Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Prosenjit Roy on June 8, 2012 at 11:03am

I'd say, in this case at least, it was a fair ruling and reflects due consideration on the judge's part.

The idea of accenting a grayscale image with color is not new... there was this scene in Schindler's List (a B&W movie) where a little girl, shown in color and dressed in red, was walking against a gray background. There are numerous such instances of 'shock' accenting. So the plaintiff couldn't have won on the copyright of idea alone (although that is rather dubious - should copyright be based on idea or expression or both, at least in field of visual art?).

But, the defendant's use of a red double-decker bus against a london grayscale cityscape, that too showing basically the same city area/buildings, reveals a tendency to infringe upon the plaintiff's original. Under US fair use laws, this is permissible only under certain conditions, and its best to ask permission from the original creator. If none of those are satisfied, and the defendant has commecially benefitted from the project, then he/she's liable to be prosecuted under copyright regulations. I think that's what has happened in this case.

I use references for my studies, and wherever possible I try to acquire permission from the originator, even if those are for non-commercial, educational purposes - just to give the credit where it is due. Where permission can't be acquired, because say the person won't respond, or can't be traced, its a tough choice between whether to show or not (one can always study in private). But its probably safe (IMHO, but I'm no lawyer) if one keeps in mind those Fair Use considerations (as copied below). I don't know what the copyright position exactly is in our country, especially re: educational use. Good article, Gayatri.. thanks for sharing!

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J L Anil Kumar on July 6, 2012 at 7:18am

I am in the IP field but I hardly work with Copyrights, so please take what I say with a pinch of salt.

In the present case, the second picture has been declared a "copy" by the judge and as dada puts it - fair enough.

What we do, take a reference and paint from it or sketch from it is called a creating derivative works. This is NOT ALLOWED in most countries, unless we have taken the permission of the original artist.

In India one is allowed to use copyrighted material for educational purposes. But courtesy demands that the author is informed.

Copyrights exist only for seventy years from the date of creation and later it can be used freely. (This is the reason all kinds of Omnibus books are published frequently - at the expiry of the copyright)

It is worthwhile to go through the Indian copyright act - try to bypass the legalese: http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf

As some people say, half cynically, whether copyright laws are fair or not depends on which side of the author/copycat fence you are on! 

• ▶ Reply