinach

"more or less the same shot" is not the same shot -- they're never even trying to take the same shot. generally, after the trip is over, everyone compares what they've shot and that itself leads to hours more of discussion.

Just my point -- so how is the Seattle skyline any different?

spinach · 09-12-2014, 09:20 AM

there, you were talking about copying a shot -- or rather, i was talking about copying shots when you brought it up.

vonBaloney · 09-12-2014, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by spinach

there, you were talking about copying a shot -- or rather, i was talking about copying shots when you brought it up.

You said if you take a shot from the top of the space needle you owe someone royalties...

Parallax · 09-12-2014, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

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?

Originally posted by spinach

yes, you do.

Originally posted by vonBaloney

You said if you take a shot from the top of the space needle you owe someone royalties...

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

I'm going to the Grand Canyon next month and plan to take pictures. If any of them turn out exceptionally well I hope to enter some in a contest.
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.

09-12-2014, 08:30 AM	#69
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Parallax 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? In this particular case, your manuscript analogy works in Rod's favor as the picture isn't a word-for-word (or hair-for-hair) copy. Originally posted by spinach yes, you do. album art using her photo as an element (with permission from the photographer, which likely was limited to that use). this new billboard contains the same photo, retaken, without the permission of that original photographer. this, too, is blatant plagiarism, a violation of copyright. Uhm - it isn't the same photo and it can't have been retaken - the subject isn't the same. The subject is 33 years older, and has materially changed in the intervening years. Originally posted by vonBaloney Well, no you don't. That's why if you go to popular spots to get certain landscape photos (like Maroon Bells in Colorado or Delicate Arch in Moab, UT), you'll find a dozen or so different pro photographers from around the world there EVERY DAY all taking more or less the same shot (they all congregate at sunrise or sunset usually), and doing so gives them the right to go sell that shot because no one owns the view. (And of course no two shots are really exactly the same.) Uh Oh. I hope the Ansel Adams estate isn't looking. I find this discussion tragically fascinating. Music publishing 'Cover Band' protections seem obvious - isn't that what ASCAP is for (at least, before the EMI revolt?). Written word copyrights seem fairly cut and dried. While I am sympathetic, I just don't think a photograph rises to the same standard of protection from imitation. Last edited by monochrome; 09-12-2014 at 08:38 AM.

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

09-11-2014, 12:01 PM	#62
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by spinach that's not all that's meant by copying -- you saw the bit about writing a manuscript of a book someone else has written, right? 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? In this particular case, your manuscript analogy works in Rod's favor as the picture isn't a word-for-word (or hair-for-hair) copy.

09-11-2014, 12:55 PM	#63
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Generally, in educational plagiarism, a variance of one word in six is satisfactory to avoid outright plagiarism charges. From personal experience I can tell you it is awfully challenging to write totally original thought, and nearly impossible to credit every single writer who has had the same thought before you, though you may have stated your opinion using original and unique language. That definition does not necessarily survive a legal plagiarism challenge, in which an idea that sounds the same as a prior idea can be shown to be legally compensable. That differs from an offer to buy rights to your screenplay, which you decline. If I write an original screenplay that sounds a lot like yours - at what point am I a violator? Courts often make that determination. Logically I can't see this as a violation, but legally it probably is. She should have asked for 1/10 cent per imprint/exposure, in all media.

09-11-2014, 01:52 PM	#64
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	One thing that comes to mind are the musicians who 'recreate' their old hits and albums in order to bypass publishing rights etc. For that matter, would Mercury have a case if Rodney re-records Maggie May?

09-11-2014, 02:43 PM	#65
Mistlefoot Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia Photos: Albums Posts: 328	I am curious as to what the original photo was. If it was, for example, the back of his full head and both shoulders with a background and the album cover shows a crop as well as well as the background removed, then they are copying the post work more then the photo. It is the placement of the minimalist photo that makes this "unique". and even with that in mind, let's ask another question. If the Beatles stayed together and returned to the cross walk 10 years later for Abbey Road 2 would I be prevented via copyright from taking that picture? Google Image Result for http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/Beatles_-_Abbey_Road.jpg

09-11-2014, 04:24 PM	#66
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,834	Originally posted by Nesster One thing that comes to mind are the musicians who 'recreate' their old hits and albums in order to bypass publishing rights etc. For that matter, would Mercury have a case if Rodney re-records Maggie May? There are independent compensation schemes for songwriting and for the performance. If he wrote the original and hasn't sold the rights, then he's probably free to rerecord it.

09-12-2014, 08:15 AM	#67
spinach Senior Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: san diego, ca Posts: 114	Originally posted by Parallax 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 ---------- Originally posted by D1N0 That would be blatant plagiarism But this is not about a photo, it is about album art. Album art was copied. I doubt very much that the photographer was the graphics designer that made the album art in which the original photo was used. So she has no rights to it. And what about mr. Stewarts hairdresser? Did he or she not create the original art? Should hairdressers of celebrity claim copyright? album art using her photo as an element (with permission from the photographer, which likely was limited to that use). this new billboard contains the same photo, retaken, without the permission of that original photographer. this, too, is blatant plagiarism, a violation of copyright.

09-12-2014, 08:24 AM	#68
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by spinach yes, you do. Well, no you don't. That's why if you go to popular spots to get certain landscape photos (like Maroon Bells in Colorado or Delicate Arch in Moab, UT), you'll find a dozen or so different pro photographers from around the world there EVERY DAY all taking more or less the same shot (they all congregate at sunrise or sunset usually), and doing so gives them the right to go sell that shot because no one owns the view. (And of course no two shots are really exactly the same.) However, as I mentioned earlier, you can't sell a photo of the Eiffel tower at night because they've trademarked the lights or something. (But you can sell all the daytime pictures of it you want.)

09-12-2014, 08:38 AM	#70
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by spinach yes, you do. Google streetview must have accumulated billions in copyrights already.

09-12-2014, 09:00 AM	#71
spinach Senior Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: san diego, ca Posts: 114	Originally posted by vonBaloney Well, no you don't. That's why if you go to popular spots to get certain landscape photos (like Maroon Bells in Colorado or Delicate Arch in Moab, UT), you'll find a dozen or so different pro photographers from around the world there EVERY DAY all taking more or less the same shot "more or less the same shot" is not the same shot -- they're never even trying to take the same shot. generally, after the trip is over, everyone compares what they've shot and that itself leads to hours more of discussion. ---------- Post added 09-12-14 at 09:01 AM ---------- Originally posted by D1N0 Google streetview must have accumulated billions in copyrights already. nobody's got any interest whatsoever in copying a google street view shot. ---------- Post added 09-12-14 at 09:02 AM ---------- Originally posted by monochrome Uhm - it isn't the same photo and it can't have been retaken - the subject isn't the same. The subject is 33 years older, and has materially changed in the intervening years. har har

09-12-2014, 09:06 AM	#72
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by spinach "more or less the same shot" is not the same shot -- they're never even trying to take the same shot. generally, after the trip is over, everyone compares what they've shot and that itself leads to hours more of discussion. Just my point -- so how is the Seattle skyline any different?

09-12-2014, 09:20 AM	#73
spinach Senior Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: san diego, ca Posts: 114	there, you were talking about copying a shot -- or rather, i was talking about copying shots when you brought it up.

09-12-2014, 09:57 AM	#74
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by spinach there, you were talking about copying a shot -- or rather, i was talking about copying shots when you brought it up. You said if you take a shot from the top of the space needle you owe someone royalties...

09-12-2014, 10:07 AM	#75
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by Parallax 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? Originally posted by spinach yes, you do. Originally posted by vonBaloney You said if you take a shot from the top of the space needle you owe someone royalties... There must be a VERY wealthy photographer (or the heirs of a long dead photographer) out there somewhere. I'm going to the Grand Canyon next month and plan to take pictures. If any of them turn out exceptionally well I hope to enter some in a contest. 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.