Copyright ruling - New English Tea Company

Ladies and gentlemen, since this affects a Coventry based company, the New English Tea Company, I thought that it might be of interest, especially to photographers among you. It is certainly important for photographers who use Photoshop, and may want to use their images either commercially, or may want to use them in a competition for which there is a significant prize.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling_update_26_Jan_includes_pic_news_311191.html

This judge's ruling will have serious implications for photographers. Whilst I don't want to comment in depth, I think the ruling is bizarre, to say the least; even more so, since the two companies concerned have rather different products. The issue that I think is cause for concern is that many digital photographers submit Photoshop-manipulated images to competitions, and a monochrome background with a coloured subject is a common format.

Hello Spuffler and to the forum

You can post news on any subject here, it doesn't have to be Coventry related

Getting back to this particular subject, my understanding is that the arrangement of subjects in a photograph has always been subject to copyright and this is just a clarification of the matter. The real question is how far do they enfroce it? This is just my opinion but if someone was selling say a tin of biscuits and someone else started selling tins of biscuits with a very similar illustration then they have every right to complain. If however it was a completely different product with a similar but not identical design to the bisuit tin then I can't see any real cause for complaint.

I would have thought those two pictures sufficiently different?

http://www.swanturton.com/multimedia/do ... graphs.pdf

Grounds for appeal?

Since the company making the complaint - and having won - sells souvenirs of Britain, and the New English Tea Company sells...tea(!) it seems a very odd judgement; even odder is that it was the second action by the complainant against NETCo. And it isn't the similarity between photos that forms the grounds, but the specific use of Photoshop to create the monochrome/colour combination - the judge agreed that the use of P'shop to do that is the complainant's IPR!! I understand and hope that an appeal is VERY likely! Otherwise there is a serious danger of lots of such actions, including against amateurs in competitions - and claims can be brought before the small claims court. When I hear more, I'll post.

In the same edition of AP, it's worth reading about the "Golden Wonder Crisp Incident" - which is on YouTube. The pro-photography MP Austin Mitchell thought that Golden Wonder may be making exploding bags of crisps for dropping on enemy troops......

In the same edition of AP, it's worth reading about the "Golden Wonder Crisp Incident" - which is on YouTube. The pro-photography MP Austin Mitchell thought that Golden Wonder may be making exploding bags of crisps for dropping on enemy troops......

Looks like the vid has been removed?

BTW - thanks to you and dutchman four your welcome message!

Ah, it's actually Eyetube!:
http://eyetube.me/play.php?vid=413

Remind me why we fought Hitler.....???