Copyright

In general, copyright of an image belongs to the photographer but what about modified/photoshopped images?

Obviously, if te photographer makes the edits the copyright remains with him.

BUT.

1. If a photographer asks someone to make edits and clean up an image - obviously it is similar to but not the original. Who owns copyright?

2. If someone takes an image that the photographer has made available for viewing and then edits it, who would own copyright then?

The copyright belongs to the photographer until allocated to someone else formally.

I would say that asking a friend, say, to adjust your image is just them doing a job for you and the copyright is not affected.

If someone takes an image made available for viewing and modifies it, then if done without the photographer's permission that is probably theft. The copyright of the original wouldn't be affected and the modified version would be unlawful.

I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I'd view it as I made my way to the Solicitor's for further advice!

I see where you are coming from by UK law has some real quirks.

As I understand, an architect can own copyright of a building, so is photographing that copyright theft? Possibly not as it will not be exactly as the architect saw it. If not, then surely taking a copy of an image and modifying it may not be.

If a friend creates the new image, then possibly they own copyright unless the photographer presses the save key.

to the first question: there's not an issue until the image is sold on for profit. Then the copyright lies with the architect, as it would in the case of a car lie with the manufacturer.

You could argue (possibly successfully) that a landmark is "in the public interest", but at least on the car side it's pretty watertight on a pan-european level.

Bret

For the last time, it is NOT "theft" Theft is something else entirely. If we are going to discuss the law the least we can do is get our terminology correct.

Regarding the building analogy, the pattern of lights on the Eiffel Tower is copyrighted, but the tower itself is not (due to elapsed time, I believe). Every time a tourist takes a photo at night it is technically an infringement.

This is totally false, Copywright law aplies to all uses of the material involved, see point 8here.

Davex.

No, it doesn't, and I'll clarify that again some more:

I take a photo of (part of) a 3-series BMW.
I cannot use the photo in a calendar for profit without requesting the permission of BMW, as the form of the car is copyright.
I *can* use the photo in a calendar that's mine, just mine. Their vehicle, my interpretation, no money involved. Personal and private use, "fair usage". from here.

I could, maybe, use the photo in a calendar for a non-profit organisation, provided the photographers are listed and the organisation itself has permission from BMW (for example, most owner's clubs are organised so that they are tolerated by the manufacturer and thus are allowed to do this kind of thing).

Tourists taking photos of the Eiffel Tower could only be accused of infringement in my interpretation if they were selling the images on. Then they would need to apply for permission, but otherwise the images are for personal and private use and so different rules apply.

If Jack Smith takes the initial photo and cleans it up, the copyright probably still lies with Rob Jones, who took it.
However, if Jay Robinson then picks it up and dumps it on worth1000 as part of a larger collage, he's not necessarily legal, but you're not going to get anywhere with arguments as there's no money to be found.

My own photos on 23hq do not have creative commons licences, they are mine and I expect to be asked if someone wants to use one (which they have and do).

At this point I'll also add in that I've had to look into this because we've printed several calendars and a complete 88-page book for the A2 club in Germany. People's rights, copyright, picture issues and such like were researched thoroughly before printing and even then there's a nice big disclaimer at the back.

Bret

Copyright exists to protect the rights of authors to financially exploit their creativity. In the case of an architect, the architectural drawings created would constitute intellectual property (i.e. they would be copyright). It would, therefore, be a breach of that copyright for anyone to construct a building using those drawings without the architects explicit permission.

I don't think that a constructed building is copyright in any meaningful sense. It is the design of the building that is copyright, not the building itself. The only potential breach of copyright that I can imagine would occur if someone photographed the building with the intention of "reverse engineering" it and producing a set of architectural drawings from those photographs to allow a duplicate building to be constructed. This would, I suspect be deemed to be theft of the intellectual property contained within the architects original drawings.

The photoshopped image is an interesting issue. It could be argued that the edits were creative in their own right and, therefore constituted intellectual property that belonged to the editor unless agreed otherwise by those commissioning the work. The photoshopped version of the image might have copyright shared between the photographer and the editor.

Although there are lots of other references on the internet about copyright, I came across this document this morning which looks interesting and maybe well resolve some of these issues (I haven't fully read it yet).


Andrew

Are you aware of any UK case law that supports that interpretation?

My understanding is that manufactured articles are not copyright (see page 4 of the link in my post above) but that the original design drawings might be. Manufactured articles "may" contain a different kind of Intellectual Property known as "Design Right" - this document explains design right


Andrew

This explains it quite well: http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_7.0_copyright.php - and this goes further: http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_copyright_list.php

TBH, I'm not going to push it as far as a car manufacturer is concerned. It's not worth it.
I'm also not worried whether it's UK case law or not, as the reality says I need to worry about copyright protection where my images have been used, so that could be anywhere. European law differs mildly from country to country but anyone prosecuting will want to do it where the laws are in their favour. My personal interpretation also says "you are profiting from the work of another and therefore royalties are payable" when photographing vehicles.

Bret

I can't see that applying. If I wanted to make a calendar of classic cars I don't need the permission of all the manufacturers. If I wanted to make a calendar of buildings there wouldn't be a problem either, as long as the images were shot from "publicly accessible land".

Don't take my word for it, take the word of the English Heritage guidelines for their Images of England photographers.

Because I can and it would be interesting, I will ask Audi UK if they have anything against me creating and selling (with the intention of making a profit) calendar picturing A2s. I am 100% sure that they will knock it on the head.

Another example, from here: http://boingboing.net/2008/01/13/ford-car-owners-are.html



Trademarks expire after 25 years IIRC, so classics would be out of scope.

I think buildings work differently, but not very....

Bret

I suspect that Audi will simply tell you what they would prefer you to do. It will have no bearing on whether it is legal to do it (ditto your Ford example).

If you really want to know, you'd need to consult a lawyer specialising in Intellectual Property.

I've just discovered this interesting FAQ. You might be interested in section 38 about photographing buildings (you can!) and section 39 about motor vehicles (copyright is relevant to design drawings but not to the vehicle itself).


Andrew

I think Audi cannot stop you, as long as you don't include any of their trademarks like the Audi emblem or the model name.

I don't understand why trademarks are even thought to be relevant to photography. Surely the whole point of a trademark is to associate a product with its supplier in the mind of a potential purchaser. Why has this any bearing on whether you can photograph an object?


Andrew