Snow Streetcars

    Newer Older

    Two Toronto streetcars from a streetcar window during a snowstorm last winter.

    fotograf.416, smuncky, Bushery, and 82 other people added this photo to their favorites.

    View 20 more comments

    1. Danielle Scott 67 months ago | reply

      Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Urban Transportation Development Corporation, and we'd love to have this added to the group!

    2. The Inertial Gallery 51 months ago | reply

      Just read a tweet (From the Toronto Star) and a news article, about the fact that this image was used to create the winning entry in the Toronto Star's Cover Contest. I can't believe that the person who won didn't give you credit (among other things)... Unbelievable!!

    3. MissyV110 51 months ago | reply

      I'm avidly following the story. Looking at the original photo next to the winning "art piece" it is blatantly obvious that it is a copy, albeit a painted version. The painter could, at the very least, admit this.

    4. falconn67 51 months ago | reply

      Good photo, and good job standing up for yourself. It is unfortunate that so many people consider Flickr a place to just take photos to use however they want, without gaining permission.

      Hopefully the Star can do the right thing and pay the right person.

    5. Bud-Gallant 51 months ago | reply

      I'm very annoyed some talentless hack ripped off your photo and is getting paid for it. She has zero class or skill. What a wretched human being.

    6. AJM STUDIOS 51 months ago | reply

      Good photo. I like the water beads.

    7. Oh Lenna (Photolena) [deleted] 51 months ago | reply

      I am sad to see that there are still people out there who do not understand the meaning of copyright or derivative use of artwork. Good for you for not letting this issue get lost and making your point with the Star. I will be writing about this issue on my blog as I believe this is something that all photographers need to be aware of. Good luck with your fight.

    8. Portraits Of Toronto 51 months ago | reply

      Thanks for all the supportive comments.

      Olena, I remember meeting you a while back. I read the piece in your blog. It's very well written and if you don't mind I'm putting a link here

      www.photolena.ca/2010/12/26/when-imitation-is-no-longer-f...

      Brian

    9. PigPen333 51 months ago | reply

      Beautiful picture ...I just read the Star article and frankly I am dumbfounded that this woman claims to have "drawn inspiration" from your work...she out and out stole your work...shame on her .

    10. wakethesun. 51 months ago | reply

      This photo is beautiful. As an american I've always thought of canadian media as a bit "higher class," if you will, and the "controversy" with this is disgusting. With the amount of internet usage these days, there's still a major lack of teaching copyright law in schools. It's painfully obvious that the painting is an outright copy; like others have said, it seems like she ran the photo through a crappy PS filter and printed it out. I hope you get some sort of justice for this, it would be a horrible precedent to set if the Star continues ignoring the problem.

    11. SeanGalbraith.com 51 months ago | reply

      In Canada, "derivative work" is much more narrowly defined.

      (via wiki)
      In Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain Inc., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 336, 2002 SCC 34, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the statutory recognition of derivative works extended only to circumstances where there was production and multiplication, i.e. reproduction. Where there is no derivation, reproduction, or production of a new and original work which incorporates the artist's work, there is no violation of the Copyright Act.

      By this court ruling, there doesn't appear to be any copyright violation by the painter (assuming this Quebec ruling applies to Canada).

      That being said, it is obvious where she got her inspiration/paint by numbers from.

    12. Portraits Of Toronto 51 months ago | reply

      Thanks smlgphotos.

      Without going into too much detail my "legal team" has looked into Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain Inc., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 336, 2002 SCC 34, and in their opinion the circumstances of that case are significantly different and are distinguishable from my case. The painter, Théberge, had previously assigned rights to the Galerie and what was at issue was the scope of those rights.

    13. SeanGalbraith.com 51 months ago | reply

      Thanks for the clarification. Hope it all works out for you. Is there another case that points to this being a "derivative work"?

    14. A.J.A. Lewison 51 months ago | reply

      One can only hope that the damage to her reputation is now done and no-one will ever consider her so called artwork as original ever again. This is a wonderful photograph, good luck with your battles, both legally and with the Toronto Star.

    15. thomevered 51 months ago | reply

      I support you Brian! Great capture!

    16. DanielN 51 months ago | reply

      Yeah Brian! Keep us all posted on this one.

      Best of luck. Not that you need it, it 's pretty much the photo definition of copyright infringement.

    17. wkhc 51 months ago | reply

      I support you Brian, I would hate it if the same happens to my photos.

    18. Sighthound 51 months ago | reply

      Théberge is irrelevant to this situation. In Théberge, the Supreme Court ruled that because the gallery had physically transferred the actual ink from one media to another, it did not constitute reproduction. It really has nothing to do with this.

    19. Sighthound 51 months ago | reply

      If you are interested in other case law related to derivative works in Canada, see:

      Hager v. ECW Press ("Infringement exists when the work is copied either exactly or by way of colourable imitation.")

      Michelin v. CAW- Canada ("The true test for infringement is whether the act complained of is an act that only the copyright owner could do under subsection 27(1) of the Act, including reproduction of the original or a substantial part of the work. To escape the charge of infringement, the defendants' [work] must be an entirely new work, an "original result".)

      I'm sure there is lots more if you look.

    keyboard shortcuts: previous photo next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts