Cases study 10 : The Red Bus case

-
The Red Bus case about images of a London bus crossing Westminster Bridge in front of the iconic Houses of Parliament. Temple Island Collections used one image on souvenirs of London, while New English Teas ( a brand of tea ), used the other image on tea packaging.

image1

Temple Island Collections which produces souvenirs of London, claimed to be the owner of copyright which subsisted in a black and white photograph of a red bus travelling across Westminster Bridge . ( up) 
The image as 'largely in black and white, with the Houses of Parliament and the bridge shown in grey. The sky is white, with nothing else can see. 
A bright red London Routemaster bus stands out on the bridge'. Image 1 was created by Mr Fielder after manipulating a photo he took with Photoshop software and was first published in February 2006. 


Image2 

New English Teas (NET), as its name suggests, produces tea. It wished to use an image which Judge described as containing 'these iconic London landmarks and with the same general form: grey scale Houses of Parliament and a red bus on the bridge' (Image 2). Image 2was created by Mr Houghton and Sphere Design after the combination and manipulation of four photographs taken by Mr Hougton. 


Temple Island Collections Limited sued New English Teas for copyright infringement concerning images which are so much similar. 



Held 
The judge’s logic: using colour in a black-and-white photo isn’t copyrightable, and neither is combining iconic images like a double-decker bus and the Houses of Parliament. But when you put both together, it’s a new “intellectual creation”. Thus, it was the expression of the skill and labour expressed by the photographer that was protected. 
New English Teas promise try to create an image that did not infringe Temple Island Collection’s copyright. 

Copyright Act 1987 Section 36(1)
The Copyright Act 1987 states that an infringement occurs when a person does something without the licence or permission or consent of the copyright owner.

The copyright in a work is infringed when a person who:
(i)not being the owner of the copyright 
(ii)without consent or license of the owner of the copyright,

Point of view 

Photography is one of the most trending field of job in which people nowadays explore and show their potential. Hence, social media has been a platform that further encourage these amateurs to share their photographs. For example, Instagram and Pinterest. However, these social media do not guarantee them as having copyright just because they posted it in their own profile. Users have a misconception towards copyright law. In addition, the copyright law is not clear-cut, thus, it is the users’ responsibility to protect their images or photographs. Otherwise, people may copy significant elements from the users’ original photographs and altering it digitally. Users should take more precaution steps to avoid such incident. 

Photography is probably one of the most popular art forms today, with social media platforms such as Instagram, Pinterest and Vine encouraging the professional and the amateur photographer to share their images. Such platforms encourage users to think of themselves as having copyright in their images, so it may come as a surprise that copyright law is not clear-cut when it comes to protecting photographs. Furthermore, when it comes to digitally enhancing or altering photographs, photographers need to be aware of the risks of copying visually significant elements of other images. 

Copying a Photoshop technique may infringe copyright.

References

https://www.pixsy.com/10-cases-that-show-how-complicated-copyright-law-really-is/

http://ipkitten.blogspot.my/2012/01/wheels-on-birss.html

http://www.azrights.com/media/news-and-media/blog/database/2013/11/photographers-photography-copyright-and-the-red-bus-case/

http://the1709blog.blogspot.my/2012/01/when-birss-meets-bus-study-in-red-and.html

http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2012/03/13/a-black-and-white-photograph-of-a-red-bus/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cases study 7 : Vanilla Ice vs. David Bowie/Freddie Mercury (1991)

-
Image
Case  In 1981, Queen and David Bowie released the song “Under Pressure”. The song reached number one on UK music charts.  In 1990, Vanilla Ice released his hit single “Ice Ice Baby” the beat the song was the same as “Under Pressure”. But Ice famously insisted that the two melodies are distinct because he added a beat between notes. A live version appears on the album Extremely Live, while a rap rock version appears on the album Hard to Swallow, under the title "Too Cold"  Queen and David Bowie sued the signer for sampling the beat to the song without permission or a license. Ice later claimed that this rationale was merely a joke. Representatives for Queen and Bowie weren't laughing and threatened a copyright infringement suit.  Interesting Facts ：Both songs, "Ice, Ice, Baby" and "Under Pressure" were number one hits. The song boosted the sales of the album which went to sell over 7 million copies. These songs were also...
Read more

Case Study 1 : Rogers v. Koons

-
Image
Photograph: Art Rogers – 1985; Polychrome: Jeff Koons – 1988 (both via The Design Observer Group ) About the Case  This case is about Photographer Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple (Jim Scanlon and his wife ) holding a line of puppies in a row and sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products. Internationally, the famous artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an exhibit on the banality of everyday items, ran across Rodgers’ photograph and used it to create a set of statues based on the image. Jeff Koons asked his assistants to copy as much detail as possible from the photographs. The only changes made during the transition were larger noses on the puppies, blue fur, and the man and woman had flowers in their hair. The sculpture was named "String of Puppies" and became a success. Reportedly, Koons sold three of the sculptures for $367,000.  Jeff Koons sold several of these structures, making a significant profit. Upon discovering the copy...
Read more

Cases study 2 : Jeff Koons vs. Andrea Blanch ( 2006 )

-
Image
Case  A famous visual artist, Jeff Koons, made a collage using various photographs for an exhibit commissioned by the Guggenheim.  Koons is being accused for copying part of a photograph taken by Andrea Blanch, a fashion photographer.Blanch's photograph appeared in the fashion magazine Allure, and depicts a woman's legs reclining on a man's lap in an airplane cabin. Koons cropped and re-oriented the photo, before including it in a painted collage among other pairs of women's legs. Blanch bring the case to the court.  Held  The judge found Blanch did not have the copyright over the Gucci sandal therefore the only thing that could be copied was the females leg which could not be deemed original in order to be protected by copyright. The district court granted Koons holding that the use of Blanch's photograph in his collage constituted fair use, and not copyright infringement. Copyright Act 1987 Section 36(1) The Copyright Act 1987 states that ...
Read more