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/