Photographer sues State

[Orogeny]

Interesting.

Suit centers on silhouette cowboy

[Angelo]

I can understand the photographer's frustrations.
It seems he's well in his rights to file and win the lawsuit.

[Mask]

Interesting and understandable.

However when push comes to shove ...
The problem with photo copyright laws is they where inked well before internet
and that means there are so many infractions they are hard to pursue in court
even iff the original photographer is someone important and offically filed such.

The photog should invoice the state first.

[hue-e]

I'd be interested in seeing the results of this case. It's not an exact use of the photo, only a likeness. Artists use photos for reference to create pieces all the time. From what I understand, if it's altered a certain amount, it becomes pretty hard to argue who it belongs to.

[Angelo]

Originally Posted by hue-e

I'd be interested in seeing the results of this case. It's not an exact use of the photo, only a likeness. Artists use photos for reference to create pieces all the time. From what I understand, if it's altered a certain amount, it becomes pretty hard to argue who it belongs to.

I would consider that another infraction, changing the artwork without permission.

[hue-e]

you'd be surprised how much it's done in the graphic design business.

[Angelo]

Patrick, That's why those who are caught should be made to pay. In this case the prisoner who stole the image and DPS and the State of Texas for not doing their due diligence.

[andyz]

It is easy to tell it is the same image.

It does say he tried to work with the state, but they don't hardly return his calls.

I hope he wins and I hope we get to hear about it. While doubt we'll read about it as these are so often settled, we may see an increase in the inspection fees charged for the legal fees! :)

[hue-e]

Originally Posted by Angelo

Patrick, That's why those who are caught should be made to pay. In this case the prisoner who stole the image and DPS and the State of Texas for not doing their due diligence.

I agree this photographer should get what what they deserve for the photo, I mean, the GD didn't change it enough to make it their own intelectual property.

my point is, you can take any photograph and use it as a reference for your own artwork, and make it your own. people have been doing it for years.

example...

[hue-e]

I should also mention that any good GD wouldn't "get caught" because they would change it so much, no one would ever guess the source.

[Angelo]

Yes, I totally agree that it's been happening for years.
I call those who use the work of others without permission, "thieves".

[hue-e]

everyone in the creative business is a thief at one point or another. they'd be lying if they said they weren't.

[picman]

"Originality is the art of concealing your source"

I didn't think that one up.

[hue-e]

Franklin P. Jones... I don't know who he is, but that's an awesome quote.

[w9ctm]

Regardless of the fact that it has been going on for years does by graphic designers, as that does not legitamize the actions. If it was stolen, and it certainly appears the photog has a strong argument that it was, there should be a declaration of guilt, along with a hefty fine determined for the flagrant use. The fact that the state did not do their due diligence is what includes them in this lawsuit.
I agree with Andy, it IS easy to tell it is the same image.