Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask if this is illegal?

84 replies

PenguinBear · 09/01/2014 18:09

Just want to know where we stand. I don't want to give exact details but will give as much info as possible.

A minor celebrity posted a picture online of something they had made. A public site with an open page where anyone can view it (without having to follow/like the page).

If someone were to save the picture and then have the same thing custom made, would this be illegal?

No-one has posted her actual pictures publically (only sent them to the artist) although they have posted a picture of their item online (an exact replica of the item).

This person has found out and has written a big rant saying that it is theft and people need her permission to use her photos. Quite a few people have done it since the picture was posted last year.

Has any crime actually been committed? She has said she would have liked people to ask permission before using her photos for any purpose. Tbh, It didn't even cross my mind to ask permission, she never replies to 'fans' although I have gone right off her now.

OP posts:
daisychain01 · 10/01/2014 05:11

I think the celebrity will need to have a big reality check about how much money they would have to throw at Intellectual Property legal action. It is a b-i-i-i-g risk to enter into a law suit and more often than not come away with a big fat Nada.

The age of the internet is here, ideas are increasing difficult to protect. It has more grey areas than George Clooney's parts. Thank Tim Berners-Lee for his amazingly generous donation to mankind (and he didnt make any money from his idea!). Such a lovely man, my hero, ( thats a whole nother post)

The fact that "she" freely posted her idea onto a public website gives the implied right to use and means any decent IP lawyer would have 'em by the short and curlies.

Tell them to take a running jump!

Flukewoman · 10/01/2014 08:53

Midnite, no, the rights on question pertain to the photograph of the item as a work of copyright. While it is pretty much madness to worry about the copyright of a snapshot of a gift, nonetheless this is where copyright law applies.

I expect said sleb has her knickers in a twist over something else but knows that she only has a case with regard to photograph copyright.

ShimmeringInTheSun · 10/01/2014 09:11

This link is a very interesting read. Even though it is referring to Pinterest, the copyright problem is the same.

greekgeek.hubpages.com/hub/Is-Pinterest-a-Haven-for-Copyrigh...

horsetowater · 10/01/2014 09:12

The photo copying is clearly an issue if it was susequently published or copied again not for peesonal use, but copying an item can be illegal if you make money on it or pass it off as your own. You can't make something that has been designed by someone else and pretend it's yours. I am a designer though, not an expert in intelligectual property law.

AramintaDeWinter · 10/01/2014 09:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OldBeanbagz · 10/01/2014 09:21

Am i right in thinking that the same person made the item for your DD and the celeb? In which case wouldn't the celeb's issue be with them for producing an identical personalised item?

However your DD shouldn't really have saved/used a photo that didn't belong to her. Was it celeb's photo? In which case that would probably be a breach of copyright.

horsetowater · 10/01/2014 09:33

Actually I think that making a replica copy of something that someone else has created is just bad form. I don't think the sleb is being at all unreasonable.

NicknameIncomplete · 10/01/2014 09:39

The celeb isnt moaning about the item they are moaning about the fact that the OP used their photo.

I think you were wrong in doing that but i doubt anything will come of it.

Avalon · 10/01/2014 09:46

So if the teenage fan took a screenshot of the 'cushion' to keep (as it's from their fave sleb or summat), is that illegal?

Flukewoman · 10/01/2014 10:31

Avalon that's where it gets messy, but my understanding is that if one takes a screenshot of a photo of an object, it would be a different image (with other objects etc) and therefore not a breech of copyright. However, it would be appropriate to cite the copyright of any 'works of art' (I.e. the photo) contained therein. However I'm extrapolating from what I do know and there would well be a separate set of rules for screenshots now.

It's important to remember that social media and image sharing are pushing the boundaries of the existing laws and guidelines right now. The existing laws aren't necessarily adequate or appropriate in many cases, but the law still exists. The laws exist to protect artists, and who is to say whether today's photo on twitter or whatever might not become an iconic photo one day. Obviously extremely unlikely in this case but I can see why copyright holders become tetchy.

Avalon · 10/01/2014 12:47

Interesting, Fluke, thanks.

KateAdiesEarrings · 10/01/2014 13:09

You can't use someone else's photo. You've breached their copyright.

Depending on the agreement that the artist had with the celeb, then they might also have breached their agreement with the celeb eg if they agreed to make a one-off piece; if the celeb advised on the colour scheme then the IP arguably sits with them and not the artist, etc.

I've been involved in copyright cases for misuse of photographs and even if photographs are just mis-credited the photographer can be awarded substantial compensation.

I appreciate you didn't realise there was a copyright issue but there was and you breached it. Don't download, save or use any photos from the internet unless they have a clear creative commons license, and/or you have contacted the owner beforehand.

lougle · 10/01/2014 13:12

Horsetowater in this case, there was no replica made by someone, the original creator made a copy of her own work, that she had first made for the celebrity, which she had every right to do unless they had agreed that it would be a one off, bespoke, piece.

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 10/01/2014 13:27

If the celebrity has gone to someone with an original idea, and then had it made, then I would expect them to have some IP rights to what was created. The celebrity might have a case that their rights have been infringed and sue you/the designer. But, as you have only had one of them made for your own use the damages are not very great.

horsetowater · 10/01/2014 14:36

I don't think it matters whether the damages are great or not. When IP is taken and used, it affects the designer unless they clearly state 'I copied this piece from xxx' and reference them. It's plagiarism if I remember rightly.

If someone commissions something that's different because there has been a process, but if you contract someone to make something for you that's different again, you retain rights over it.

OP are you the creator/maker of the item? If so I think you have Design Right if you have made drawings etc and recorded the design.

See here www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design/d-about/d-designright.htm

MidniteScribbler · 10/01/2014 14:44

Midnite, no, the rights on question pertain to the photograph of the item as a work of copyright. While it is pretty much madness to worry about the copyright of a snapshot of a gift, nonetheless this is where copyright law applies.

But the OP did not use the photograph to develop the item (eg, the photo was not screen printed on to a tshirt or pillow), but just to say 'I want a product that looks like this'.

EasterHoliday · 10/01/2014 14:52

My goodness there's a lot of confusion here.
I think we are talking about protection of the design, not taking a photograph of it?
There is of course a distinction between copyright (in the photo) and Design Right (in the object). Both exist without registration.
Reproducing the same design is an infringement of the design right.

To prove infringement, you need to prove copying. With registered design it's easier but not impossible otherwise but you'd need a pretty established course of use and prove the opportunity for copying.

EasterHoliday · 10/01/2014 14:56

The fact that "she" freely posted her idea onto a public website gives the implied right to use and means any decent IP lawyer would have 'em by the short and curlies.
Um. No. That's not quite how it works. But it's the sort of argument internet freegans have about free distribution of music / literature etc through filesharing sites.

horsetowater · 10/01/2014 15:06

I think this is more about the fact that the sleb commissioned the work. I guess if the sleb has a record of the ideas - drawings etc, that would mean it's her design by Design Right? But Design Right doesn't apply to finishes etc which is where it gets confusing. I would welcome an explanation!

EasterHoliday · 10/01/2014 15:10

Commissioning agreements deal with ownership of the copyright in the finished product. If eg it's the soundtrack for a film, then the film co normally owns it. If it's wedding photographs, the photographer usually retains it unless you pay an additional fee. In the absence of express agreement, and the designer not being employed by the commissioner, then the c'right would remain with the actual designer. It is of course possible that the commissioner is the actual designer and hands over drawings and plans for someone to simply execute in which case the commissioner is also the rights owner.

EasterHoliday · 10/01/2014 15:11

in the case of eg the Louis Vuitton handbags where you can have your initials painted on plus stripes etc in a variety of colours, your commission of your initials in a particular colour combo and stripe doesn't mean you have a design right in the bag.

Normalisavariantofcrazy · 10/01/2014 15:12

I'd say the sleb hasn't a leg to stand on.

If it was a cushion I could to into your home and go 'I like that' and snap a photo and get one made

If it's a pushchair, they're seen outdoors, again 'snap' and get one made.

She doesn't own the individuality of it.

limitedperiodonly · 10/01/2014 16:36

I really badly need to know who this silly person is but suspect you're far too discreet OP. Damn you Grin

I've no proper clue on the legal position but if she was serious about it, the first you'd hear would be a solicitor's letter, not a twitter rant.

And seeing as you've done everything a solicitor would ask you to do, I doubt you'll get one now.

Years ago Victoria Beckham had a tantrum in a shop that was selling autographed pictures of slebs, including David Beckham. Apparently they were being parasites by selling things that had been legitimately acquired, probably by queueing for hours in the wind and rain outside the Manchester Utd training ground.

She's calmed down a lot since then and I've grown to like her. But God, she used to be a silly cow.

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 10/01/2014 16:55

"I don't think it matters whether the damages are great or not."

Well it does if she gets sued. Any costs awarded are based on what was deemed to have been lost (not a nebulous feeling of hurt), which in this case you wouldn't think was much. If the OP had made and sold thousands of them and was deemed to have infringed on the celeb's rights then the damages would be far greater.