Copyright Court Ruling

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by StephenBatey

I can prove that a Higgs boson exists by producing one; how do I prove that it doesn't exist?

You can't produce a Higgs boson as it's very unstable. What they are checking at Cern is the products that the Higgs breaks down to, but as other particles also produce similar results, it takes a lot of checking. There are some theories that are outside the standard model, which don't require a Higgs therefore, if you proved one of these other theroies correct, you would also prove that the Higgs doesn't exist.

[StephenBatey]

OK, substitute boojum snark for HIggs boson. My point was that you can prove something exists by producing it; you can never prove something doesn't exist by not producing it.

On re-reading, I'll add this to remove the illustration that seems to confuse and confine myself solely to the ruling.

I sell a photo. Someone sues me for copyright infringement. I can only get off by proving that I have never seen the other person's photograph. That seems to be the reasoning behind the court ruling. So the simple question is: how do I prove that I have never seen something? I don't have any idea how I could possibly do this.

[jet_kit]

Originally Posted by StephenBatey

I sell a photo. Someone sues me for copyright infringement. I can only get off by proving that I have never seen the other person's photograph. That seems to be the reasoning behind the court ruling. So the simple question is: how do I prove that I have never seen something? I don't have any idea how I could possibly do this.

The difficulty here is that this is not a criminal case where you have to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt'. In litigation of this nature you have only to prove 'on the balance of probability'. I suppose you would have to see the two images side-by-side to determine if they were, to all intents and purposes, identical.

In many instances this would be difficult. On Mt Corcovado in Rio they have built a viewing platform which enables you to take a picture of the famous statue of Christ and fill the frame with a 'standard' lens. As such, every picture of this statue is going to be pretty much identical. But with the Houses of Parliament you have myriad viewpoints to choose from and if you want to include a red bus in your image the possible combinations become huge. If you then decide to 'colour pop' the bus you significantly reduce those combinations. So, if the two images were taken from much the same spot, and pretty much the same focal length lens, with a bus in about the same location and then treated in PP in the same way, The judge probably had a great deal of difficulty in ruling on a balance of probability that the 2nd photographer had not seen the efforts and been influenced by the first.

[Cathus]

I suppose these people better watch out (unless theirs were taken before 2005)

http://www.photo4me.com/canvasprints/london-bus

http://www.popartuk.com/photography/...718-poster.asp

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59608457@N05/6290914399/

The London Bus group on Flickr as nearly 31,000 photos, there must be a few colour popped ones in there

[StephenBatey]

Originally Posted by jet_kit

The judge probably had a great deal of difficulty in ruling on a balance of probability that the 2nd photographer had not seen the efforts and been influenced by the first.

Have you read the judgement? The facts appeared to be fairly straightforward. The claimant produced an image which the defendant wanted to use. They couldn't agree terms, so the defendant went out to deliberately make a near copy. I've missed out a few stages, but this summary is more or less fair I think.

It wasn't in doubt in this case that the idea for the image was copied, and that this was done to avoid paying the photographer. That's why some people welcome the decision as protecting photographers.

My reservation is based solely on the judge's reasoning, where he appears to say that for a defence to succeed it is necessary for the defendent to prove that they had not seen the claimant's photograph. This is what I find it hard to accept can ever be proved; and the reason that I feel that all photographers are at risk.

[dan123]

So Technically i could go down to swannage Pier. Take a LE and converti it to black and white, and end up in court a few weeks later. That Pier can only be shot from a small area, everyone makes it a B+W, the same goes for other shots around here, Yes everyone takes inspiration from others, and there are no original ideas... If this becomes more common which it wont i can see things getting out of hand

[StephenBatey]

GIven that HMG is committed to the idea of a small claims court (up to £5,000 damages) for copyright infringement, are you sure it won't get out of hand? Which is easier to do - prove in court that you hadn't seen the other chap's photo before you took yours or pay up beforehand? The more commercially successful your image, the more you stand to lose in court.

Or am I missing something?

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by StephenBatey

Have you read the judgement? The facts appeared to be fairly straightforward. The claimant produced an image which the defendant wanted to use. They couldn't agree terms, so the defendant went out to deliberately make a near copy. I've missed out a few stages, but this summary is more or less fair I think.

At last someone who's actually looked at the case instead of just regurgitating the hysterical headline (OK, a couple of others have as well - but this is a pretty good summary). A couple of bits missing from the above that helps reassure the paranoids:
1. The case was about commercial competition (one company that sought to profit by the other's "artistic" work). The tea caddies were being sold right next to the postcards/t-shirts!
2. The tea company obviously had some financial assets and so was worth pursuing for a few quid - pointless suing someone if they can't actually pay
3. The postcard company was prepared to spend many £10ks up front just to bring the case (it costs to sue!), risked losing probably up to £100k (there are never any guarantees) and will still have to pay some of their costs, despite winning (IIRC, it's all the costs leading up to actually getting into court - a not insubstantial amount)