Who's a legal Boffin - Photos

[vsquizz]

I got to thinking recently (cogs grinding) especially about these mobile phones with cameras in them.

If you see something in the public domain, and take a photo of it without the owners express permission and then publish the photo on the web can you get into trouble??.

Thats assuming you don't denegrate or slander the subject of the photo of course.

A mate saw a good idea on a boat at the boat ramp and took a photo so he could copy the design... is that legal?

[bitingmidge]

Taking the photo is OK, publishing it is OK (the person who has taken the photo owns the copyright in the original artwork).

If one was to download the photo and republish it without the author's permission, that would be a breach of copyright.

Copying the idea illustrated in the photograph would almost certainly be a breach of copyright.

If the copy was made as a once-off for use between consenting adults in private, and not sold for commercial game, the chances of any action being taken are slim (but not zero).

I'm no lawyer, and the world of copyright is a complex one, but in principal (in Oz) you own the copyright to your own original work. Any further explanation gets into the minefield!!

Let's hear the lawyer's version now!

Cheers,

P

[RETIRED]

We don't have enough room on the server.:D

[bitingmidge]

We don't have enough room on the server.:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


P

[DanP]

I don't think it's a problem to copy anything. As long as you copy it for your own use and don't sell it. If you male any sort of personal gain out of it then you breach the copyright.

Dan

[silentC]

Wasn't there a case recently where some famous person successfully supressed photos taken of them without their permission? That would imply that there had to be consent before the photo was taken, so even though the photographer owns the copyright on the photo itself, they don't necessarily have the right to publish it.

Regarding copying, going back to my Yunee Daze, I have a recollection that there were limits to how much of a textbook you were allowed to copy for your own use.

[bitingmidge]

I don't think it's a problem to copy anything. As long as you copy it for your own use and don't sell it.

Not quite right Dan. I'd hate to come across someone who had built one of my house designs "for their own use"!

Similarly I know a lot of boat designers are dudded by the copy merchants...if you want someone's design, be honest enough to pay for their effort!

As I noted below, making an imitation of a commercial furniture piece (for instance), while illegal and even immoral, is unlikely to bring prosecution providing you don't show anyone!

Cheers,

P

[scooter]

Not sure if this is what prompted the thread but there was a press release last week I think by the fed govt about new laws covering photos taken by the camera phones.

My take on the celebrity cases was that the context of the photos supposedly cast a slur on the celebrity, such as model Naomi Campbell exiting a Narcotics Anonymous meeting or Andrew Ettinghousen suing some paper a few years ago for publishing nude piccies of him taken without consent.

With text can't you copy/reference pretty much anything for use in your own writings as long as you attribute the source appropriately??

................Sean

[bitingmidge]

Ahhh publishing unauthorised photographs of celebrities is altogetherly different!! Not really a copyright issue in most cases, more libel and breach of contract I would have thought.

Those guys make their living from

a) their reputation - so if you sneak a couple of nudie shots of MR Ettinghausen in the shower and have them published...expect to cop a bit of monetary flak as a result of the impact on his endorsements, to say nothing of invasion of privacy.

b) selling shots of themselves...that is the only commodity a lot of them have to trade and they would see the situation no differently from knocking off bricks from a building site. Often they are contracted to a certain publication, and the publishing of shots in a rival magazine or paper will impact on their income!

Cheers, :cool:

[vsquizz]

One of the reasons why I posed the questions is that there is now a sign down at our local pool banning mobiles from the change rooms.

I can't imagine what sicko screwed up individual would want to take photos of me getting changed but this topic is a hot one with the cackle club (SWMBO and friends)

[Cliff Rogers]

G'day.

Depends on the country you are in.

There are places in the world where you must (not just should)
ask permission to take a photo & other places where you MUST pay
to take a photo. If you don't you will likely be stoned for it.

Don't loose too much sleep over the 'the cackle club' squizz,
they'd need to be stoned for wanting to take a pic of you in the change room. :D

[vsquizz]

Cliff, I'm ROFL (Rolling on Floor Laughing). I worded it bad. I don't think the cackle club is spending too much time considering such photos of me.:D

On a more serious note what I meant is the women folk (mums) are concerned about the ability of nutcases to take photos in such places and are, as mums will be, mindful of the kids. Thats another topic altogether.

I remember reading somewhere of a woodworker having his stuff at a show and guys coming up and measuring his furniture up, taking photos etc without even asking... Now that would me off but I guess its going to happen anyway.

Its an interesting subject. I guess the llegal eagles may get rich out of this type of thing.

[jackiew]

while no-one likes the idea that photos of their kids will be used to give paedophiles their kicks even quite innocent photos posted on the internet can also put people at risk. schools and sports clubs will now generally check with parents at the start of the year/season before posting class photos or team photos or even shots of school activities/ action from a game. If a family are trying to avoid the whereabouts of someone violent and abusive the last thing they want is his mate down the pub going "i see your son is playing for the west bay tigers" having seen the lads photo on a website. Even background shots for TV programs can cause problems. There are plenty of people in Australia who have fled from violence in other lands. I know someone who freaked when he spotted himself in the background on a TV program because he had a genuine fear that if he was spotted by someone with links to his persecutors that they would then track him down. I personally cannot imagine what it must be like to live in fear like that and obviously the cameraman had no idea of the mental agony that this guy would suffer when he shot his few seconds of film. One would hope that a TV company if contacted would not add the particular clip to their library of standard shots but I wonder if they could be legally obliged not to show it again.

[Little Festo]

I'm not up to date on the laws regarding this BUT I do know that we obtain written release/consents for Medical and PR photos used in the Hospital and for Govt Publications. I often wonder how legal some of the Papperazzi's images are when they sneak into someones private residence (back yard etc) and shoot their photos, in some cases they must be trespassing too. I was told that if an image/graphic design is significanly changed - 30% or more?? - that was ok, you could use someone else's original work. Maybe people don't challenge Newspapers re releases is that it wouldn't be worth the legal costs.


Peter

[Rocker]

As I noted below, making an imitation of a commercial furniture piece (for instance), while illegal and even immoral, is unlikely to bring prosecution providing you don't show anyone!

Cheers,

P

Bitingmidge,

I made a copy of Christian Becksvoort's 15-drawer cabinet for my own use and do not intend to sell it. I am dubious about your statement that this is illegal and immoral. He has published articles on making chests of drawers in which that cabinet features. So, is he not effectively putting it in the public domain by doing so? My copy also is not an exact copy since I did not have access to his measurements. I can't see that I am harming him by making an imitation of his cabinet, since I am not in the market for an $8250 cabinet. Similarly, I don't feel any guilt at imitating the general style of Sam Maloof's rockers in the rockers I have made. My chairs are completely different from his in virtually every detail of their construction, although they are recognisably derived from the style that he established 50 years ago. Again, Sam maloof has published articles and books about how he makes his chairs. There seems no point in his doing that if he wants to prohibit people who read the articles from building a similar chair.

Rocker

[silentC]

I guess Norm himself would be in trouble there as he spends his time frequenting museums and ripping off designs. Presumably he seeks permission from the curator but what about the person (or the estate of the person) who designed them in the first place? Not only is he making them himself but he is also encouraging millions of people to make a copy too.

If you make an exact copy of a piece of antique furniture and attempt to pass it off as the original, there's no doubt that is fraud. If you make a copy as near as possible to the original because you admire that style and want to use the original construction techniques, is that the same thing? Don't thay say that imitation is the greatest form of flattery?

[arose62]

One of the newspapers had an article on this, and suggested that phone manufacturers would need to include warning labelling on the phones, covering the users risk if using the phones for voyeuristic purposes.

I know that at my defence-related work, they are currently chewing over what phones will be allowed on site, and how to check for sneaky pics, as cameras are confiscated, and photography banned.

Cheers,
Andrew

[Rocker]

There is some basic information on copyright law here

http://www.copyright.org.au/page3.htm

It seems that a general style is not protected by copyright, but you can protect a particular design. To do so, however, you have to actually register that design; it is not automatically protected by copyright in the same way that a work of art or literature is. Copyright in Australia generally expires 50 years after the death of the work's creator.I believe the expiration period is longer in the US, but Norm may not be breaking the law by measuring Shaker works in museums, since the copyright on these works has presumably expired.

Rocker

[silentC]

How would you prove unique design (original art) though? So much of furniture design is borrowed or evolved from past work. Most chairs have 4 legs, somewhere to sit, somewhere to rest your back... Can you register the shape of the legs, or the curve of the seat? You may be able to register the joinery if it is novel. I guess it would be difficult and would cost a fortune in patent lawer's fees.

Rocker, you could probably have patented your morticing jig but it's too late now because you have published it and encouraged people to build it ;)

[PAH1]

You only really have to show that you have substantially modified the original to alter copyright. Getting back to Mr Rockers set of drawers, all he would have to show was that the plans were not an exact copy and than internal modifications had been made. This could be as simple as using a different glue or jointing system to construct the cabinet.

If you think copyright is complicated do not go anywhere near Intellectual property law.

[bitingmidge]

My copy also is not an exact copy

Rocker,

I think what you meant to say was yourinterpretation was not/is not an exact copy! :D

And herein lies the grey bits of which the quantity is huge....published material, when it is published for the purpose of assisting people to make a copy of work designed by the author, gives the reader of the material a licence to copy the design.

Hence your own gadgets are in the public domain once published...I suspect that if one had the money and the desire to test the law to it's extent, there could be an argument that the licence to construct them only goes as far as people who have actually purchased the magazine, not to those who have photocopied the article from their dentist's waiting room.

Fascinating!!

On the intellectual property front, it is now possible for a designer (and at least one architect has done this) to sue an owner of a building for making unauthorised alterations which impact on the original design!!

About now I am thinking of retraining as a lawyer!

Cheers,

P

[Rocker]

Rocker,


And herein lies the grey bits of which the quantity is huge....published material, when it is published for the purpose of assisting people to make a copy of work designed by the author, gives the reader of the material a licence to copy the design.

Cheers,

P

Biting,

I think you are probably right, but N.S., who sells plans through the Australian Woodworker, prints on them a clause to the effect that purchasing the plan does not confer the right to make the piece for sale. I suspect that he is trying to double-dip here, and that he could not in fact successfully sue if you did so. But I am not sure.

A couple of years back I asked Sam Maloof for permission to refer to my rockers as "Maloof-style". I had thought that this was just a courtesy and that he would agree. Rather to my surprise, he refused, which I thought was rather ungenerous, since there is no way that my rocker CD is impinging on his market. He sells to celebrities for whom a price-tag of over US$20000 is not a problem.

Rocker

[silentC]

What a paradox: anyone who would pay $20,000 for a rocker is off theirs and is therefore in need of one.

Sorry...

[bitingmidge]

I think you are probably right, but N.S., who sells plans through the Australian Woodworker, prints on them a clause to the effect that purchasing the plan does not confer the right to make the piece for sale. I suspect that he is trying to double-dip here, and that he could not in fact successfully sue if you did so. But I am not sure.

It all gets down to "licencing" and his right to a royalty if someone else is profiting from his work. If the plans were sold on the conditions stated then I reckon I would rather be on his side in the court case! I am sure that if one wanted to sell a range of furniture to those designs, an amicable royalty could be arranged!


A couple of years back I asked Sam Maloof for permission to refer to my rockers as "Maloof-style". I had thought that this was just a courtesy and that he would agree. Rather to my surprise, he refused, which I thought was rather ungenerous, since there is no way that my rocker CD is impinging on his market. He sells to celebrities for whom a price-tag of over US$20000 is not a problem.

You did the right thing absolutely, and while his reply may sound uncharitable, rather than taking your request as a compliment, he obviously had the view that your plans could result in a flood of "cheap" copies (remember he has no control over the number produced) which could ultimately devalue his own work.

Sunday looks like being an even more interesting day!!


:) :)
Cheers,

P

[Rocker]

Biting,

There are a couple of questions with regard to N.S.'s plans. 1. Has he registered the design? If not, he has no right to prevent anyone using it; and 2. The purchaser of his plans is not warned in advance of buying them that he is seeking to restrict the rights of the purchaser to do what he likes with the plan.

By the way, I see that you have just sold your shed on Mooloolah Island for $3.75 million; I shall expect to see you in a Porsche on Sunday.

Rocker