# Online photo theft... again



## Tricky Skills (Feb 18, 2007)

Some little fucker has been nicking my photos once again. Not just mine, but all the other contributors to The Way We See It, and then pimping them out as his own piece of 'artistic value.'

It's not just online theft either. The knobber has exhibited my images at The British Library as part of an 'organic and fluid map of London.'

Background...

The Way We See It encourages individual photogrpahers to capture a named London location each week. You upload three images, and then an online gallery is created. The copyright for the site clearly states:

'Individual image copyright with image owners. Images must not be used without prior consent.'

The first I heard about this theft was the link being mailed to me. Online theft is one thing, but to pass your work off as an exhibition with no permission, payment or even credit?

I'm fucking fuming!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 18, 2007)

I'm not surprised you're fuming. Write to the curator of the exhibition at the British Library. Preferably with legal threats. Word will get out. Send a letter to Private Eye too. He'll never work again. Serve him right.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

Can you point us to the exact image they've nicked?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 18, 2007)

I see on his site he's got a link saying "10 Years of Collaboration (1994-2004)"
I think he's confusing collaboration with theft.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 18, 2007)

(edit: sorry, didn't fully read the OP)

I'm reading about their "media scavenging" thing at the moment, or at least trying to penetrate the dense foliage of academic twattery around it....


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

'He' is they;



> Giles Lane & Alice Angus



Giles and Alice   I'm saying nothing about the way Arts Council funding works in the UK


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 18, 2007)

I can point you to more than one image. For starters, have a look at my original coathangar picture over HERE (scroll to bottom), also clearly visible over HERE.

Copy of email sent:

********
WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Please remove ALL of the copyrighted images taken by the photographer onionbagblogger that have been stolen by your organisation for the project London As We May See It. 

This cease and desist order applies both online and offline. ALL images that have been stolen must be removed from the website (http://urbantapestries.net/weblog/) and from any exhibition that you are currently involved in, or have planned for the future. 

This is a clear breach of copyright, as identified on both http://www.thewayweseeit.org and http://www.onionbagblog.com. 

If you want to use my copyrighted images for the purpose of furthering your own 'artistic' ambitions, I am happy to discuss my fees. 

********


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

Tricky Skills said:
			
		

> I can point you to more than one image. For starters, have a look at my original coathangar picture over HERE (scroll to bottom), also clearly visible over HERE.
> 
> 
> Erm, it's a pic of someone elses graffiti no?
> ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 18, 2007)

Contact the management at TWWSI as well - they will probably have a bit of an opinion about someone breaching their copyright statement (and if they don't, they're dodgy in themselves!)


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

I think you'll also find that as 'your' pic of someone else's art is part of a collection and plays so significant part in the entire image your claims would be groundless even if you had the audacity to fight your corner.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I think you'll also find that as 'your' pic of someone else's art is part of a collection and plays so significant part in the entire image your claims would be groundless even if you had the audacity to fight your corner.


I don't think so. The TWWSI site clearly states that images are not to be used without permission, and as far as I can see these are all full reproductions specifically used because of their merit - it's not like taking a picture of a gallery or something.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> I don't think so. The TWWSI site clearly states that images are not to be used without permission, and as far as I can see these are all full reproductions specifically used because of their merit - it's not like taking a picture of a gallery or something.




OK. Can we have a link to an original and a link to the copy just to clarify.


----------



## tupster (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I think you'll also find that as 'your' pic of someone else's art is part of a collection and plays so significant part in the entire image your claims would be groundless even if you had the audacity to fight your corner.



i think the same rules of copyright apply here as if you were to use a music sample in a song. You would still need to clear the sample with the original artist before using it as part of a new work.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> OK. Can we have a link to an original and a link to the copy just to clarify.


Not from me you can't, it's not my bloody photo!

Seriously, I think the original project sounds interesting, even if it's written up rather wankily, but if you're going to do this sort of "unconscious collaboration" thing you HAVE to pay attention to the wishes of the individuals you're getting stuff from. It's not like there aren't huge pools of CC-licenced photos out there, or that it's hard to distinguish between them.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

Any other examples?

1: The original 'story cube' idea is apparently theirs.
2: The photograph in question is a shot of someone else's art (graffiti) and could easily be snapped by anyone.
3: The final display is a collection as an installation - the photograph in question is a very small part of the entire concept.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 18, 2007)

This discussion (on Flickr) degenerates a little, but it describes more photos being used without consent. I mention it only because it was the other most recent case I had heard of. I really don't know what we can do to stop it - apart from be vigilant and follow it up as firmly as possible when we do find out about it. I can only assume that enough people let it go, happy to see their photos being used at all in the first place, that it makes the people who do it think they might as well risk it ... 

I was contacted by a magazine to put one of my pictures on its front page, but after I emailed back to discuss fees I never, mysteriously, heard from them again. I have, however, checked their most recent edition and indeed my photo does not appear anywhere. You've just got to be on the ball, coz at the moment I really don't think there is much that's going to stop people doing this.

Hope you manage to get a good outcome from all of this.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 18, 2007)

The bigger issue for me is the sheer arrogance involved. Just to lift these pictures without ANY consultation.

The relatively minor status of the original source is not an issue. Would it be any different if I nicked Martin Parr's pictures, and then exhibited them as my own piece of art under my name with no credits for Parr?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Any other examples?
> 
> 1: The original 'story cube' idea is apparently theirs.
> 2: The photograph in question is a shot of someone else's art (graffiti) and could easily be snapped by anyone.
> 3: The final display is a collection as an installation - the photograph in question is a very small part of the entire concept.


1 & 3: doesn't matter, the piece was still used.
2: but it wasn't. Anything could easily be snapped by anyone. The original graffiti artist doesn't have copyright over derivative images taken of stuff in a public place either, any more than architects have copyright on pictures of their buildings.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

Tricky Skills said:
			
		

> The bigger issue for me is the sheer arrogance involved. Just to lift these pictures without ANY consultation.
> 
> The relatively minor status of the original source is not an issue. Would it be any different if I nicked Martin Parr's pictures, and then exhibited them as my own piece of art under my name with no credits for Parr?





Martin Parr doesn't make a living by taking shots of other peoples art.

Unless you're going to claim that the original graffiti is yours you have no sympathy here.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> 1 & 3: doesn't matter, the piece was still used.
> 2: but it wasn't. Anything could easily be snapped by anyone. The original graffiti artist doesn't have copyright over derivative images taken of stuff in a public place either, any more than architects have copyright on pictures of their buildings.



Then don't go moaning when you display your photos on the public web  

Jeezus. It's just a snap of someone else's idea. A full on frontal with no environmental context or, personal input from the photographer whatsoever. It's not an original piece. FFS. I despair.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Any other examples?
> 
> 1: The original 'story cube' idea is apparently theirs.
> 2: The photograph in question is a shot of someone else's art (graffiti) and could easily be snapped by anyone.
> 3: The final display is a collection as an installation - the photograph in question is a very small part of the entire concept.



None of which makes any difference - you can take a photo of a building but just because someone other than you designed and built it doesn't make that photo any less yours. Using anyone else's art without their consent is surely not allowed. 

From the website:


> The Way We See It came into existence in 2005 with two main purposes. The first was to show off the incredible diversity of the wonderful city we live in and to show some of the lesser known, yet interesting parts of it. Secondly it was an exercise in seeing how different photographers viewed the same place - what they saw, how they interpreted it, how it affected them and their images.
> 
> Every week a new location is chosen - participants then have two weeks to go out and photograph this location and submit up to three of their best images. *At the end of this period all the photographs are made available to view online.*
> 
> ...



No mention of this being used as an installation anywhere - only that the photos will be made available online. By submitting photos to the project Tricky Skills is merely licensing the website owners to do what they state on their website - no more, no less. For them to take those photos and 'publish' them in some other form is something not licensed. If someone had come along and taken a photo of the screen while his/her photo was on there, then published that as their own art the lines might be a little more complicated - but they didn't, they used the exact photos without being licensed to do so. Unless I'm missing something else in the t&c on the website it seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 18, 2007)

I'm not after your sympathy.

OK - ignore my personal anger at the situation. Other contributors whose images were of buildings etc have been used.

Do they have your sympathy?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

Tricky Skills said:
			
		

> ...Other contributors whose images were of buildings etc have been used.
> 
> Do they have your sympathy?



Yes, if the shot clearly demonstrates some kind of personal interpretation.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 18, 2007)

imo the content of the photos used is immaterial - those are photos taken by someone else and not licensed for use for this installation. What you, Stanley, think of the artistic merit of those photos matters not one jot. Copyright laws are in place for a reason - simply to prevent people using other people's stuff without consent, or passing it off as their own. You can't start making distinctions about the subject of photographs like that - where would you draw the line?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> imo the content of the photos used is immaterial - those are photos taken by someone else and not licensed for use for this installation. What you, Stanley, think of the artistic merit of those photos matters not one jot. Copyright laws are in place for a reason - simply to prevent people using other people's stuff without consent, or passing it off as their own. You can't start making distinctions about the subject of photographs like that - where would you draw the line?




So, if I stick one of your photographs on a copystand and take a pic then pass it off as my own that's OK with you. But, if I nick it off the web it's not?


----------



## snadge (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Then don't go moaning when you display your photos on the public web
> 
> Jeezus. It's just a snap of someone else's idea. A full on frontal with no environmental context or, personal input from the photographer whatsoever. It's not an original piece. FFS. I despair.



It doesn't matter what it's a "snap" of....

the copyright of the snap is owned by the photographer not the graffiti artist, if the artist didn't want his "copyright" infringed he should have graffitied the inside of his own flat.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> So, if I stick one of your photographs on a copystand and take a pic then pass it off as my own that's OK with you. But, if I nick it off the web it's not?



If a print of one of my photos made up part of a scene you were photographing or painting then that is fair game imo. If you took a photo of it and passed it off as your own then that isn't. If you took a photo of it in order to get around copyright laws then that isn't. There are distinctions, and you know it. You are arguing to be contrary. You want to portray things as black and white, when you are well aware that things aren't. At what point did Tricky Skills pass off that piece of graffiti as his/her own? They took a photo of a piece of street art. The photo is their own.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> ... The photo is their own.



If it is. However, it would be very difficult to argue that someone else didn't take a very similar shot, if not the exact same shot.

Copyright is supposed to protect an artists original idea or, concept. However, it never has done. Only an image is copyrightable(?). How anyone has the audacity to take a two second snap of a piece of public art and claim ownership of that art is beyond me.

Copyright laws need a complete overhaul IMO. We need to recognise the idea as the original concept. Not the image.

In this case, a work of art was created using several images. The idea and the concept was the installation of story cubes. The original idea of story cubes and the display as a collection far outways any original creativity from any single image used. On their own, they are very mundane, everyday snaps. As a collective concept they say much more. The concept and idea should be protected by Copyright.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

snadge said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter what it's a "snap" of....
> 
> the copyright of the snap is owned by the photographer not the graffiti artist, if the artist didn't want his "copyright" infringed he should have graffitied the inside of his own flat.



And the photographer should have kept his shot in his personal photo album at home. Not publish it on the web.


You're a bunch of uncreative, money for nothing grabbing capitalists


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 18, 2007)

I'd rather be an uncreative money grabbing capitalist than some Arts Council funded knobber who doesn't have any manners.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 18, 2007)

Rubbish. In _any _case, the photo is owned by the photographer, who controls the copyright. Simple as that. Therefore taking the kind of action detailed here is appropriate.

The side issue is that the photo contains someone else's work - arguably it is entirely based on it and does not simply coincidentally feature it. Therefore the photographer could be sued by the graffiti artist, should they desire.

Separate issues.

Edit: I believe, perhaps incorrectly, that if you'd simply posted it to document the artwork in question, you could claim fair use. Be very careful if you try to profit from it, financially or otherwise.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> If it is. However, it would be very difficult to argue that someone else didn't take a very similar shot, if not the exact same shot.
> 
> Copyright is supposed to protect an artists original idea or, concept. However, it never has done. Only an image is copyrightable(?). How anyone has the audacity to take a two second snap of a piece of public art and claim ownership of that art is beyond me.
> 
> ...



Yes, anyone could have taken that shot - but the point here is that Tricky Skills did and uploaded it to the website where it has been taken from along with all the others. There is no question in this case who took the shot. 

Tricky is not claiming ownership of the piece of graffiti, but of the '2 second snap' of that graffiti. It matters not one bit what the subject or intent is. If you take a nice holiday snap of a couple of mates and someone comes in, raids your shoebox of prints, and puts it in an art installation, because the photo isn't some great master does that make it any less yours? Maybe you wouldn't care - but copyright protects those who do. Many photographers use motor drives to snap off as many photos as possible in order to not miss the crucial moment. They don't, therefore, sit and compose each individual shot - no time. Does it mean they forgo copyright? 

It makes no difference whether the images are mundane, everyday shots or amazing photos that speak from the soul - the fact is they belong to the person who took them. The installation is a very good idea, but printing off someone else's work - no matter how long it took them to frame, take, etc. - to use in it without their consent is wrong. If the project organiser had gotten permission for such use then great. If they had gone out and taken the photos themselves, then great. But they didn't - they used someone elses without consent. It really is quite simple.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 18, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Rubbish. In _any _case, the photo is owned by the photographer, who controls the copyright. Simple as that. Therefore taking the kind of action detailed here is appropriate.
> 
> The side issue is that the photo contains someone else's work - arguably it is entirely based on it and does not simply coincidentally feature it. Therefore the photographer could be sued by the graffiti artist, should they desire.
> 
> ...



Good post - good point about documentary. Interesting point about profiting from it ... in the link I posted earlier the photographer had been taking 'snaps' of graffiti as documentary. When the paper in question used the photos without consent or attribution he contacted them and they paid him in the end for their use. What would the ethical/legal issue be there? I think it's a really murky area ... I certainly don't know what the law would be in that case.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

I'm going to make an all original collage from everyone else's art and stick it in a public space for some 'all for nothing' nonster to photograph and claim ownership of and then I'll stand back and watch the commotion whilst thinking 'that was a good idea'.


I'VE GOT A CAMERA AND I'M GONNA USE IT!

The world is truly bonkers.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Rubbish. In _any _case, the photo is owned by the photographer, who controls the copyright. Simple as that. Therefore taking the kind of action detailed here is appropriate.
> 
> The side issue is that the photo contains someone else's work - arguably it is entirely based on it and does not simply coincidentally feature it. Therefore the photographer could be sued by the graffiti artist, should they desire.
> 
> ...




Jeeezus fucking christ! It is not a photograph of a photograph. It's a photograph of a conceptual piece of art featuring many images, any single of which is worthless by itself. But, put into the story cube context...

Nah. I give up.

Copy of idea taken into other idea and none ideaist gets upset cos they had a digi to copy with. Fucking sickening from my point of view. Utterly sickening and representative of brainless, uncreative commercial shytes


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 18, 2007)

I can't believe the direction this thread has taken.

As the originator, I would just like to repeat my original reasons for posting.

A website has a well defined copyright policy. This was breached. There is no other issue.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I'm going to make an all original collage from everyone else's art and stick it in a public space for some 'all for nothing' nonster to photograph and claim ownership of and then I'll stand back and watch the commotion whilst thinking 'that was a good idea'.
> 
> 
> I'VE GOT A CAMERA AND I'M GONNA USE IT!
> ...



In this scenario you would be in breach of copyright - the person coming along to document it by taking a photo of your 'collage' would own said photograph.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> In this scenario you would be in breach of copyright - the person coming along to document it by taking a photo of your 'collage' would own said photograph.



Yep. And, that is the way law in this country has served the establishment so very well for so many years.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

Tricky Skills said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> As the originator, ...



The originator of what? The thread, the snap or, the original art?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Yep. And, that is the way law in this country has served the establishment so very well for so many years.


The point isn't whether or not copyright law is broken - which I think it definitely is - the point is that in this instance, it's _fucking cheeky_ to take a load of photos which explicitly weren't intended to be just used for anything, without even a by-your-leave, make them into an exhibition and then wank on about how innovative you are for doing it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Jeeezus fucking christ! It is not a photograph of a photograph. It's a photograph of a conceptual piece of art featuring many images, any single of which is worthless by itself. But, put into the story cube context...
> 
> Nah. I give up.
> 
> Copy of idea taken into other idea and none ideaist gets upset cos they had a digi to copy with. Fucking sickening from my point of view. Utterly sickening and representative of brainless, uncreative commercial shytes




You seem to be confusing yourself Stanley. _It is not a photograph of a photograph. It's a photograph of a conceptual piece of art featuring many images_ - the photograph of the installation is not in question here. The fact that a photograph that someone else took was used without permission is the point. 

One might say your paint sketches of the Alhambra (I can't spell it, I apologise) lack much creativity past the first one since they are all the same. One person's creativity is another's piece of uncreative, repetitive nonsense. It's all subjective - doesn't mean the photo doesn't belong to him, or those sketches to you. 

Try and get past your artist's ego and see the real issue at hand, as reiterated by Tricky Skills in post #36.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> The point isn't whether or not copyright law is broken - which I think it definitely is - the point is that in this instance, it's _fucking cheeky_ to take a load of photos which explicitly weren't intended to be just used for anything, without even a by-your-leave, make them into an exhibition and then wank on about how innovative you are for doing it.



If I selected pics from a glossy Sunday mag and cut them up and represented them in a new context I'd feel I had no reason to contact the original artists.

Would you?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> If I selected pics from a glossy Sunday mag and cut them up and represented them in a new context I'd feel I had no reason to contact the original artists.
> 
> Would you?



You seem unable to comprehend context.


----------



## laptop (Feb 18, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> I believe, perhaps incorrectly, that if you'd simply posted it to document the artwork in question, you could claim fair use. Be very careful if you try to profit from it, financially or otherwise.



Aye. Fair dealing ("fair use" is US usage) is not crisply definable - UK courts take it on a case-by-case basis. 

But uses that "do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder" should be OK.

So, especially if the photo of grafitti is part of a larger body (of documentation of the streets for example), then it's very, very likely OK.

On the other hand, before making and selling t-shirts of the graf, find and negotiate with the artist. That would prejudice their interests and conflict with normal exploitation.

And the exhibition of a photo in the Tate does, clearly, fail the test and is a breach.

I bet the people who ripped it off are delighted to get a desist letter, though. Watch for press release.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 18, 2007)

> Good post - good point about documentary. Interesting point about profiting from it ... in the link I posted earlier the photographer had been taking 'snaps' of graffiti as documentary. When the paper in question used the photos without consent or attribution he contacted them and they paid him in the end for their use. What would the ethical/legal issue be there? I think it's a really murky area ... I certainly don't know what the law would be in that case.



I don't know what the law here says about that. Perhaps an interesting case: remember it's illegal to take photos of the Eiffel Tower at night, because the lighting display is copyrighted. However it has to be significantly 'of' the tower - a skyline of Paris including it would not count. This has been proven in French courts before.

IMO the moral answer is that if you add nothing significant, and take a photo purely of someone's graffiti, that's a copyright breach - fair use excepted. If you add context, post process it, use some form of creativity, you begin to take (small) steps away from that. A corporate lawyer would still have you, but I believe the case begins to erode.

I don't know where buildings etc come into it - incidentally in France, they _are_ copyrighted; you have to get permission from the building owner/architect (the Eiffel Tower's ran out, hence the lighting instead). I imagine the UK is slightly less absurd but no doubt battles could be fought over it.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> The point isn't whether or not copyright law is broken - which I think it definitely is ...



NO - it isn't! Check it out.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> If I selected pics from a glossy Sunday mag and cut them up and represented them in a new context I'd feel I had no reason to contact the original artists.
> 
> Would you?


Maybe, maybe not. If I was taking the pictures and not doing anything new with them, just putting them in a pile with other photos, I probably would feel a bit bad. If I was making a collage, no, but then that's not what this is, it's a lot of originals being put together. I don't think this is a sufficiently new use.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 18, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> I don't know what the law here says about that. Perhaps an interesting case: remember it's illegal to take photos of the Eiffel Tower at night, because the lighting display is copyrighted. However it has to be significantly 'of' the tower - a skyline of Paris including it would not count. This has been proven in French courts before.
> 
> IMO the moral answer is that if you add nothing significant, and take a photo purely of someone's graffiti, that's a copyright breach - fair use excepted. If you add context, post process it, use some form of creativity, you begin to take (small) steps away from that. A corporate lawyer would still have you, but I believe the case begins to erode.
> 
> I don't know where buildings etc come into it - incidentally in France, they _are_ copyrighted; you have to get permission from the building owner/architect (the Eiffel Tower's ran out, hence the lighting instead). I imagine the UK is slightly less absurd but no doubt battles could be fought over it.



You make a good point about context - I think that is key. 

And yes, it does seem absurd to be able to copyright a building so taking photos of it is illegal. Of course, strong arguments could be made for and against it, but again context is key.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> You seem unable to comprehend context.



 

Speak for yourself. It's critical in this instance.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> NO - it isn't! Check it out.


No, I mean "whether copyright law as a whole is an intrinsically broken thing i.e. has serious internal problems". Although I think that in this case, existing copyright law _has_ been broken.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> NO - it isn't! Check it out.



Copyright law is broken because Tricky Skills' photograph, regardless of content, has been used without his consent. 

Deeper questions of the merit of that photograph as art or not are immaterial to the copyright case. 

A separate copyrighting issue, as mauvais has outlined, might be applicable in terms of the graffiti artist's assertable rights, but that wasn't what this thread was about - and it is, as I said, quite a separate matter from the use of the photograph in question.

What you believe to be the merits or lack thereof of current copyright law do not matter - the fact is the current law has been broken, it would seem.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> No, I mean "whether copyright law as a whole is an intrinsically broken thing i.e. has serious internal problems". Although I think that in this case, existing copyright law _has_ been broken.



In this instance only the original image maker is owner of Copyright. I.e. the peice of graffiti. That is the image and original concept. A photographer could take a pic of that image and protect it in their name but, the original artist ultimately has ownership (if they can be bothered to fight for it).


The point I'm trying to get across is that by claiming copyright of anything you photograph you're simply denying rights that artists deserve. It's all murky and getting even more murky with digital etc. The days of elitist photographers claiming ownership of anything their money gave them right to claim are/should be long gone.

Images are no longer valuable commodities. Ideas are. And, ideas should be protected above easy get images.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 18, 2007)

Look - if someone nicks your car, then someone else steals it from the thief, and the police catch _them_, should they say, 'well, it was already stolen, fair play, let's not bother with it'?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 18, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> In this instance only the original image maker is owner of Copyright. I.e. the peice of graffiti. That is the image and original concept. A photographer could take a pic of that image and protect it in their name but, the original artist ultimately has ownership (if they can be bothered to fight for it).
> 
> 
> The point I'm trying to get across is that by claiming copyright of anything you photograph you're simply denying rights that artists deserve. It's all murky and getting even more murky with digital etc. The days of elitist photographers claiming ownership of anything their money gave them right to claim are/should be long gone.
> ...


The graffiti artist would have a hard time in this instance; I think that it's fairly well established that pictures of graffiti do not infringe copyright, perhaps simply because anyone trying to claim it would simultaneously open themselves up to charges of vandalism. That's a legal point rather than an ethical one of course.

In addition I don't think that pictures of graffiti would always be duplications anyway, depending on the shot. That's what is going to define the "idea" that you talk about.

I still don't see what the point is about ideas to be honest. Yes, the idea is more important than the image, but taking a photograph encapsulates an idea. We're not going to try to say that photos aren't actually creative here, are we? Surely.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 18, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Look - if someone nicks your car, then someone else steals it from the thief, and the police catch _them_, should they say, 'well, it was already stolen, fair play, let's not bother with it'?




Bollocks. Was just about to give-up and go out. But, but, but...


Look - if someone nicks your car (photographer nicks artists work), then someone else steals it from the thief (website twat takes a screen grab), and the police catch _them (Giles and Alice)_, should they say, 'well, it was already stolen, fair play, let's not bother with it'?

Well, yes, perhaps they should because the police should always be there to protect the public regardless of commercial law.


Now I'm definitely going out.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 18, 2007)

OK, so even with your argument about the morals of copyright, it's still to everyone's advantage that Tricky Skills pursue these Giles & Alice people to have it removed - because they're breaking _someone's_ copyright.

There - happy mediation


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 18, 2007)

I know you're taking the piss here Stanley

 

Graffiti artists get their stuff buffed in a couple of days - 93% of their exposure/audience/fame comes from the pictures on the Interweb!




			
				Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> And the photographer should have kept his shot in his personal photo album at home. Not publish it on the web.
> 
> 
> You're a bunch of uncreative, money for nothing grabbing capitalists


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 18, 2007)

Isn't there a shop in East London that sells big prints of photos of Banksy's artwork. Unauthorised. Plus some market stalls.

I don't know about the law about the copyright of graffiti. Complicated by the fact that graffiti in a public place is illegal, whether it's art or not?!




			
				mauvais said:
			
		

> Edit: I believe, perhaps incorrectly, that if you'd simply posted it to document the artwork in question, you could claim fair use. Be very careful if you try to profit from it, financially or otherwise.


----------



## laptop (Feb 18, 2007)

What _some people_ have to understand is that the one photo they're arguing about is one of the cases where there's *more than one copyright*. 

There's the artist's, and the photographer's. Even if the artist gave Giles and Alice permission, they've still clearly broken the photographer's separate right. If the artist's given permission - fine, commission someone else to take a new photo (which will be different - it's not a copy-table).

This situation where there are several (nested) rights is usual. Think of a musical track: separate copyrights in the lyrics and the musical composition, plus performers' rights, plus the "mechanical" right in the recording.

Even in a novel by one author, there are separate (thin) rights in the design and in the typeface that design uses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Yep. And, that is the way law in this country has served the establishment so very well for so many years.



"This country"? I thought you were in Spain?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> "This country"? I thought you were in Spain?



Oh yeah, so I am. My mind was virtually transposed back to London for a short while last night. 

As it happens, just the other day I was talking to someone about a very respected and established UK artist who died not to long ago. One of his works was nicked. He knew nothing until his son bought home a CD featuring the image on the cover. He tried to sue. Lost. No breach of copyright apparently.

Copyright isn't nearly as clear cut or, clearly defined as it once was.


Sun is still shining. Wine is still cheap. People are still beautiful. Yep - I'm definitely still in Spain.


----------



## laptop (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> about a very respected and established UK artist who died not to long ago. One of his works was nicked. He knew nothing until his son bought home a CD featuring the image on the cover. He tried to sue. Lost. No breach of copyright apparently.



I'm intrigued: if this happened, I need to know. Can you post or PM the artist's name and the name of the entity he sued? If, that is, it actually got to court...


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> If it is. However, it would be very difficult to argue that someone else didn't take a very similar shot, if not the exact same shot.
> 
> Copyright is supposed to protect an artists original idea or, concept. However, it never has done. Only an image is copyrightable(?). How anyone has the audacity to take a two second snap of a piece of public art and claim ownership of that art is beyond me.
> 
> ...



No. Copyright protects the EXPRESSION of an idea in a literary, artistic, dramatic and musical works.

The photographer will still have employed some form of creative effort in taking the photograph (composition etc) and so copyright will exist in the photograph of the graffiti as well as the graffiti itself.

You can't go around around trying to protect ideas that haven't been expressed. It would be impossible to regulate - akin to thought police almost!


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Images are no longer valuable commodities. Ideas are. And, ideas should be protected above easy get images.



Rubbish. That's why photographers use image licences, and why Jack Vettriano' images are so popular - because he licensed them.


----------



## snadge (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> As it happens, just the other day I was talking to someone about a very respected and established UK artist who died not to long ago. One of his works was nicked. He knew nothing until his son bought home a CD featuring the image on the cover. He tried to sue. Lost. No breach of copyright apparently.



If his work was nicked and later on a picture appeared on a cd cover  that would lead the police to the recovery of his work, would it not?

He also would be covered by copyright ( as long as the work was owned by him).


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

I'd like to see the case law details for that case, Stanley.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> I'm intrigued: if this happened, I need to know. Can you post or PM the artist's name and the name of the entity he sued? If, that is, it actually got to court...



I'll PM you with details tomorrow. Don't want to go into stuff here as it involves a personal friend of artist and like I say, he died not that long ago. Possibly complicated. Possibly not.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 19, 2007)

Giles speaks...

********

We do not believe that we have  'stolen' your images at all, but created a commentary (or visual  essay) on how people's use of new media is changing the way we see  and experience the world.

We believe that our use of the images on the cubes is covered by the  'fair use' exemption, and that the photographs of the assembled cubes  on the blog (being documentary images of the cubes themselves) are  also covered in this way.

********

These arty farty types - full of shit, eh Stanley?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

Tricky Skills said:
			
		

> Giles speaks...
> 
> ...
> 
> These arty farty types - full of shit, eh Stanley?



 

He actually knows what he speaks of. He's also probably fully confident that you're a little tyke from the ghetto who could never afford to challenge him in court.

If I was you I would be considering a little bit of 'fair use' of his cubes to create a totally new creative experience.

Possibly.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I think you'll also find that as 'your' pic of someone else's art is part of a collection and plays so significant part in the entire image your claims would be groundless even if you had the audacity to fight your corner.


as usual you are talking utter bollocks... why do you do this..

copyright of any imagwe which can be proveably to have been taken by a named photographer regardless of the subject matter this copyright is retian unless it is given up or surrendered to a thrid party or is sold on.

Please stop giving out this erronious information about photgraphic copyright within the UK it is not helping people or informing them of their rights... 

regardless of you personal opinion of photographers taking photos of other art works it still isn't right to proclaim a legal postition based on them... 

http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/bridge.htm



> "... as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law, and that is so irrespective of whether ... the subject of the photographs is more obviously a three dimensional work, such as a sculpture, or is perceived as a two dimensional artistic work, such as a drawing or a painting ..."



please check your facts in future thanks...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> He actually knows what he speaks of. He's also probably fully confident that you're a little tyke from the ghetto who could never afford to challenge him in court.
> 
> If I was you I would be considering a little bit of 'fair use' of his cubes to create a totally new creative experience.
> 
> Possibly.


if iwere you i'd shut the fuck up about allowing peoples artisitic works of any kind to be ripped off...

you the bloke whose trying to make it as a struggling artist and you arer happy for others to be ripped off..


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Feb 19, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> I'm intrigued: if this happened, I need to know. Can you post or PM the artist's name and the name of the entity he sued? If, that is, it actually got to court...


it would have been a photograph of his art work which is totally legal...


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

The 'fair use' exemption covers the following:

1) research & private study;
2) criticism, review and new reporting;
3) incidental inclusion of copyright material;
4) things done for instruction or examination;
5) anthologies for educational use;
6) playing, showing or performing in an educational establishment;
7) recordings by educational establishments;
8) reprographic copying by educational establishments;
9) libraries and archives (but not a library or an archive ina  company, for example).

So, they may be claiming 'fair use' under 3) - incidential inclusion of copyright material. Definition (from 'Intellectual Property Law' by hart & Fazzani) is 'Incidental inclusion of a copyright work in an artistic work, sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme will not be an infringement'.

However, 'the fair dealing defence can now only be made out where there has been a sufficient acknowledgement under section 178, the fairness being derived from the act that the party copying is not seeking to assert rights of ownership over the work' ('Cavendish Lawcards Intellectual Property Law').

I would also tentatively say that Giles and Alice may have breached your moral right to be identified as the author of your photograph, reagrdless of where it is used.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Bollocks. Was just about to give-up and go out. But, but, but...
> 
> 
> Look - if someone nicks your car (photographer nicks artists work), then someone else steals it from the thief (website twat takes a screen grab), and the police catch _them (Giles and Alice)_, should they say, 'well, it was already stolen, fair play, let's not bother with it'?
> ...



ok you are totaly mental...


----------



## laptop (Feb 19, 2007)

equationgirl said:
			
		

> I would also tentatively say that Giles and Alice may have breached your moral right to be identified as the author of your photograph, reagrdless of where it is used.



If they didn't credit it, and since their exhibition is neither a newspaper nor a magazine nor reporting current affairs, I'd say that's a definite breach.

And then there's the question of whether their exhibition is utter shite, and if so whether that's a breach of the moral right to object to "derogatory treatment"


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

Moral rights of an author of a copyright work are:

1) right to object to derogatory treatemnt of the copyright work;
2) False attribution of a copyright work;
3) Privacy in films & photos;
4) right to be identified as the author of a copyright work.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> as usual you are talking utter bollocks... why do you do this..
> 
> *copyright of any imagwe which can be proveably to have been taken by a named photographer regardless of the subject matter this copyright is retian unless it is given up or surrendered to a thrid party or is sold on...*
> 
> ...




I've got my facts straight thanks. You don't have to believe what I write here. No one does.

Read it again in the way a lawyer might read it.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

By the way, for future reference, just becasue a copyright work is sold, unless there is an assignment (written document) transferring the copyright, the author will retain the copyright.

For example, if a designer is contracted to design a company logo, it is essential to ensure that copyright in the logo is also transferred. There were a few red faces at my last employer after I pointed out we didn't actually own the copyright to the logo we had just commisssioned as no copyright assignment had been put in place.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 19, 2007)

Gosh Stanley, despite law being quoted, from several different sources, you still have this very strange twisted idea of what is going on in your head.

I am hoping you are sitting at the other end of your computer grinning at the furoré you are stirring up - that you are doing it on purpose - and that you don't actually believe the craziness you're coming out with.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> If they didn't credit it, and since their exhibition is neither a newspaper nor a magazine nor reporting current affairs, I'd say that's a definite breach.
> 
> And then there's the question of whether their exhibition is utter shite, and if so whether that's a breach of the moral right to object to "derogatory treatment"



Well, I'd say they were on dodgy ground because a) their work is a commercial work obviously intended for sale and b) they did not seek the author's permission or acknowledge tricky as the author in their work.

But I'm not a IP lawyer, just someone who works in the field of IP.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I've got my facts straight thanks. You don't have to believe what I write here. No one does.
> 
> Read it again in the way a lawyer might read it.


NO YOU HAVEN'T

YET AGAIN YOU ARE GIVING INACCURATE, BOGUS ADVICE PLEASE STOP DOING SO 
gottit yet


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

Especially for Stanley:

(From the cavendish book quoted earlier)
Unfair uses: 
1)reproduction without acknowledgement
2) to save time, labour and effort
3) merely reproducing
4) exploitation or profit without licence
5) malicious motive

And:

Is it a pure idea? - No = NO COPYRIGHT
Is work in material form - No - NO COPYRIGHT


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> read it again in the way a lawyer might read it.


btw i did my advice legally would be to issue a cease and disisst followed by sueing for copyright breech more over they'd win ...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Feb 19, 2007)

Actually fuck it 

for reffernce EQ girl works in law Laptop works in law Stanley Edwards paints for cash in hand in spain who'd you take copyright advice from...


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

We-ll, Garfield, the likelihood is that they may well win, BUT I don't think you can say for sure that they would.

No IP lawyer would - the best you'd get would be 'you've got a good case', I suspect.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Feb 19, 2007)

equationgirl said:
			
		

> We-ll, Garfield, the likelihood is that they may well win, BUT I don't think you can say for sure that they would.
> 
> No IP lawyer would - the best you'd get would be 'you've got a good case', I suspect.


i'm no lawyer i'd say you'd win, every time...


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> Actually fuck it
> 
> for reffernce EQ girl works in law Laptop works in law Stanley Edwards paints for cash in hand in spain who'd you take copyright advice from...



Well, _technically_ I work in technology transfer which involves a huge amount of IP law, but I'll let you off. 

BTW, if anyone has copyright questiosn they want to ask me, feel free to PM me if you want, and I'll do my best to answer or direct you to the right place.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> if iwere you i'd shut the fuck up about allowing peoples artisitic works of any kind to be ripped off...
> 
> you the bloke whose trying to make it as a struggling artist and you arer happy for others to be ripped off..



No. I'm not really. Some cunt takes a photo of a piece of my art and then claims that someone else has breached HIS Copyright I'd probably twat him full on in the face.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> NO YOU HAVEN'T
> 
> YET AGAIN YOU ARE GIVING INACCURATE, BOGUS ADVICE PLEASE STOP DOING SO
> gottit yet





Oi! You fucking stupid cunt.

I am not giving advice. I am NOT a legal professional.


I know what my rights are as an artist and photographer. I keep up to date with what changes and why.

Now please fuck off with your aggressive language and posting manner.

Buy yourself a penis enlargement instead.


FYI and for everyone else's, I am going to check the case history of the incident mentioned and report back here tomorrow if I'm told it's OK to report. If it's not, I'll PM someone and they can change names and dates etc before they post it.

Fuck. You're a tosser.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

Ah, but you haven't actually replied to ANY of my posts quoting the actual law, Stanley.  

Just Garfield's 'comments'.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Oi! You fucking stupid cunt.
> 
> I am not giving advice. I am NOT a legal professional.
> 
> ...



once again for everyones benifit 


Copyright in Photographs of Works of Art

and why stanley edwards is not correct or even wildy or vaulge in the right ball park 

once again 

IGNORE STANLEY EDWARDS BOGUS ADVICE​


----------



## Firky (Feb 19, 2007)

Shouting makes you look like a twat even if you're right.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> IGNORE STANLEY EDWARDS BOGUS ADVICE​



I am NOT giving advice


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

well, maybe, but garfield is pretty justified.

Stupidity and ignorance regarding IP law is woefully commonplace, and really does your head in if you have any proper grasp of the basics.

An article I was reading last week was reporting something as being preotected by 'copyrights' when they meant patents. Sends my blood pressure right through the roof.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

equationgirl said:
			
		

> Especially for Stanley:
> 
> (From the cavendish book quoted earlier)
> Unfair uses:
> ...




What's a pure idea?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I am NOT giving advice


yes you are you are stating things as fact which are in reality your opinion...


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

Thought, concepts, ideas, anything really that you haven't EXPRESSED (drawn, taken a photo of, written about, recorded as a song etc).

i.e. something in the form of an idea or concept only.

For example, you could have an idea about light. But unless you express that idea, eg perhaps you took a photo of a reflection of light bouncing off water or buildings, or painted a picture capturing the effect of a sunset, then you have no copyright protection in your idea.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Feb 19, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Shouting makes you look like a twat even if you're right.


hmm spoken as though you accutally have any credibility whatsoever ... you don't in case that was ever even slightly in doubt...


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> Actually fuck it
> 
> for reffernce EQ girl works in law Laptop works in law Stanley Edwards paints for cash in hand in spain who'd you take copyright advice from...




Just for the record;

Stanley Edwards is John Haydn Colley. A professional artist and photographer for the past 5 years plus who works by contract and employs specialist professional legal experts when needed. They charge HUGE fees. That's why I have to also if I don't keep myself up to date with what's been happening.

For the past year I have been selling paintings for cash. I have also accepted various painting, design, photography and multimedia commissions to be completed this year. All clients have agreed contractual terms and agreed to pay 50% in advance. I am also negotiating book publishing crap that I know nothing about. I will be seeking professional advice for this also.

I am NOT giving advice. Simply putting another perspective on an internet board discussion. Nothing I read here is ever taken as a reference point of law. No one else should either.

It's simply an open discussion.


Now I'm off for a drink to try and agitate someone in Spanish.


----------



## Firky (Feb 19, 2007)

I think that you will find most people will be in agreement that writing in oversized capitals to reinforce a fact or opinion - won't ever appear on the national curriculum. Although it works for the headlines of The Scum.

Its a bit cheeky of both parties. It is his photo and it was wrong for them to take it with out asking. He's also at fault for being so fuming that someone has taken his photo of someone elses' work. I have my designs ripped off and stuck on pixelgirlpresents and it pissed me off - but I put it online so there's the risk. Don't lose any sleep over it and am quite flattered in a way. Someone likes my work enough to make a wallpaper out of it for one of the biggest wallpaper design sites on the interweb.

edit to add: and I can't be arsed getting into an ad hominem debate about it. I have my toe nails to clip.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> yes you are you are stating things as fact which are in reality your opinion...




No I'm fucking well NOT. I am off to try and get facts now  

Facts for why Copyright cases are lost and/or won. Not all are won you know. It's not a straightforward thing. The law rarely is!


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Just for the record;
> 
> Stanley Edwards is John Haydn Colley. A professional artist and photographer for the past 5 years plus who works by contract and employs specialist professional legal experts when needed. They charge HUGE fees. That's why I have to also if I don't keep myself up to date with what's been happening.
> 
> ...



Then, quite frankly Stanley, you should already know what copyright does and does not protect, and you should not need me to explain a 'pure idea'.


----------



## untethered (Feb 19, 2007)

Giles Lane said:
			
		

> We do not believe that we have  'stolen' your images at all, but created a commentary (or visual  essay) on how people's use of new media is changing the way we see  and experience the world.
> 
> We believe that our use of the images on the cubes is covered by the  'fair use' exemption, and that the photographs of the assembled cubes  on the blog (being documentary images of the cubes themselves) are  also covered in this way.



Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email in which you acknowledged your use of my copyright work and asserted your belief that a "fair use exemption" (sic) in copyright law permits you to use my work without licence.

The Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 provides for "fair dealing" exemption from usual licencing for the following purposes:

- private study and research
- criticism and review
- news reporting

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_4.htm#mdiv29

It is clear that your unlicenced use of my copyright work in a new work of your own falls outside these protected exemptions. I have not granted a licence to you for these uses and therefore you have and continue to infringe my copyright in these works.

Therefore I must ask that:

1. You cease to display the infringing works in public immediately.
2. You must remove all electronic copies of the infringing works from your computers (including removable media) within seven days.
3. You must deliver to me at (specify address) all tangible copies of the infringing works within seven days.
4. You must give a written undertaking that all infringing copies of my work have been destroyed or delivered up and that you will refrain from further infringing use of these works, within seven days.

Please also note that any place where you have exhibited my work without licence may be liable for a claim of secondary infringement under section 23 of the 1988 Act.

Regards,


----------



## laptop (Feb 19, 2007)

You forgot breach of the moral right to be identified as the author under CPDA 1988 s. 80 (I think) 




For the record, I don't work in law. I teach lawyers about authors rights and spend quite a lot of time in Brussels arguing about what it's going to do next


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

Are you *gasp* an MEP, laptop?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 19, 2007)

equationgirl said:
			
		

> Are you *gasp* an MEP, laptop?



Wow,  that's one of the best cusses I've yet seen on Urban.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

equationgirl said:
			
		

> Thought, concepts, ideas, anything really that you haven't EXPRESSED (drawn, taken a photo of, written about, recorded as a song etc).
> 
> i.e. something in the form of an idea or concept only.
> 
> For example, you could have an idea about light. But unless you express that idea, eg perhaps you took a photo of a reflection of light bouncing off water or buildings, or painted a picture capturing the effect of a sunset, then you have no copyright protection in your idea.




Good to see you spotted the ambiguous bit.

Fucking know it all upstarts


----------



## laptop (Feb 19, 2007)

equationgirl said:
			
		

> Are you *gasp* an MEP, laptop?



No. I'm a fucking trade unionist


----------



## laptop (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Good to see you spotted the ambiguous bit.



What's ambiguous?

*Copyright does not protect ideas. *

You've been arguing from the standpoint that it should. Then you've been making up what the law ought to be in Edwardsistan. Which has nothing to do with what it is in any known country. 

If you want to protect an idea, you *patent* it.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> What's ambiguous?
> 
> *Copyright does not protect ideas. *
> 
> ...




No - I haven't  

I argue that Copyright should be overhauled to protect ideas as much as images. I will always. Especially as ideas are becoming the more valuable 'commodity'.

I haven't 'made up' or, even proposed what a law should be in my own ideology.

The ambiguous bit in this case is the expressions of that idea/concept as recorded media. 

If this case went to court, I strongly suspect that Giles and Alice would win. Arbitrary judges decisions aside, I can't see that he has a case to defend. Very, very difficult to prove even if you follow the law to the letter.


----------



## untethered (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> If this case went to court, I strongly suspect that Giles and Alice would win. Arbitrary judges decisions aside, I can't see that he has a case to defend. Very, very difficult to prove even if you follow the law to the letter.



On what grounds do you think they've got a defence?

They've acknowledged using the copyright work without licence on the spurious grounds of "fair use".

There don't seem to be any particularly complex matters of fact or law to determine.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> There don't seem to be any particularly complex matters of fact or law to determine.




Fucking hell. I keep trying to log off and switch off from this   Bleedin internet!

There never are any 'complex matters of fact or, law to determine', merely technicalities or, summat.

People tend to forget that the law is simply there to guide. The world changes. The law that guides has to change also.

If we're going to follow this thread through to it's conclusion then I suggest we give Tricky Skills as much support as we can to see it through. Maybe Giles (and ALICE) will back down immediately. I suspect they won't.

Banksy has just given graffiti a huge new quota of public respect amongst the elite of the UK. This is just one factor of changing attitudes.

Can anyone point to a test case for a graffiti artist trying to protect their work under automatically assigned Copyright?


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 19, 2007)

Tricky Skills said:
			
		

> Some little fucker has been nicking my photos once again. Not just mine, but all the other contributors to The Way We See It, and then pimping them out as his own piece of 'artistic value.'



Hey, you should be grateful to be regarded as the carrion for their "media scavenging philosophy.

 

From the blog:

"In line with our emerging media scavenging philosophy this model does not require massive investment"


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 19, 2007)

Now I know why I decided not to go into law and simply become a carrion for media scavenging philosophers. The pay's not great, and some of the company can be quite testing as well.

I've pretty said all that I have to say here. Thanks for the advice, not so the missives.

The situation still exists that a number of orginal photographs had the copyright breached, for the purpose of an ego boost for some charlatans giving the world of art a bad name.

That's the facts.


----------



## untethered (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Can anyone point to a test case for a graffiti artist trying to protect their work under automatically assigned Copyright?



Given that the kind of illegal graffiti you're referring to inherently implies infringing someone else's property rights (not to mention breaking the criminal law) then I doubt it.

I don't know what's so hard for these people to just withdraw the work, even if they can't bring themselves to say sorry.

There is a huge movement for rethinking laws and social customs regarding ownership and use of creative and intellectual works. However, that's based on the idea that people are looking to free up other people's uses of their own work, not appropriating other people's work for their own profit.


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 19, 2007)

It's pretty brazen what they have done. Just plundering the The Way We See It  site. If I had contributed pics and they were used, I would be a bit pissed off.

I can only assume that Giles was so busy pondering the philosophical significance of his "work" that he forgot about the practicalities of copyright law.





			
				Tricky Skills said:
			
		

> The situation still exists that a number of orginal photographs had the copyright breached, for the purpose of an ego boost for some charlatans giving the world of art a bad name.
> 
> That's the facts.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> What's ambiguous?
> 
> *Copyright does not protect ideas. *
> 
> ...



ACtually, strictly speaking, it's inventions that patents protect, and again, if you haven't reduced the idea to practice (industrial applicability) then you're unlikely to be granted a patent.

Stanley, I'm at a loss to see where the ambiguity lies. The law is quite clear, for once, on what is and is not proectable by copyright.

Ideas alone are not a valuable commodity. They have to be expressed into knowledge - the 'knowledge economy' appears to where we are heading. But knowledge still has to be managed and properly protected, whether through copyright, patents, trade secrets, confidential information, know-how or designs.

Anyone can have an idea.

But only a few people will express it, protect it and use it.

Thanks for calling me a know-it all upstart, I obviously know more than you in this area and it annoyed you!


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 19, 2007)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> It's pretty brazen what they have done. Just plundering the The Way We See It  site. If I had contributed pics and they were used, I would be a bit pissed off.
> 
> I can only assume that Giles was so busy pondering the philosophical significance of his "work" that he forgot about the practicalities of copyright law.




Forgot, no.

Deliberately ignored, quite possibly.

In my very humble opinion.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

Tricky Skills said:
			
		

> Now I know why I decided not to go into law and simply become a carrion for media scavenging philosophers. The pay's not great, and some of the company can be quite testing as well.
> 
> I've pretty said all that I have to say here. Thanks for the advice, not so the missives.
> 
> ...




So, you're not going to carry out the convictions of your words? If not - why not?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Given that the kind of illegal graffiti you're referring to inherently implies infringing someone else's property rights (not to mention breaking the criminal law) then I doubt it...



But, when it's seen to sell for £100,000 then the law gets interested. And, in many circumstances it isn't illegal graffiti.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> So, you're not going to carry out the convictions of your words? If not - why not?



Oh don't worry about me Stanley, the convictions have already been carried out.

I really do want this to be my last word on the matter.


----------



## untethered (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> But, when it's seen to sell for £100,000 then the law gets interested. And, in many circumstances it isn't illegal graffiti.



Is that relevant to this case?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

Tricky Skills said:
			
		

> Oh don't worry about me Stanley, the convictions have already been carried out.
> 
> I really do want this to be my last word on the matter.





"Coat Hanger". That's two words.

You should have gone for a career in law. However, even the best lawyers need some creativity and originality. Fuck - if we were all copying our peers the world would stagnate into a huge cesspool of shit and Fascism and Capitalism.

It would you know. 

If you think you have a right to stand up for then fucking well stand up for it.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 19, 2007)

Of course you can go on forever on this 'Who is the originator of the work?' question.  I think that the graffiti artist has no claim for copyright.  He/she put it into the 'public domain' when the graffito was made and there is no sign of a claim to copyright; it is an anonymous work.

Looking further you can see that the original image is made with a stencil.  It looks to me as if the stencil itself was made by drawing around a real coat hanger.  The manufacturer of the coat hangar will have a copyright on the particular appearance of that specific coat hanger (not a patent though I would think).

If I was Tricky Skills I would settle for a picture credit from these self confessed 'scavengers'.


----------



## snadge (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> No - I haven't
> 
> I argue that Copyright should be overhauled to protect ideas as much as images. I will always. Especially as ideas are becoming the more valuable 'commodity'.



absolute bollocks, copyrighting an idea, especially in art is utter foolishness.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Feb 19, 2007)

snadge said:
			
		

> absolute bollocks, copyrighting an idea, especially in art is utter foolishness.



Artistic stagnation writ large, surely?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

snadge said:
			
		

> absolute bollocks, copyrighting an idea, especially in art is utter foolishness.




Why?

How are you going to materialise that idea and guarantee recognition (financial or, intellectual). Stick it on a wall for some blag to come along and snap it and claim ownership?

The idea is the essential. 

The law is an arse. So, I'm told.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> Artistic stagnation writ large, surely?



Opened up as far as I'm concerned.


There are many ways to express an idea that can't currently be Copyrighted. Simply talking about that idea without witnesses for one. Performance poetry say. Someone expresses the idea to you verbally. No one else is around. You write it down and claim Copyright. That's not right - is it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> How are you going to materialise that idea and guarantee recognition (financial or, intellectual). Stick it on a wall for some blag to come along and snap it and claim ownership?


Surely that's the choice of the graffiti artist who, it has to be said, has decided to display his art in a public place without proviso and has thus (if I remember rightly from some research I did about public sculpture) ceded some rights over mechanical and human reproduction of images of said art.

Surely if your view is taken to it's extreme, you would be violating an architect's rights with reference to his "ownership" of his own design if you painted a picture of his building or photographed it?


> The idea is the essential.


The concretely-realised idea or the vague assemblage of thoughts that haven't yet been realised? 


> The law is an arse. So, I'm told.


It's also an ass.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> ...
> It's also an ass.



Thankfully someone else has told me. I didn't take it as gospel and my hearing is pretty shit. Tar.


----------



## snadge (Feb 20, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> How are you going to materialise that idea and guarantee recognition (financial or, intellectual). Stick it on a wall for some blag to come along and snap it and claim ownership?
> 
> ...



1. go back to my post 26.
2. replace "copyright" with "idea"


----------



## cybertect (Feb 20, 2007)

Ahem.

surely the relevant term here is 'derivative work'?

The author of each work derived from another has rights to his part.

The graffiti artist for his graffito.

The photographer for his photograph, derived from the first work.

Neither are mutually exclusive to each other. The graffiti artist's rights to his design do not negate the photographer's rights to his photograph of that design. Otherwise publishers would not have to pay photographers for the rights to use modern photographs of paintings by long-dead artists.


As it happens, there is a specific copyright exemption for photographs and two-dimensional representations of buildings and sculptures under British copyright law, provided they are permanently sited in a public place. I'm unclear whether this would have any bearing on the matter of a photograph of a two-dimensional graffito design.

The London Eye have consequently resorted to Trademark law to protect themselves against misuse images of their wheel.

In France, I believe the position might be different regarding copyright and buildings. However, the specific issue surrounding the Eiffel Tower is that of the lighting design, so infringement only occurs when photographs are taken of it at night.


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 20, 2007)

http://mokk.bme.hu/centre/conferences/reactivism/bio/giles


can we e_snaiL-mail him and tell him what a wanker he is yet?


----------



## disco_dave_2000 (Feb 20, 2007)

Really interesting discussion here. I'm of the opinion that it in theory it's breach of photographers' copyright, but the pursuit of it is a little rich.

Quite a lot of stock libraries have policies on photographs of other peoples 'art' and this includes graffiti. Some completely ban images that cover graffiti, while others specify that only a part of the work, from which you can't identify the whole, is allowed.

Moving away from graffiti and photographs, there is an good article on the Editorial Photographers site about visual plagiarism http://www.epuk.org/The-Curve/456/visual-plagiarism


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 20, 2007)

Leaving aside the graffiti photo, which everyone is debating, don't you think it's a bit cheeky of the lad Giles to just plunder loads of copyrighted photos from different photographers from the "The way we see it" website for his radical StoryCubes.

And call it a "collaboration" (albeit "almost anonymous") and stick it in a gallery. 


http://urbantapestries.net/weblog/archives/000193.html

Giles says

"Recently we came across the Londonist and through them the photoblog, The Way We See It. It occured to us that this evolutionary mapping of London as seen through the eyes of the TWWSI contributors could be the basis of a remote, asynschronous and almost anonymous collaboration.

Tonight we will be revealing a new kind of 'map' – London As We May See It – as part of our presentation at the British Library for Uncharted Territories: The Brave New World of Mapping. London As We May See It is the city re-imagined through a landscape of 105 StoryCubes. Each one has 5 associated with a particular street (as well as an image of the street sign) selected from the thousands contributed to TWWSI. In this way the 'map' is organic and can grow alongside the photoblog, adding new StoryCubes as new streets are photographed and 'mapped'."

Later:

"In line with our emerging media scavenging philosophy this model does not require massive investment or specialist technologies – the StoryCubes themselves are cheap and easy to acquire..."


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 20, 2007)

Yes, I think he's having a laugh. Doesn't sound like he's putting a whole heap of effort in to create original 'artwork'.


----------



## cybertect (Feb 20, 2007)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> Leaving aside the graffiti photo, which everyone is debating, don't you think it's a bit cheeky of the lad Giles to just plunder loads of copyrighted photos from different photographers from the "The way we see it" website for his radical StoryCubes.
> 
> And call it a "collaboration" (albeit "almost anonymous") and stick it in a gallery.



Indeed. I'd suggest that 'collaboration' usually requires some form of consensual dialogue between the collaborating parties at the very least.

Ironically enough, his photos on Flick are posted under an 'All Rights Reserved' licence

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gileslane/381133336/

Maybe I'll try 'collaborating' some of his photos onto my flickr site and see what happens...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 20, 2007)

I think he is just a verbose fringe-arts equivalent of a 'bag lady'.  The language of his output reads like a cross between a New Labour policy statement and an online advertisement for a new company that has no product but wants to create a presence.


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 20, 2007)

Just seen this post right at the top of the thread.

 





			
				Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I see on his site he's got a link saying "10 Years of Collaboration (1994-2004)"
> I think he's confusing collaboration with theft.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 20, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Any other examples?
> 
> 2: The photograph in question is a shot of someone else's art (graffiti) and could easily be snapped by anyone.
> .



I am a camera man, people pay me to film things. St Pauls was built by Wren. If I film that does it mean anyone can use my footage because anyone could have filmed it?


----------



## untethered (Feb 20, 2007)

I really hope no-one registers giles-lane.co.uk and points it to this thread. Places like www.123-reg.co.uk are selling names like that for less than £6 for two years.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 20, 2007)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> I am a camera man, people pay me to film things. St Pauls was built by Wren. If I film that does it mean anyone can use my footage because anyone could have filmed it?



 


An absurd comparison.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 20, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> An absurd comparison.



Why?


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 20, 2007)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Why?



Isn't it obvious?


----------



## cybertect (Feb 20, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> There are many ways to express an idea that can't currently be Copyrighted. Simply talking about that idea without witnesses for one. Performance poetry say. Someone expresses the idea to you verbally. No one else is around. You write it down and claim Copyright. That's not right - is it?



Performance isn't copyrightable under UK law - which is why theatres have contractual bindings on you not to take photos.

Opening up copyright to ideas would be an IP minefield.

While one restricts copyright to a _work_ (a particular expression of an idea) it's readily testable. You can readily compare a two pieces of text to determine whether they are the same, for example.

An artist may paint a view of Montmartre and claim copyright over his painting. Any other artist is at liberty to sit at the same spot and paint the same view, but if he sits in front of the first artist's painting and copies that, he is in breach of copyright.

Copyright of ideas would mean that once an artist has painted a view of Montmartre, no-one else could legally paint that same view (if it remains substantially the same) for the life of the original artist, plus 70 years. The idea of painting from that spot would be his, and his alone for the term of his copyright.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 20, 2007)

Yes I would love to take out a copyright on photographing the Houses of Parliament from halfway across Westminster Bridge.  I could have a man with a little booth there on the pavement issuing tickets.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 20, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> ...
> Copyright of ideas would mean that once an artist has painted a view of Montmartre, no-one else could legally paint that same view (if it remains substantially the same) for the life of the original artist, plus 70 years. The idea of painting from that spot would be his, and his alone for the term of his copyright.



That's not the way I would see it working. If someone copied the painting exactly and copied the signature it would be a forgery or, a copy. If the same view was painted with even the slightest bit of different expression it would still be an unique (an unique or, a unique???) work. The scene would change day to day also.

I suppose I mean being able to protect a creative concept rather than an idea, but it would be very murky and even more open to interpretation than current Copyright laws are. And, they ARE open to interpretation.


----------

